The goal is great TASTING espresso, not great LOOKING espresso - Page 2

[RegulatorJohnson]

Great way to look at it, and I have my answers:

To keep my wall clean?!
To keep that hot coffee out of my eyes?!

Jack

you edited out my quote where i said "other than taste".

these can also be solved with your technique. i can pull shots all day with the naked PF and not get coffee in my eye.

jon

[another_jim]

the obsession with the look of a shot is an unfortunate distraction.

remove the word "shot" and replace it with any other food item.

is this why at most restaurants they just toss the food onto the plate without a care?

"Sausage and legislation are best made out of sight" -- Kaiser Bill

The pour of the espresso is production, not presentation. In some of the newer restaurants, there's enough sweetness and light in the kitchen to have it out in the open; but if guests saw most traditional kitchens, they'd be calling in the riot squad.

[HB]

BTW. i was showing the pic to show my distribution progression based on "no toucha anything". i didnt say hey look how delicious this shot looks. Dan said he could tell more about the shot later in the extraction so i put up the other pics.

I share Andy's frustration with the emphasis on visuals, but I understand your point was to demonstrate that your "no fuss" distribution can produce even extractions. A couple photographs does convey that message better than textual description.

[RegulatorJohnson]

The pour of the espresso is production, not presentation. In some of the newer restaurants, there's enough sweetness and light in the kitchen to have it out in the open; but if guests saw most traditional kitchens, they'd be calling in the riot squad.

i drink 95.25794% of the shots that get made around here in my own personal home kitchen. for me the pour is part of the process and also part of the presentation.

think about in the grinders vs kony thread instead of "shot #1 6.5 points" , "shot #2 6.25 points" imagine if there were also pictures of these shots? it would make a better, more visually stimulating website and a better more informative presentation. i think there is a lot to learn from observation and actually looking at what you are doing. actually being able to see what you want to look at, really helps when you look at something.

its a tool to help with technique, this tool helps you have a visual representation of your progress, whether its distribution, channeling, or otherwise. with a bottomless, its easy to know if you messed up. using this tool helps you progress, this progression makes the result taste better.

that shot above would have tasted great with or without the bottom of the PF there. i would have been satisfied with making a great cup either way.

jon

[RegulatorJohnson]

I share Andy's frustration with the emphasis on visuals, but I understand your point was to demonstrate that your "no fuss" distribution can produce even extractions. A couple photographs does convey that message better than textual description.

i am frustrated because it seems fairly short sighted to say "i only want to discuss the taste of the espresso that is it, no pictures." this internet thing is a visual medium. humans have eyes to look at things. we are visual creatures, lets choose to not use one of our senses. my frustration comes from the realization that some people have a narrower view of the world than i do. everyone experiences things differently.

i am frustrated because i feel labeled as someone that wants to make cool pictures, not great espresso.

i am frustrated because it seems like these 2 items need to be mutually exclusive "taste and appearance". just because a shot looks great from a naked PF doesn't mean its gong to taste great, it doesn't mean its going to taste of crap either.

i want to enjoy coffee and espresso as much as i can from as many different angles as i can discover. i want to share my experiences, sometimes you need a photo.

why don't you guys come over for some coffee? i promise to not force you to look at it until its in the cup.

jon

[Psyd]

That's pretty much the point that Jim and I are disputing. In the range of bottomless shots that vary from "mediocre looking" to "fantastic looking," I've found NO correlation to taste. During some espresso sessions I keep score, and it's been no more likely than 50:50 that the fantastic looking shots taste better than the mediocre looking shots.

IOW, in my humble experience, the obsession with the look of a shot is an unfortunate distraction.

(Obviously, grossly channeled or grotesque shots do NOT taste good).

I think that that was the point that I was making, that while good looking shots don't necessarily mean that they are great tasting shots, it's a good indicator, and it's pretty much the only way to show how a technique changes the cup.
"If you do this, it changes this, and it looks like this so you can tell that it is changing."
Which is exactly what RJ was doing with these images, i.e., "If you do the no cuss pull-and-go technique, it can be a great way to get an even distribution (shown by the even beading) without a bunch of gyrations over your PF holder."

