Olympia Cremina 2002: The evolution of design - Page 3

[srobinson]

As we go to the next stage of the review, I thought that I would do a couple posts on the process itself to get the most out of the machine. Since many of the Olympias on the board are older machines, I thought that I would intersperse my comments with those from the manual. While small in physical dimensions, I find the Olympia manual one of the most complete little espresso bibles that I have read. Not only are there step by step instructions, but also full part numbers, part schematics, wiring diagrams and a great trouble shooting guide. I will have to post the trouble shooting guide in a separate post, since I find it so useful.

So before we get into the process, let's take a look at what Olympia views as the perfect espresso coffee. All quotes are from the Olympia Express Cremina manual: copyright 2001 Mokaespresso SA.

Visual Appearance

The foam "crema" that forms on the surface of the espresso coffee, the chromatic realisation of the caramelization of the sugars present in the coffee should be of a light brown colour more or less dark with ginger coloured highlights light and uniform. The consistency of the foam must be of 3 to 4 mm, extremely smooth, and it must have a duration of at least two or three minutes, without open spaces or visible bubbles in the centre.

A light-coloured foam with visible bubbles, but with hardly any thickness and tendency to disappear quickly often is due to the problem of under extraction. A foam of dark brown colour or almost black, with a white "button" or a black hole towards the centre, with hardly any thickness and a tendency to move toward the edge quickly forming a black ring, often indicates a problem with over-extraction.

Aroma

The aroma of coffee depends on over a thousand different molecules that are modified several times and transformed by the many steps of processing the coffee undergoes on the way to the coffee cup. The burst of aroma after brewing must be intense and pleasant, vaguely sweet yet strong with body, but without any indication of burnt coffee or tobacco or must odours. Sometimes a light hazelnut-like aroma could indicate a high quantity of "Arabica" coffee in the blend.

Naturally there must not be any off-odors present due to an unclean machine, nor the characteristic odour of used coffee grounds which is indicative of incorrect brewing.

A nondescript aroma, poor or almost non-existent almost always indicates a problem of under-extraction.

A prickly aroma acidy or too strong is an indication of overextraction.

Taste

The perfect coffee presents itself to the taste-test (which must be done without sugar, to avoid altering the taste in any way) with the correct equilibrium between the components of sweet and bitter, revealing body but not too heavy, without giving any taste of being burnt and above all without leaving any foul aftertaste.

A weak coffee with almost non-existent body, of a bland and watery taste without foam is surely due to problems of underextraction.

A coffee which is too bitter, with a prickly and stringent taste, a strong aftertaste and little aroma is often the result of over extraction.

So this is Olympia's perfect cup. Quite a bit of insight for a coffee manual. But what did you expect from this machine. It is actually the only manual that I have seen with a Bibliography: tipping its hat to Francesco and Riccardo Illy and Felipe Ferre.

So let's figure out how to make that perfect cup:

[KarlSchneider]

So before we get into the process, let's take a look at what Olympia views as the perfect espresso coffee. All quotes are from the Olympia Express Cremina manual: copyright 2001 Mokaespresso SA.

Visual Appearance

The foam "crema" that forms on the surface of the espresso coffee, the chromatic realisation of the caramelization of the sugars present in the coffee should be of a light brown colour more or less dark with ginger coloured highlights light and uniform. The consistency of the foam must be of 3 to 4 mm, extremely smooth, and it must have a duration of at least two or three minutes, without open spaces or visible bubbles in the centre.

A light-coloured foam with visible bubbles, but with hardly any thickness and tendency to disappear quickly often is due to the problem of under extraction. A foam of dark brown colour or almost black, with a white "button" or a black hole towards the centre, with hardly any thickness and a tendency to move toward the edge quickly forming a black ring, often indicates a problem with over-extraction.

Hi Steve,

I finally had time to read this post today. I fear that I have to quibble on some small points. I suggest that the phrase "perfect espresso" could be more harmful than helpful. I suggest that perhaps a better way to say this is to say these passages from Olympia are the perfect starting point.

