Minimum equipment to produce good espresso

[lsf]

For the last few months I've promoted great coffee with my Andreja Premium and my Super Jolly. Most of the people really enjoyed the coffee I served them and some asked advice about what machine they could buy to make the same coffee at home.

And that's when the problem arises... most of the people aren't willing to invest 2500$ as I did on my set up. So that brings me to my main question: what's the smallest amount of money someone has to spend to be in the espresso game. I was thinking of a hand grinder since some people seem to enjoy them and maybe a gaggia baby? I know the machine shouldn't have a pressurise portafilter and any frothing device. But I don't feel like there are some many possibility...

So what setup would you recommend to a friend who has a tight budget?

[peacecup]

I agree, a hand grinder and an entry-level Gaggia, or even a Saeco or SB Barista. I don't follow the widely-held belief that pressurized PFs are all bad - they can serve as a good introductory tool in my opinion. Both the Gaggias and Saeco/Baristas can use either pressurized or non-pressurized, so a novice can progress as their skills increase.

I firmly believe a novice can be very satisfied for a few years with the above-mentioned combo, which can be had for <$200 for good used equipment. Case in point, I still use my $125 Estro Vapore (Barista) and hand grinder on the weekends, and after five years of brewing and drinking straight espresso I still find it satisfying.

PC

[another_jim]

First rate espresso on low cost equipment will entail a good deal of both learning and time in prep; more expensive equipment has a slightly higher top end, but mostly it adds consistency. If that is not in the cards, they should get a civilized grinder like the Baratza or Infinity and a pressure PF machine. If even that is too much trouble, they should go with a superauto.

If they do want to take the trouble, they should get a Silvia at the very least. Their time has to be worth more than the 50 cents an hour or less that would be required to make the few hundred dollars of a low end Gaggia worth the trouble. The new Silvias have a decent OPV, if you run them at the top of the 100C stat, they'll produce a roughly right shot (just flush the group for a few seconds.) They should get a decent grinder too -- the Cunill Tranquilo remains the low cost standout for both grind quality and convenience. A Lux, Ascaso, Pavoni PGC are also very good, but noisier and clumpier.

As always, no amount of time or trouble will be of the least bit use if the coffee isn't good and fresh.

[Randy G.]

So what setup would you recommend to a friend who has a tight budget?

Does it HAVE to be espresso? The best investment I have found is the Aerobie Aeropress teamed with a decent grinder. The Aeropress can be had for less than $30 USD, and so the budget can be spent on the grinder. Later, when finances allow, they can consider a decent espresso machine and will already have the most important part of the equation- the grinder. Regardless of what the box states, the Aeropress does not make espresso. Alan (the inventor) likes to think so, but (IMO) it doesn't unless you think strong coffee with no crema is espresso. On the other hand, it makes a wonderful cup of really delicious coffee, much like moka pot or press pot, with no bitterness, every time, in about 20 seconds once the water is at a boil.
As has been mentioned, if they want to get decent espresso and they are fond of the supermarket bins et.al., talk them out of the espresso machine.

[cafeIKE]

IMO, a hand grinder is too slow. BTDT

OTOH, given the choice between a hand grinder and a low end grinder, I'll take my PeDe any day.

Entry level Baratza / Solis / Breville / Infinity et al. incorrectly claim to grind "Turkish" when "Far Too Coarse for Espresso" is more correct.

For the 10^3267 time, the grinder is the key. Suffer a lesser machine, but NEVER scrimp on the grinder.

[Psyd]

If they do want to take the trouble, they should get a Silvia at the very least. Their time has to be worth more than the 50 cents an hour or less that would be required to make the few hundred dollars of a low end Gaggia worth the trouble.

Let them know that under a thousand is skimping a bit on the gear (including all the water prep, milk toys, tamper, yadyadyada) and that their investment should be in the $1K range if they're serious. $500 to $1K will get them good, but it'll be work, and everything they spend over $1K will be spent on, not better coffee, but making great coffee easier and more with fewer critical failures.
While some may disagree on the numbers (pulled somewhat out of a dark, personal storage) the concept is the same. there is a certain level where 'real' espresso is attainable, and beyond that 'real' espresso is just easier to obtain.
O'course, YMMV...

[boar_d_laze]

. . . I've promoted great coffee with my Andreja Premium and my Super Jolly. . . . [P]eople really enjoyed the coffee . . . and asked what machine they could buy to make the same coffee at home.

[Emphasis mine]

On a budget yet.

Tough question, as much economics, i.e., value-adding, as coffee. Fun to think about. Thanks for asking. To return to parsing your question: Same? Ain't happening. Adequate? Definitional.

In espresso as well as a few other disciplines, lower priced equipment capable of good results is crankier and more technique dependent than higher priced equipment.