It's the grossly channeled shots that started the naked PF as a diagnostic tool. A visual diagnostic tool. It stands to reason that certain visual indicators will diagnose problems of the taste of the espresso that were hidden' in the 'pants of a standard PF holder. It's not necessarily the beauty of the shot, but the beauty of the lack of any of the indicators of bad espresso that one looks for in the naked.
"It's the spaces between the notes, man" Some guy named Claude

[jesawdy]

i am frustrated because i feel labeled as someone that wants to make cool pictures, not great espresso.

i am frustrated because it seems like these 2 items need to be mutually exclusive "taste and appearance". just because a shot looks great from a naked PF doesn't mean its gong to taste great, it doesn't mean its going to taste of crap either.

i want to enjoy coffee and espresso as much as i can from as many different angles as i can discover. i want to share my experiences, sometimes you need a photo.

why don't you guys come over for some coffee? i promise to not force you to look at it until its in the cup.

Jon-

Don't take it as a personal attack, you are not being singled out and the point of this thread is to have a discussion. The point is, the beautiful naked pour may not be the end all, be all to a good tasting espresso.

I agree with your points regarding presentation and food... it can be a big part of the whole experience. Whether it sets your tastebuds to be "wowed" or disappointed however, may be a point to argue.

I'd reckon that I drink 99.9% of my shots.... nothing much hitting the sink here (it's not my skillz, I'm a tightwad ). It can make for the occasional surprise. I think most "sinkshots" ought to be sampled (others that are more refined or experienced may choose to disagree). You may be pleasantly surprised, or your may just confirm the mediocrity or repulsiveness of the unsightly or "non-conforming" pour.

Just this AM I had a very fast pour from 14g of Coffee Klatch's house espresso... the volume was fine (but on the high side for my usual pour, every bit of 2-2.5 ounces), and ran a maximum of 20 seconds if not less. While lacking in mouthfeel, the espresso was still quite tasty, heavy on the chocolates but well balanced, a balance that I tend to associate with single shots.

If I'm ever in Salt Lake again, I'll be sure to look you up!

[John P]

I thought the pics were awesome!

On a serious note: I'm not really sold on the bottomless PF. It IS great as a diagnostic tool, but seems to be much more applicable for home use than for use in a professional environment. If you narrow down all the top caffe in North America, the number using bottomless PF as their SOP would be minuscule.

Correctly prepared food should be a palette for the eyes. Balance of flavor, symmetry of presentation, simple, clean, but undeniable exciting. The same can be said for espresso. Now it is difficult for the average home-user to tell how a shot will taste by eye-balling it, but any dedicated home-user or professional will learn the subtleties of a particular blend if they spend enough time with it. Of course we'd all rather be tasting than secretly peeking at voyeuristic espresso pics, but that sense of "ahh... I can imagine that" is often a nice touch to an otherwise crazy day. Besides, a sublime picture of a perfect pour is better than a stick in the eye. Isn't it?

[RegulatorJohnson]

I thought the pics were awesome!

BTW... if anyone wants to taste how FN delicious that shot was. contact john P he roasted it, its his mountain mambo espresso. http://www.caffedbolla.com get some today.

dont hesitate, there is not much to go around, hopefully there is enough left for me.

jon

[DC]

I tend to share the sentiments of regulator and psyd in this thread, and although I do cringe at my early obsessions with visuals the fact remains that bottomless pfs are a useful tool.

I agree that not every gorgeous looking shot will taste great - but I don't believe I have ever had a good tasting coffee that looked bad coming out of the basket, and I taste them all. I think I'd be kidding myself if I said a dodgy looking shot tasted amazing because the visual cues do translate (to a point) into what you taste in the cup.

A bottomless pf will tell you where you're going wrong if you are, and if you're not then as Regulator says it's just using another sense to appreciate a different aspect of espresso, surely?! If it looks great and tastes great surely that is a more fulfilling experience of coffee than tasting great alone (as per the food argument earlier)

I get the feeling reading this thread that some people have a 'been there, done that' attitude to the bottomless pf thing, and no longer feel it's 'cool' resulting in much rolling of their eyes when they come across more espresso photos/videos.

I don't think the emphasis on taste was ever lost, unless people really do just make espresso for photography's sake.

[cafeIKE]

...the fact remains that bottomless pfs are a useful tool.

I use one to show noobs how easy it is to pull 'pretty' shots from first principals :
Good, fresh coffee
Good, clean grinder
Don't overdose
Tamp light and level
Lock & pull
Even beading, lot's of crema, nary a sprite, yummy taste, time after time after time.

[Jasonian]

I use one to show noobs how easy it is to pull 'pretty' shots from first principals :
Good, fresh coffee
Good, clean grinder
Don't overdose
Tamp light and level
Lock & pull
Even beading, lot's of crema, nary a sprite, yummy taste, time after time after time.

That really depends on the coffee you're using.

That method isn't best for every coffee I've personally tasted, and I think you'd be inclined to agree.