Here's my thinking. Tonight I pulled three shots. The first was from the newest roast -- a monkeyed Monkey Blend from Sweet Marias. I started with some Monkey Blend then added extra Ethiopian Ghimbi and Brazil Edson Mobayasu (emptying small lots of old green beans rather than trying to make a blend). It was too underdeveloped. So I returned to this weeks' Eth. Ghimbi. The first shot was quite nice if a bit past the peak. Still far better than last night's still not understood failures. But having read your Olympia passage I judged the color of my crema to be too pale. So I pushed for more extraction via heavier tamping. I got more color and darker flecks. But I also got less good taste. The clearly less perfect crema accompanied better taste. As you know I favor taste over all else.

My fear in the Olympia quote is that some will get out calipers and conclude that a pull is inferior because it has merely 2 mm of crema. Or, use a digital clock and time the crema as less than 3 minutes.

I suggest the parameters of the Olympia text are the perfect starting point but not a definition of the perfect espresso.

KS

[espressoperson]

Hi Steve,

I finally had time to read this post today. I fear that I have to quibble on some small points.

Karl,

Your ideas about lever perfection are really worth thinking (and quibbling) about. Here's my quibble...

Maybe that Olympia passage is describing the perfect shot that some lever machine user is skilled and experienced enough to pull. Maybe it's just someone's dream of a perfect shot, attainable only in a dream. However, I prefer to consider that description as the end it was intended to be rather than a start. An ideal that may never be achieved, but still an ideal to strive for.

You've got a hypothesis that there is a tradeoff between different elements of a shot and that maximizing one element may be detrimental to the other elements. A reasonable hypothesis for you to work with, but not proven. I might end up believing it too, but I won't start there. I would rather entertain an alternate hypothesis, that _ultimately_ all elements of a shot can be maximized to produce the perfect espresso. Crema! Body! Aroma! Taste! IMO having this as an exemplar may do more to lead us to the perfect espresso than having a model where only one element can be perfected or traded off at a time.

Many of us diehard LMWDPers already believe that the lever machine is capable of unbeatable excellence. The perfect espresso! Not every shot. Perhaps not most shots. But there will be shots every now and then that will make Synesso and GS3 adherents jealous! Even if seldom or ever achievable for most of us, why not have it out there drawing us to try "to reach the unreachable" shot.

I'm looking forward to seeing (and vicariously tasting) Steve's contributions to this goal of perfection, and hope to add my best efforts. I have no doubt you will have some notable successes to add to the collection. But still, I agree with you and would counsel newcomers (and remind ourselves too) to enjoy what we are capable of producing at this moment without being disappointed if it is not perfect.


(flu-bound in Seattle )

[KarlSchneider]

You've got a hypothesis that there is a tradeoff between different elements of a shot and that maximizing one element may be detrimental to the other elements. A reasonable hypothesis for you to work with, but not proven. I might end up believing it too, but I won't start there. I would rather entertain an alternate hypothesis, that _ultimately_ all elements of a shot can be maximized to produce the perfect espresso. Crema! Body! Aroma! Taste! IMO having this as an exemplar may do more to lead us to the perfect espresso than having a model where only one element can be perfected or traded off at a time.

Hi Michael,

Your comment here is the ideal of critical thinking and true conversation between friends. You phrase the differences perfectly. Is there a tradeoff between elements or can there be a maximization of all of them. I have had conversations with Steve on and off-line and know he is thinking about this same question. You are absolutely right that it is not decided or resolved. It is the greatest of questions. Thank you for pushing all of us to ask the real questions.

KS

[srobinson]

I enjoyed the last two posts around my perfection comment. I think as all of us know, we are always searching for the perfect espresso and the elusive nature of that. The wording was that used in the Olympia manual and I thought you would enjoy their view of what their product will produce. Compared to the poor manuals that we struggle with, it is good to see one both attempting to be both educational and informative with regard to the overall espresso process. So on with the process.

I thought in this post I would focus on both the water and heating the machine in preparation of the first shot. Here again, you will find very detailed thoughts with regards to these topics in their manual. For water, Olympia states that the water should contain as little calcium as possible. They suggest 4 degrees of hardness for the water which would be the equivalent of 40 grams of chalk per 1000 liters of water. They suggest a table water filter and reference both Brita and Everpure as suitable solutions. They then suggest filling completely to the max mark on the machine with the filling facilitated by the use of their beautiful stainless steel funnel. They do not mention draining the tank, but I know that most leverheads do this on a daily basis to help minimize the risk of scaling and to ensure that fresh water is always used.

