Titan Grinder Project - Page 10

[HughF]

>snip<
I was looking for an easy way of coming up with 14g doses and I guess that just does not exist. SO -- I took the bull by the horns and pulled out a 1/10g scale I'd bought on "suggestion" of Jim Schulman. Scales with this accuracy, although not really that expensive (this one was around $32), do not have a very high maximum weight; in the case of this scale, it is 300g. You risk damaging the scale by putting more than that weight on it, and in any event it won't work beyond that weight, so Tare-ing a PF (even a bottomless one) will not work if you want to weigh shots.

So, I decided to dose into a ramekin, which thankfully weighed less than 200g, and decided to use 14 g. I got both Maxs and the new Compak adjusted to that dose, and have now pulled Brazil Yellow Bourbon, Heather's WBC blend, and some Biloya out of these grinders at that dose out of my modified Cimbali Junior D, PID'd to deliver shots, currently set at a brew temp around 199F.

>snip<

I use a MyWeigh i1200 0.1g scale which handles 1200g - it cost me £85 + shipping in the UK - and my bottomless LS PF weighs 490g. It is faster than dosing into Tupperware which I used to do with just a 100g scale. Also, striking off the excess probably disturbs the nice distribution from a doser grinder less than transferring grounds from another container. If you are using a Titan grinder, it may well be worth the extra cost over a scale which cannot tare a PF.

Cheers,

Hugh

P.S. AnotherJim : Many thanks for investigating optimum doses from the Titan grinders, I'm trying 13.5g from the "relatively small Macap" MXK now and I think it's a definite improvement though I will experiment more later. Previously I had only tried doses from 16g to 19g before settling back at the 17g recommended in the HB review of the S1.

[Ken Fox]

I use a MyWeigh i1200 0.1g scale which handles 1200g - it cost me £85 + shipping in the UK - and my bottomless LS PF weighs 490g. It is faster than dosing into Tupperware which I used to do with just a 100g scale. Also, striking off the excess probably disturbs the nice distribution from a doser grinder less than transferring grounds from another container. If you are using a Titan grinder, it may well be worth the extra cost over a scale which cannot tare a PF.

Cheers,

Hugh

I have a somewhat similar scale with an accuracy up to 0.5g, which can handle 3kg if memory serves. It was made by Escali and cost around $55 from Amazon. It is considered a "lab scale." I think that 0.5g accuracy would probably be sufficient for these purposes.

What I'm finding, however, is that at least with conical grinders (and I'm considering the Max as a conical for these purposes, as well as my new Compak) that, at least with doses around 14g, I'm having no distribution or resultant channeling problems simply dosing into a ceramic ramekin and then transferring the coffee into the PF. I'm also finding that the process takes very little extra time as I need to do less cleanup afterwards from grinder mess as the ramekin sits nicely on the grinder PF forks, and catches all the coffee coming out of the dosers. It is also very easy to distribute 14g into a double PF basket with a teaspoon which takes about 2 seconds.

I don't know whether planar grinders would have problems with this approach, although I could pull out my old Junior or Cadet to test it. Jim has previously reported that the lower doses one encounters in Italy don't result in the channeling that we commonly see in places using larger doses of coffee.

ken

[cannonfodder]

Wow. The Robur looks like you could not mess up a shot from the flat TDS. I think that alone would enough reason to get one in a commercial environment. The variance in shot from a very consistent and experienced barista vs. those from a novice who throws the dose all over the scale would be minor. I do see where this consistency may be a problem for a home user that likes to experiment with the profiles generated from dosing differences. I wonder how the Kony will fit in.

[another_jim]

Wow. The Robur looks like you could not mess up a shot from the flat TDS. I think that alone would enough reason to get one in a commercial environment. The variance in shot from a very consistent and experienced barista vs. those from a novice who throws the dose all over the scale would be minor. I do see where this consistency may be a problem for a home user that likes to experiment with the profiles generated from dosing differences. I wonder how the Kony will fit in.

I'm beginning to think the Kony, with it's reported brightness, may be somewhat different from the MXK. If the Super Jolly is extra mellow, it may be that every grinder is going to taste bright in comparison. In any case, since I like the MXK from a usability standpoint, I've done quite a few private shots on it; and I'm not finding it bright in comparison to all the other grinders on the table.