[cafeIKE]

That really depends on the coffee you're using.

That method isn't best for every coffee I've personally tasted, and I think you'd be inclined to agree.

I agree, but it's perfect for the coffees I enjoy.

I'm severely disinclined to use coffees that require a prayer rug and a shaman.

[Psyd]

Even beading, lot's of crema, nary a sprite,

Odd that you'd qualify your own espresso with these three visual clues, and mention 'yummy taste' only once... ; >

S'like I said, good looking shots aren't the goal, they're indicators that you're on the right road to the goal, good tasting espresso.

[RegulatorJohnson]

you rail me for the naked but you pull it out for the 3 year old decaf?

http://www.home-barista.com/forums/accumulating-small-improvements-in-idaho-t4891.html#53508


i would have bet you either had your naked propping up a un-even table leg... or donated it to a noob.



hehehe jon

[RegulatorJohnson]

Neverending Novelty of Nakedness... Not

Seriously, you really nailed the point: There are no absolutes. Those who close their minds to alternatives like naked portafilters, triple baskets, up dosing, etc. stop growing in the art. Chris Tacy reminded me of this when he suggested changing baskets to suit a particular blend. Yet another variable to add to the pile.

i agree with this.

jon

[Ken Fox]

I agree, but it's perfect for the coffees I enjoy.

I'm severely disinclined to use coffees that require a prayer rug and a shaman.

Shortly after I started experimenting with lower (~14) doses, it was like a light bulb suddenly went off, and all further attempts with my old updosing technique yielded beverages I found less enjoyable. Just before I started using 14g doses, I had purchased 5lbs of an expensive and famous Marquee blend which I had previously liked updosed. It had arrived 2 days after it was roasted and about 4lbs of it had gone immediately into the deep freeze for future use.

I went back to this blend and with my new perspective found it to be just too blatant, too "in my face," too overdone to want to drink anymore of it in updosed shots. In 14g shots it was dull and lifeless.

Needless to say, I gave the remaining 3.5lbs of this stuff to a friend, and don't anticipate drinking it again.

ken
p.s. don't ask me which blend. I admire the roaster and am not going to identify it.

[RegulatorJohnson]

Shortly after I started experimenting with lower (~14) doses,

am i missing something or is this the "normal" / "standard" dosing that has been suggested by many for a while now. isn't ~14g considered the norm? is this similar to Columbus "discovering" a continent that already had people inhabiting it. i know you are advocating not "overdosing" wouldn't this just be "normal" dosing and "lower "dosing would be like ~12g? seriously please help me cuz im lost in semantics and termonology.

jon

[cannonfodder]

It depends on where you are. In Europe, as I understand but have never been there, a 12-14 gram dose is normal. In the US we tend to put more coffee in the same double basket. I have seen 21 grams hammered into a double basket (heck, I have hammered 20 grams in one) and many people regularly use 15-18 grams for double. I have been dosing down to 'normal' amounts for some time as my Elektra does not take well to overdosing. I have found that a finer grind and lower dose just works better for me most of the time. However, there are other coffees that work better at a higher dose, or maybe more appropriately called a lower brew ratio. That is more coffee to less water (if I have it backwards please correct me).

Taste is as unique as the individual and the only rule is to produce what tastes good to you. Some people prefer high dose shots, others low. You just have to try each and decide what you like better and go with it. For the record, I would call a normal double dose 13-14grams of coffee, a down dose to be in the 10-12 gram region and updosed anything over 15 grams, but that is just me. To keep things clear I usually specify the dose by weight, not ambiguous terms like down, standard and up dosed. It leaves to much room for interpretation and misunderstanding, but that is just me.

In the end, the right dose is the one that you like and works well in your machine.

[Ken Fox]

am i missing something or is this the "normal" / "standard" dosing that has been suggested by many for a while now. isn't ~14g considered the norm? is this similar to Columbus "discovering" a continent that already had people inhabiting it. i know you are advocating not "overdosing" wouldn't this just be "normal" dosing and "lower "dosing would be like ~12g? seriously please help me cuz im lost in semantics and termonology.

jon

I believe 14g to be the "normal" dose, but in the context of home users/enthusiasts and the marquee cafes from which the home users often take their cues, 14g is considered a severe "downdose," with 18 to 20 or even 21 g considered "usual."

I certainly do not regard myself as having "discovered" 14g dosing, although I have tried to introduce the concept of not updosing as the normal approach that should be mastered first, before someone attempts variations such as updosing. This would certainly make being a Newbie much easier, than what I was taught online when I was in that position.

ken