Now with regards to heating the machine, the manual states that the machine should be turned on for 10-15 minutes to ensure that all parts reach operating temperature levels. They also state that the first 2-3 shots should not be served due to parts that need to heat via circulating water.

I hate wasting coffee more than the next person and three sink shots every morning puts a bit of cramp in my style. As such I have been working on some cheats to get the machine to heat the grouphead faster and pull a fairly respectable first shot. Since there are several write-ups on lever procedures, I will not go into every minutia but will focus in a few tricks.

So the steps are simple: Fill with water, screw on the top, heat it up until initial pressure is reached, bleed the false pressure out of the steam arm and then wait for pressure to recover.

The next step that I do is a set of 6 short half pulls to quickly heat the group head. First time I showed this to Dan he had his head scratching as to how this worked, but I am simply using the basic physics of the machine to pull this off.

Let's take a look at the hydraulic diagram for the machine:

You will notice that there are two inlets into the grouphead. One port when the handle is down which allows water to come in on top of the piston and the second one which allows water to enter the grouphead when the handle is raised. Thus the half pulls allow you to circulate hot boiler water on top of the piston to quickly heat the head. I have been doing 4-6 until the group rim is hot to the touch then do a flush shot which I use to also heat my cup and then go into my routine for the first shot. This technique will give you a first shot good enough for caps and you second shot will be right on the money.

[Cappa1]

Amazing info here.........feel like I just checked into to a Cremina thesis presentation! Beautiful review Steve.........I couldn't thank you more for all the detail-

[KarlSchneider]

I am probably the only lever-addict in the US with this in their kitchen:

<image>

More than two years after Steve posted the picture that begins this thread of his beautifully restored 67 Cremina next to a 2002 Cremina I find in my kitchen:



I acquired the 67 Cremina almost 1-1/2 years ago. The Millenium (the first of the 2002's) Cremina just arrived. I will post some notes as I explore these side-by-side.

KS

[KarlSchneider]

Here is the ID plate from my "new" machine.



No name of the individual maker. I like the added names on the newer ones.

# 0073 turned out to be in astonishing condition. The seller said it had been used 15 times. It could not have been used much more given its perfect shape. I had decided that I would never find a used one and had sent my 67 off to get all its seals replaced etc. by a friend who is an expert. While it was away this one appeared and I took the plunge. As I said in my Lusso commentary, once again Heraclitus' "Expect the unexpected" rings true.

KS

[KarlSchneider]

Steve commented on his preference for the older style cut away pf spouts. The Millenium came with both the cut away spout and the double spout the newer 2002's seem to have. I am trying out the newer style that Steve had. One thing I like is that when flushing the group to warm things up or for cleaning after use the "dropped-spouts" do splash far less water all over the place than does the cut away one on my 67.

Another slight difference I note. The new pf lets all the baskets I use easily drop in and be lifted out without any prying needed. My 67's pf requires slight screwdriver-leverage to remove the Elektra double baskets I use for morning Americanos. Those baskets also require leverage to remove them from the Elektra pf. Since I dose and tamp into separate filter baskets for each pull this is a plus for my routine.

KS

[zin1953]

FWIW, the basket just drops in/out of the PF for my Olympia Caffarex (b. 1989).

[KarlSchneider]

FWIW, the basket just drops in/out of the PF for my Olympia Caffarex (b. 1989).

Jason,

I suspect that the main issue is differences from individual pf to pf more than differences in design. Other than top edge pf's do not really need precise specs.