The low rent end of the equipment market is dominated by tricks like pressure filtering, "turbo" frothing, and coffee pods. These maximize reproducibility and appearance at the expense of quality in the cup. Typically, folks who buy these machines stop using them after a couple of months. They either give up on espresso at home or start lurking here and move up to big buckaroo machines like yours.

The thing of it is, it costs money and takes technique to make decent espresso consistently. $1,000 is within spitting distance of minimum retail (Oh! How I hate that word) for an adequate new grinder and macchina. (Cost of Admission) And every dollar more your friend spends, up to about $3000 for the pair, will be rewarded with simplicty of use, reliability and quality in the cup it doesn't take a golden palate to taste. Although the higher you go up the ladder of price, the less quanta of improvement you see at each rung. (Law of Diminishing Returns.)

Rancilio's Silvia is the least expensive shot at pulling decent demitasses, and the first and most affordable step into real espresso. You can improve reproducibility, avoid some early A.M. hassle, and flatten the learning curve by getting Silvia a PID. The step up to an Alexia, with its better group, and better everything else, is worth it.

For the same price as Silvia there's the La Pavoni Europiccolo, but you shouldn't recommend that to someone who didn't know exactly into which fine kettle of fish you suggested they jump. Not anyone you wanted to keep as a friend anyway.
But for piccolo more, you can get hit the low end of the HX market with a Bezerra. If froth is in your friend's future, the HX difference is worth the extra lira. After all, the greatest achievement of any man's life is a happy wife. (Rule of the Bottom Line. Law of Chicks Dig Lattes.)

Grinders, actually more important links than espresso machines in the alkaloid chain that is caffeine, are a bigger can of worms. Once you've recommended a machine good enough to allow the taster to distinguish the many steps along the continuum of bad to good, you can't suggest a chump grinder. (Weakest Link.) This isn't news to someone who bought a Super Jolly -- on purpose. Again, nod to Bezzera with an h/t to Rancilio's Rocky.

Lots to ponder. Hope this helps,
Rich

[peacecup]

I've seen this question come up time and time again, and usually people reply that one needs to spend >$500 to start making "real" espresso. In my opinion this is absurd, and I stand by my claim that a good used hand grinder and a decent used pump machine can make "real" espresso for $150, maybe less.

PC

[peacecup]

Just for kicks here is a video of a shot pulled on a second hand Estro Vapore ($125), non-pressurized portafilter, ground by the hand grinder visible in the background. I'll qualify this by saying the beans were oldish French Roast and I did not "dial in" the grinder, so the shot poured quite fast, but its the only video I have on hand. I'll try to get a better one this weekend with better beans.

Anyone want to debate whether this is "real" espresso?

[gvideo]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5285585712178289869&hl=en[/gvideo]

PC

[HB]

Anyone want to debate whether this is "real" espresso?

Looks real enough to me, but taste is what matters. I agree with you and others who've posted above - moving up the ladder typically means better consistency, capacity, and construction, but that isn't to say a good barista couldn't do well with high-end entry level equipment. Given that many start with Silvia-class espresso machines and later upgrade (poll), it's worth asking what motivated these upgrades and then deciding if the next level espresso machine is worth consideration as a "minimum."

So what setup would you recommend to a friend who has a tight budget?

The tight budget question comes up frequently (e.g., Looking for a cheap(ish) but decent starter espresso and Best Inexpensive Grinder? from this forum's FAQs and Favorites) and I'm with Randy: Why espresso when French press / Aeropress is far less of an investment, costs less in coffee, and is nearly foolproof?

If espresso is a must, the next questions are what sort of drinks (espresso only, cappuccinos, lattes) and how many people (solo, 2-3 people, dinner parties). Without knowing how the equipment will be used, we can only make general suggestions. If your friend buys equipment on price that's ill fitted to his needs, it will be gathering dust next to the wedding gift appliance(s) in less than three months.

[peacecup]

The original question was:

So that brings me to my main question: what's the smallest amount of money someone has to spend to be in the espresso game.

This is why I said $150 for acceptable used equipment. I agree with the others, of course that spending more can increase quality, consistency, and aesthetics. And Dan makes a good point about how the machine will be used. But the Estro in the video can pull shot after shot while maintaining the same widely-fluctuating temperature profile. This may not be good enough for the advanced barista, but I don't think people should be scared out of getting into the espresso game because they can't or don't want to invest $500.

I'll qualify all my posts by saying I'm not a coffee cupper, nor have I ever judged or even been to a barista competition. I have great faith in Dan's, Jim's, and others abilities to rate espresso, so my opinions are those of a complete novice with five years of home espresso brewing experience. I have been drinking straight espresso for the past four years, however, so I do know a sink shot when I brew one. And with good beans and even minor attention to grind setting, these are rare.