I have no idea if the TDS data in any way predicts taste differences between grinders (it does predict taste differences between doses from the same grinder, but I'm not seeing that much carry over to grinder to grinder comparisons). If you want to use the TDS data to see which grinders are similar, here is the data laid out in terms of showing similarities and differences:



The horizontal axis shows the average TDS for each grinder, with the Mini the highest, and the Versalab the lowest. The vertical axis shows how much the TDS varies by dose, again with the Mini as highest, and the Robur as lowest. The closer the grinders are together, the more similar they are in respect to extraction.

However, it's interesting to find out that if you really sweat the details, and use a blend with high potential, getting it just right versus about right easily trumps which grinder you are using.

I did three rounds of blind tasting today with the Robur, the MXK, and the Compak, the three grinders which have people the most interested. Three shots is about the limit of what I can prepare and make in a 5 minute interval, so the earliest ground coffee doesn't suffer. In this case, I used a home roast with aged Sumatra and Yemen Ismaili. When the shot is just right, the taste unfolds into layers of complexity, the taste equivalent of finding yourself inside an Escher print. If the shot is off, all you get is wood and leather, yech.

As it happens, in each round, a different grinder was slightly off. It always lost that round. The difference between the off scores and on scores were greater than the difference between the winning and losing grinder. Here are the results, for the total, the flavor and body score are multiplied by two.

-------------------------------------------
Grinder & Pour    Crema Flavor Body   Total
-------------------------------------------
Compak 1, good     4.0   4.0    3.5    19
Compak 2, tight    4.0   3.0    3.0    16
Compak 3, good     4.0   4.5    3.5    20
   Total                               55
-------------------------------------------
MXK 1, good        4.0   3.5    3.0    17
MXK 2, good        4.0   3.5    3.5    18
MXK 3, loose       3.5   3.5    3.5    17.5
   Total                               52.5
-------------------------------------------
Robur 1, loose     3.5   3.0    3.0    15.5
Robur 2, good      4.0   3.5    3.0    17
Robur 3, good      3.5   4.0    3.5    18.5
   Total                               51
-------------------------------------------
Off Pours Total                        49
On Pours Total / 2                     55
-------------------------------------------

Having actually bought the thing, I'm relieved the Compak has finally won a blind test round. I was beginning to think I'd sprung for the lamest of the lot.

[k7qz]

Jim:

Thanks again for the effort which you (and others!) have expended on behalf of this project. I remain intrigued by your findings as they unfold.

Although not part of this particular line-up, if you were to speculate, where would you guess a "Titan" flat burr grinder, such as the Major, might fall on the solubles yield graph?

As I queried earlier in this thread, I still have the "Does size matter?" (burr set, motor output, grind pathway) question in mind and wonder how said Major might stack up against the Robur (or Kony).

-Michael

[another_jim]

Although not part of this particular line-up, if you were to speculate, where would you guess a "Titan" flat burr grinder, such as the Major, might fall on the solubles yield graph?

As I queried earlier in this thread, I still have the "Does size matter?" (burr set, motor output, grind pathway) question in mind and wonder how said Major might stack up against the Robur (or Kony).

I don't know where big flat burr grinders would fall on solubles yield, or how sloped they would look; however, I'm guessing they'd tend to be more dose sensitive than the conicals.

But keep in mind that what we are looking at is not part of the grinders' design purpose. They are designed to produce a certain particle distribution at grinds suitable for 7 and 14 gram doses of Italian espresso blends. My guess is that all the grinders are pretty much the same when doing this. As far as the makers are concerned, you pay for speed and reliability, not better grind quality. These grinders are then exported to the US, where they are used at odd doses, intermittently, at grind settings not anticipated by the builders. I rather think all this testing is just to find out which of these grinders screws up the least when (mis)used like this.

Finally, it doesn't look like size matters for the gross extraction data - the Lux, a tiny grinder, and the Robur were virtually identical in my solubles measures. However, what is being extracted may be different even if two grinders have the same raw numbers. For instance, the MXK and M7KR, also virtual twins on solubles yields, taste rather different from one another. So while these figures are illuminating when comparing the same grinder at different doses, they might not be meaningful when comparing different grinders.