KS

[KarlSchneider]

Last night I pulled espressos on the two Creminas using week-old Yemen Sana'ani. While not inclined to make any careful distinctions yet between the two machines as far as difference in style of taste I did notice something. Both machines have a range within which they maintain pressure. On the 67 all one can observe is when the heater kicks on and off. On the Millenium one can see rising and falling pressure indications. I know that my 67 was re--set very accurately to a pstat setting of 0.75 bar. Olympia recommends 0.7 - 0.8. The Millenium fluctuates according to the gauge from 0.65 - 0.85. When I intentionally pulled the second shots on each machine just after the heater had turned off (at the high end of the pressure range) the shots had more clarity. Tonight I compared shots on the Elektra Micro casa a leva and the Millenium. The coffee was 24-hour old Brazil Faz. Jacaranda. The first Elektra pull was far better in terms of clarity of flavor. The Millenium shot seemed heavy and dull. On the second shot from the Millenium I made sure I pulled it at the top of the pressure range. The clarity in the flavors was much improved, closer to the Elektra.

I guess the lesson here is that the added pressure gauge on the latest Creminas does seem useful in knowing where one is in the pressure cycle. I can easily imagine a coffee I will prefer pulled at the bottom of that range. Knowing at a glance where one is should help.

KS

[KarlSchneider]

As I now re-read Steve's commentary on the evolution of design in the Creminas I gain added respect for Steve's insight and Olympia's concern for lasting technology. On one point ...

As I stated in some of the other posts, Olympia has added a few very nice little features that can only be appreciated if you have dealt with the designs of other machines. Some are very subtle, such as the way they put a vertical cut on the neck threads:

<image>

This is one of those features that you never appreciate until you are half awake, have forgotten to fill the boiler and in your noncaffeinated state make the stupid mistake of unscrewing the cap under pressure. This little channel will give you enough warning to bring you back to your senses before you really do yourself some damage.

With the cases removed I note the following:



My 91 Cremina 67 also has that vertical cut in the neck threads. Thus it appears that Olympia makes continuing improvements in its machines in addition to major model changes.

KS

[peacecup]

Well KS, it is nice to see you've convinced the better half that a 3-group is in order in your kitchen. Its a beauty.

PC

[Tim356]

Karl,

I do enjoy reading your posts on this forum. I would very much to hear your decision making process to acquire the 2002 Olympia and let the reconditioned Cremina go. I would also like to read more of your thoughts regarding the taste/crema differences between these two Olympias. I purchased my Elektra Micro Casa A Leva last year from Chris's Coffee. I am now considering the purchase of a used Cremina. I do love the taste quality, steaming power and looks I get with the Elektra. I continue to envy the crema I read about from so many Olympia 67 purists here. From your last post with the 2002, it appears the taste quality of your shot is getting nearer the Elektra. Your thoughts please...

Tim

[KarlSchneider]

Karl,

I would very much to hear your decision making process to acquire the 2002 Olympia and let the reconditioned Cremina go.

Tim

Tim,

Let me address your questions separately. To be perfectly honest I had abandoned all hope of getting a 2002. I know there will be a new production of them but the projected price might be prohibitive. I wanted a 2002 for one reason only. I wanted to know if it made different espresso. And, if so, was it better than my 67. Having concluded I would not find a 2002 I decided to have my 67 mechanically restored so that it would last as long as possible. While it was out being worked on the Millenium/2002 appeared on Craigslist and I was able to get it.

Tasting espresso from the two side by side has convinced me that the answer to my original question is that they do not make different espresso. I am convinced that I would not be able to distinguish shots from one or the other in a blind test. Others might but I cannot.

I suspect that this tells us something about Olympia. They have a very clear style of espresso they want to produce. They may modify their machines but the espresso is to be the same classic profile. I would guess that Olympia designed these machines to be small commercial machines and not for the home market at all. A small restaurant might want a very well made small machine to produce a classic espresso. Remember that home espresso machines came long after the Cremina appeared. Commercial establishments want consistent high quality. In a small package the Cremina is unsurpassed at giving consistent high quality.

So, I decided to offer the 67 because I know these machines are hard to find. The Millenium / 2002 is better mechanically and should be more durable than even the 67. That is my sole reason for keeping the one over the other.

KS

[KarlSchneider]

Karl,

I would also like to read more of your thoughts regarding the taste/crema differences between these two Olympias. I purchased my Elektra Micro Casa A Leva last year from Chris's Coffee. I am now considering the purchase of a used Cremina. I do love the taste quality, steaming power and looks I get with the Elektra. I continue to envy the crema I read about from so many Olympia 67 purists here. From your last post with the 2002, it appears the taste quality of your shot is getting nearer the Elektra. Your thoughts please...

