Ken, your corrections and collaborations are welcome:
Ken Fox wrote:There are actually at least 3 or 4 issues here:
(3) in reference to your point about "outside of Italy the rest of the world fills and levels," you make assumptions "not in evidence." Commercial and semi-commercial espresso machines in the home is a very uncommon phenomenon outside of N. America, and in the other places where you do find this, generally you are going to find people doing more or less the same things N. Americans are doing since that is where the bigger online venues are located and where the great majority of enthusiast posts are to be found. As to what is common practice in bars in Spain or Portugal or Germany or Japan or Estonia, I haven't a clue how they do it; I'd bet they rely on their dosers like the Italians do. I'd be very surprised if commercial establishments outside of N. America take their cues from David Schomer rather than from the Italians.
I do agree with you here. Originally I'd written something along the lines of "Only N. Americans fill and level", but then I thought that sounded like I was N. American bashing, so I changed it. And then there's the coffee scene in Australia which I think has taken a number of cues from N. American practices, as well as the UK. Your point about "online venues" and commercial / semi-commercial machines at home probably best describes the division of these practises. David Schomer's influence on the overall methodology here has been huge. My comments were an over-generalisation for certain, and weren't quite what I'd meant to say !
Ken Fox wrote:(4) Humidity and aging change the coffee itself and the type of extraction you get. These factors likely effect both the weight of coffee (beans absorb humidity and you end up with more water and less bean material in what you ground) and the time it takes to grind it. If you wanted to be precise about it, a study would probably be needed to look at how consistent weighing or timing are in regards to other factors such as time/volume extraction factors and taste. I don't know the answer to this, but I'm reasonably sure it is an important factor. Will you get the same weight or volume of ground coffee per unit time if you change the type of beans in your grinder? I doubt that too, but it would need testing to be sure.
Certainly I would expect a difference in timings for different bean types. That's exactly what I meant when I said:
JonS wrote:"We're perfectly happy varying the temperature of our machines between different coffees, is it a massive stretch to imagine us all eventually adjusting the timers on our grinders to get our favoured dose ?"
And any hassle factor relating to this does rather depend on how often a home-barista swaps blends. I think an accurate and repeatable digital timer would help with this. (assuming the grinder itself shared the same accuracy)
I would also assume, a smaller, though noticeable change as the beans age. I think the approach has some merit, but until I buy / build an accurate timer or a Mini-E, or someone else who owns these tries it out, I guess we won't know how much of a factor this is in practice.
Ken Fox wrote:There is going to be more than one way to achieve consistent dosing in PF baskets; in addition, there is going to be a range of lower doses that can work for various coffees and it probably includes most everything from 12-16.5 grams, with the proviso that the upper end of this range is close enough to what I have earlier referred to "overdosing," that it may not deserve to be called "lower dosing."
I agree, there's probably no one-size-fits-all solution to the problem. I wasn't really trying to claim that. Different folks will settle on different approaches that best suit.
So it's just me that finds some kind of poetic irony that there's perhaps a well thought out reason to why Mazzer fitted an electronic timer to the Mini-E when they ripped the doser off ?
Perhaps the timer idea has no merit. Perhaps the only folk who shelled out the extra $200 or whatever for the Mini-E over a dosered Mini, or picked it over a Super Jolly, were the neatnicks who wanted less fling from the doser, and no doser to sweep out, rather than being interested in the possibilities afforded by a timer. Note: I'm not on a "Buy a Mini-E" trip here, it's just that to my knowledge, it's the only grinder shipping that out-of-the-box might actually be any good for repeatable smaller doses without extra steps or equipment. And I know a lot of folk have them, and might want to comment.
Personally, I chose a dosered mini because of the clump-breaking abilities of the doser lever, because it was cheaper, and because I figured that I'd better get used to a doser if I was planning on later upgrading to something bigger and more capable (read: Kony, which is what I had in mind at the time, and in fact nearly bought instead). The timer feature never came into the comparison, it just didn't seem like a feature I'd use. And it also seemed to make the grinder more expensive than it needed to be. I'm wondering now whether as a "Disciple of Schomer" I simply missed the point
(BTW, I'm not knocking David Schomer, or anyone else for that matter. We can argue about technique until the cows come home, and frequently do, but what's really important is how our collective understanding of coffee progresses and the increased enjoyment of it as a result. But I am really thrilled that my general results have improved literally overnight, and the fact I get more shots out of a bag of coffee is a welcome bonus
)
Jon