I think many of you have forgotten how much fun it was at the beginning to just pull a nice, drinkable straight shot, or make a tasty cappuccino. Every time a newcomer asks this question they're given the same advice, which is don't even try to brew espresso at home for <$500. I'd like to ask those of the more experienced baristas out there if they remember the first good (i.e. enjoyable, drinkable) straight shot of espresso they brewed? For most of you I dare say it was some ten years ago or more? Was it from a Silvia or a Gaggia? Maybe a Krups?

PC

[peacecup]

Dan wrote:

I'm with Randy: Why espresso when French press / Aeropress is far less of an investment, costs less in coffee, and is nearly foolproof?

Again, I'm no cupper, and it may be easier to get better and cheaper results with a press. But espresso is....well, espresso. Its a journey.

PC

[HB]

I firmly believe a novice can be very satisfied for a few years with the above-mentioned combo, which can be had for <$200 for good used equipment. Case in point, I still use my $125 Estro Vapore (Barista) and hand grinder on the weekends, and after five years of brewing and drinking straight espresso I still find it satisfying.

I assumed the OP referred to the cost of new equipment. If you're willing to scour eBay or CoffeeGeek's Buy, Sell and Trade forum, you can save heaps of money. Of course it's used equipment, so there's the risk of duds and there's no vendor support.

I'd like to ask those of the more experienced baristas out there if they remember the first good (i.e. enjoyable, drinkable) straight shot of espresso they brewed? For most of you I dare say it was some ten years ago or more? Was it from a Silvia or a Gaggia? Maybe a Krups?

We all have to start somewhere and my true confession was Krups / preground Illly. At the time I thought it was pretty good with lots of milk and sugar. Straight espresso was not an option because it was too bitter and burnt tasting. As a newbie I thought that's what espresso meant - dark, bitter brew tamed by milk and sugar. To your question, the first enjoyable straight shot of espresso I brewed was from a Silvia/Rocky combo.

[lsf]

Thanks for replying and sorry for asking previously debated questions. Those answers help me to make my opinion about the question.

So, about the press and the aeropress, I agree, those are fantastic ways of brewing a good cup of coffee for far less money than a machine espresso. However, as someone said, it's not espresso

Maybe, I could refine my question; How much would cost a set up that will make the first experience enjoyable and will make them wish to upgrade later. My guess is that most of my friends won't be able to buy a machine that suits their needs since, given the choice, most people would prefer a fast recovering machine, HX... and that means money. The shot on the video looks certainly more than acceptable and I'm sure that with some properly froth milk, it would make a good cappuccino. If I refer to some people opinion, looks like it could be done under 300$

[miKe mcKoffee]

Maybe, I could refine my question; How much would cost a set up that will make the first experience enjoyable and will make them wish to upgrade later.

That's the kicker. Depends on the person if the Journey will be enjoyable or if a quickly attained destination is required to make the process enjoyable. Expecting an even half way decent straight shot from a first experience first pull of almost any espresso machine and grinder pairing just isn't realistic for a newbie and really difficult with copious experience. However with experience good shots on any equipment can be quickly dialed in. This is why IMO the consumer machines with pressurized PF's exist including Super-Autos, to make it seem like a quality shot is immediately attainable.

My guess is that most of my friends won't be able to buy a machine that suits their needs since, given the choice, most people would prefer a fast recovering machine, HX... and that means money.

Indeed you gotta pay to play! If you buy a Chuck steak can't expect it to be like a Ribeye.

The shot on the video looks certainly more than acceptable and I'm sure that with some properly froth milk, it would make a good cappuccino. If I refer to some people opinion, looks like it could be done under 300$

On that I'd disagree, a 15sec pull like in that video would be a bitter sink shot. It would not make a good cappuccino, it would however make a sugared milk beverage quite similar to commonly purchased out there beverages with poorly pulled espresso shot foundations.

Under $300 target price point for new machine and grinder would be tough to impossible to achieve for even mediocre consistent shots. Used equipment absolutely. For instance recently picked up a used Rocky and Audrey in pristine condition on Craigslist for $300 total. $30 for new burrs and sold the Rocky for $230 so out of pocket $100 for a very good travel/backup espresso machine.

[bukaeast]

The question is what are they looking forward to drinking? Straight espresso? Then this thread is progressing properly.
If it's only "espresso based" foamed milk drinks, then the bar is much lower in terms of requirements to produce the product.
More money may will give ease of production, but basics are a lot cheaper. Even coffee plus some sort of good foamer will please most palates. (Please pass the sugar.)

But then to switch directions, you are back to the more expensive, steeper learning curved, directions currently discussed.

