The goal is great TASTING espresso, not great LOOKING espresso - Page 3

[Psyd]

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'm thinking that he was referring to 'downdosing' as 'from his previous practice' as opposed to 'from what is considered normal' in the post that Regulator Johnson responded to. If I'm used to a twenty gram dose, then I am truly downdosing from that if I start to use an eighteen gram dose, regardless of what the 'normal' or 'standard' is.
Or I'm wrong...

[malachi]

especially in a cafe' how often does the inside of the PF get cleaned? that alone is a good reason why i use the bottomless and seek it in commercial locations.

I can't speak for other cafes, but at Vivace and at Stumptown the answer is on average every 45 minutes.
And they're broken down on average twice and day and soaked and scoured.

[malachi]

just for a second think about this:

imagine a world where the naked PF came first, instead of the spouted PF.

what would the benefits be for using the pants, other than splitting the shot into 2?

i personally think a spouted PF is gross regardless. it generally always has some standing water in there somewhere, maybe part of the last few shots as well.

if there were no difference in taste and im sure there is not much difference. .. what reason would there be for someone to make a PF with a bottom?

i dont think the shots are better tasting from either one or the other. i am sure we can agree that the taste isnt affected much either way.

Lets discuss the pros and cons besides taste and cool factor.

jon

Actually... there is a significant difference in taste -- and more than that, there is a huge difference in mouthfeel.

I personally prefer the taste and the mouthfeel of espresso from a spouted portafilter for most if not all coffees.

[malachi]

The way that a shot looks is a really good indicator as to how it will taste.

Sadly, this is not the case.

I'll explain...
A terrible looking shot from a chopped portafilter has a good chance of tasting bad. But it's not a guarantee. There are exceptions to this.
The main issue, however, is that a great looking shot is absolutely no guarantee of a great tasting shot.

As an illustrative example... I could make a blend that was:
- 50% pulped natural Brazil Daterra
- 30% monsooned malabar
- 20% indian robusta

I'd roast the brazil and the robusta moderately dark.
I'd roast the malabar moderately light.
I'd rest the robusta for 14 days. I'd rest the malabar for 5. I'd rest the daterra for 3.

I'd then grind find and slightly down-dose a triple synesso basket and pull it at around 202F.

Odds are high that this would result in the espresso porn of all espresso porn.

And it would taste like a mix of burning tire rubber, dirty socks and cigarette ash.

Describing taste is somewhat subjective, too, and (lighting and quality aide) pics tend to tell the story objectively.

But it's TASTE that matters!!!

[Elbasso]

Amen.

[Psyd]

But it's TASTE that matters!!!

But, it's hard to SHOW taste on an internet forum! ; >
While taste is not always indicated by what the shot looks like, and good-looking shots are not always going to taste good, good tasting shots will almost always look good, and good looking shots have a far better chance of tasting good than bad looking shots.
Man is an animal, and his survival of the last ten thousand plus years has depended on his pattern recognition. Looking at something that looks good and tastes good leads man, yep, even espresso enthusiasts, to note the correspondence, and file it away as a correlation. While the correlation isn't always accurate, it is often enough to be a fairly reliable indicator. Emphasis on 'fairly', of course.
S'all I'm sayin'.

[nixter]

WOA WOA WOa woa woa woa.......... you mean we're supposed to DRINK this stuff????