Tim

Tim,

Let me start here by saying the Creminas both produce great crema. They produce far more than the Elektra Microcasa a leva. They produce more and better crema than my ECM Giotto HX did. A fresh Brazil can put 30 ml of beautiful crema that is speckled and streaked with darker flecks and tracks.

While I did observe that Cremina shots pulled at the high end of the pressure scale do have more clarity like one gets in an Elektra, I would also say that the Creminas clearly make a different kind of shot. This week my espresso has been a Brazil Coromandel Faz. Sao Joao. As always I started with the Elektra because it always gives me the purest taste of each coffee. By the second evening I knew the taste of this roast and that it was not suited for the Elektra's style.. Moving to the Cremina made a series of really good espressos. They had a heavy generic coffee flavor with a layer of chocolate. The taste was not complex but the Cremina clearly made the best of what this coffee could be. I just roasted the coming week's dry processed Ethiopian. Chances are I will never move to the Cremina because the Elektra shots will be unbeatable. Ethiopians can go both ways.

I think you would be very pleased to add a Cremina to your collection. It would give you a wider range to explore. I do not think a Cremina can make shots like an Elektra. I would never give up the Elektra. As I have said before, I think an Elektra and a Cremina make the ultimate home 2-group.

KS

[KarlSchneider]

What do you attribute to the OC 2002's over dosing sensitivity?

Joel,

The 2002 has a re-designed group. One difference is that the shower screen protrudes down into the pf further than it does on a 67. Thus there is less headspace on a 2002 using the same basket. This difference is small but enough to make a slight difference in dosing. I suspect one could put a basket tamped level with the top edge of the basket in a 67 and get a good pull. Not so on the 2002.

I also note that I have never had the slightest hint of a sneeze on the 67 no matter how soon I remove the pf. The 2002 occasionally gives a very polite sneeze. The Elektra Microcasa a leva is a different story.

KS

[KarlSchneider]

I wanted a 2002 for one reason only. I wanted to know if it made different espresso. And, if so, was it better than my 67.

Tasting espresso from the two side by side has convinced me that the answer to my original question is that they do not make different espresso. I am convinced that I would not be able to distinguish shots from one or the other in a blind test. Others might but I cannot.

I wrote the above a little over a month ago. Dan Kehn brought up this question again in another recent thread. Since I am in the extraordinarily lucky position of having both a 67 and a Millenium/2002 I thought I should take another look.

This evening I had two shots from each. The beans were Brazil Cachoeira Yellow Bourbon DP roasted 58 hours ago to a french roast. The first from each machine were ground very fine and made for a pull that was over 40 sec. and required more pressure than usual. Both had great mottled crema and did not taste over-extracted. Both were a bit one dimensional as is usual for 48 hour roasts. The 67 pull required even more pressure and tasted a little bit more concentrated. I attribute the differences in taste to differences in my technique and not to the machines' differences. The two machines do work in subtly different ways, or, better feel different.
One difference I noted is that they have different heating characteristics. I turned both on well in advance. The 67 was closer to too hot on the first pull. The Millenium/2002 does have more stable temperature as noted by temperature in the cup and not by thermometer readings.

Since I thought the first ones were too tight I backed my grinder off one click. I may note that I once thought a stepless grinder was better than a stepped. I now much prefer my stepped Fiorenzato with its small steps between each notch. I can adjust it more finely than I ever managed with my stepless Mazzer. One more shot from each produced again two different shots. As has been noted on HB more than twice the differences were based, I am convinced, on the side of the pf opposite the machine. These were actually closer. Both had quite pretty crema, a nice simple chocolate core taste and very rich texture. I thought the Millenium/2002 tasted a tiny bit more elegant. I continue to notice small difference in use. The Millenium/2002 is less forgiving. I was a bit too soon releasing the pf and had a small sneeze.

My basic response so far remains the same. They produce espresso that is far more like each other than different.

KS

[roadman]

Thanks for that update Karl.

Jon