I just saw "my 2 sense" and will steal it for here. <BG>

[peacecup]

Dan is correct - I'm referring to used equipement. I should have been careful to mention this. ALSO A BUYER OF USED EQUIPMENT SHOULD BE CAREFUL TO FIND A REPUTABLE SELLER. If given the option of course, I would recommend buying new from a dealer who will help with good advice and stand behind the product.

Re: the 15 sec shot in the video, it made a drinkable cappuccino - don't remember if I added sugar, but I usually don't. And I did qualify it:

I'll qualify this by saying the beans were oldish French Roast and I did not "dial in" the grinder, so the shot poured quite fast, but its the only video I have on hand. I'll try to get a better one this weekend with better beans.

I assure you I could have pulled a sink shot with those beans on any $1000 machine.

I will try to get a better clip this weekend. But seriously, its not too difficult to get good 30 sec pours with the Estro. The Estro is a well-made, heavy duty home appliance. It has the same Ulka pump as the Silvia, a stainless boiler, and brass group head and PF. It ain't no Silvia, but within its limits it can make real espresso. I'm sure the same can be said of most Gaggias, and probably some other brands of entry level machines.


Dan wrote:

Straight espresso was not an option because it was too bitter and burnt tasting. As a newbie I thought that's what espresso meant - dark, bitter brew tamed by milk and sugar.

Do you know anyone who has enjoyed their first drink of beer, wine, whiskey? I distinctly remember having to choke these down, and I doubt it would have mattered if it were a Pabst or a Samuel Smith. These are acquired tastes, as is espresso I believe.

Once someone has been brewing espresso for years, I believe it is very difficult for them to recall their level of satisfaction with their original equipment. If one wants to see how people like their new purchases the coffeegeek reviews are interesting reading. As Dan and I have discussed, there is a "honeymoon" effect, i.e., people tend to like their expensive (relatively) purchase because its new. But if you want to know if a newbie will be satisfied their purchase have a look at the reviews. The five most-frequently rated machines are as follows: Silvia 8.8, Saeco Classico 8.5, Barista (Estro) 8.2, Gaggia Classic 8.1, La Pavoni 8.0. I DO NOT MEAN TO IMPLY THAT THESE ARE QUALITY RATINGS, ONLY THAT THEY PROVIDE A SENSE OF HOW A BUYER FEELS ABOUT THEIR NEW MACHINE

Peace,

PC

[boar_d_laze]

To your question, the first enjoyable straight shot of espresso I brewed was from a Silvia/Rocky combo.

Plaintiff rests.

[Psyd]

If it's only "espresso based" foamed milk drinks, then the bar is much lower in terms of requirements to produce the product.
Even coffee plus some sort of good foamer will please most
palates. (Plese pass the sugar.)

It's these puritanical prejudices about espresso and about decaf and about all the other things coffee that are better than others that amazes me. If you put a great shot in my cappuccino, I'll know it from a good shot, and if you put a bad shot in my capp, I'll make that face. There is nothing wrong with putting milk in coffee, and it doesn't cover up the taste of a bad shot. Agreed, if what you are drinking is a large, warm, sweet milk with a shot of espresso in the bottom, then the shot isn't as important, but two ounces of espresso in three or four ounces of microfoamed milk isn't hiding anywhere.
It seems a bit remarkable that folks (unless they live under a rock) who explain why they go through what they go through for coffee on a fairly regular basis (I know I do) need an explanation for why I have two grinders, one for caf and one for decaf.

Oh, and Peacecup, the answer to the OP's question needs to be fairly generally available, so that the answer is fairly applicable. If I were to base my grinder suggestion on my used gear experience, it would start with. "Go out and buy two used Mazzer Majors. You can get those for around $200 for the pair, shipping included."
Yeah, I got that deal, but I'm guessing that I couldn't make it happen again within a week.

[cafeIKE]

I'd like to ask those of the more experienced baristas out there if they remember the first good (i.e. enjoyable, drinkable) straight shot of espresso they brewed?

Solis SL-90 which I modded to adjust brew temp and precisely indicate ready.
PeDe hand grinder and later Solis Maestro after a detour through a Solis Mulino, thanks to a certain Seattlite's misguided enthusiam.

This combo was also a revelation for countless guests who exclaimed the likes of:

- Wow!
- This is the first espresso I've ever had that's not bitter!
- This is the best latte I've ever had!
- I don't need any sugar in this!

I never pulled a gShot with the setup and judged the espresso as acceptable to decent.

Would I recommend someone purchase the same setup today? NO! It's just so much easier with better gear. This past weekend a fellow came by with his entry level gear and pulled a couple of shots of Supreme Bean Caffe di Norte, both just above sinkable. His first shot from the MC4 / Vibiemme combo was so perfect I commented "Gee, we shoulda video'd it"

Decent gear notwithstanding, it's the handle end of the PF, as in http://www.home-barista.com/forum...a-stupid-t103.html