I'm sorry we can't give definitive answers yet. All our testing is raising new questions that need addressing before the simple one "which grinder tastes best" can be sensibly answered. However, it looks like the answer may be that they are all close enough in taste that ergonomic issues may be more important. This means questions like which grinder is easiest to use given the way you work, which one is most forgiving if you change blends often, which one is most perfectly tunable if you work with one blend at a time, etc. etc. are the ones that you should look at. My personal obsession with how the grinders taste is because I use a lot with light roasted, acidic coffees, and I'm jonesing for an espresso grinder that can bring up the same nuances I find when brewing these coffees. This is probably irrelevant to most potential buyers.

[k7qz]

I'm sorry we can't give definitive answers yet. All our testing is raising new questions that need addressing before the simple one "which grinder tastes best" can be sensibly answered. However, it looks like the answer may be that they are all close enough in taste that ergonomic issues may be more important. This means questions like which grinder is easiest to use given the way you work, which one is most forgiving if you change blends often, which one is most perfectly tunable if you work with one blend at a time, etc. etc. are the ones that you should look at.

Thanks for taking a stab at my question Jim!

Reminds me of a sign that was posted in the UCLA Chemistry dept. some years ago (it could still be there I suppose!):

I fully realize that I have not succeeded in answering all of your questions... Indeed, I feel I have not answered any of them completely. The answers I have found only serve to raise a whole new set of questions, which only lead to more problems, some of which we weren't even aware were problems. To sum it all up... In some ways I feel we are confused as ever, but I believe we are confused on a higher level, and about more important things.

-Regards

[HB]

And now for the entertainment portion of this review, see Jim's Titan Grinder Project: Can it Beat the Mazzer Robur?

[cannonfodder]

That looks like a scale drawing of the Robur and Mini.

[AndyS]

The conicals show either no slope (Robur and Lux) or very mild ones (the others). Given that the slope on the two flats has been replicated, this result seems like a significant difference between the two types of grinders.

I did a very small series of solubles yield tests today (graph is displayed below).

As you indicate, with the Robur grinder, changing the dose doesn't seem to make an appreciable difference in the solubles yield. Very strange.


Notes:
1. Green dots are 13.5 g doses, purple dots are 17.5 g doses. All were done in the same triple basket.
2. The horizontal scale is brewing ratio (grams dry coffee divided by grams wet beverage). Dots to the left represent "traditional doubles," as you move to the right the dots represent "ristrettos" and one "ultra-ristretto."
3. I should have pulled a LOT more shots, but the results are still pretty compelling: the 13.5 g dose shots fall right in line with the 17.5 g shots.

[HB]

Over the last few weeks, we've looked at particle distributions, extraction solubles yields, and even scanning electron microscope photos as a means of correlating in-cup results with the grinders' physical metrics. Fascinating stuff!


A weekend's worth of pucks...

However, in the opening remarks of this thread, I posed the question that motivated this project: "What am I missing from a more modestly sized home unit, if anything, compared to big commercial grinders in use at the best cafes?" In other words, I believe the evaluation should focus on the results that a typical HB member could expect to duplicate in their own home. I'm interested in how the choice of equipment can contribute to realized benefits for the average home barista, not just theoretical benefits only attainable by the innately skilled and highly initiated.

With that in mind, let's summarize the scores from my blind taste tests:

Round 1: Kony 3, Super Jolly 1
Round 2: Kony 2, Super Jolly 1, 1 tie
Round 3: Kony 2, Super Jolly 1
Round 4: Kony 0, Super Jolly 3
Round 5: Kony 1, Super Jolly 3
Overall: Kony 8, Super Jolly 9, 1 tie

This weekend was all Counter Culture Coffee's Aficionado espresso blend:

When the modern espresso machine entered this milieu, the coffee blend of choice naturally reflected the Northern Italian taste: coffee flavors are balanced against one another; the natural sweetness of lightly roasted coffees offset their aromatic complexity and dance above a full-bodied foundation. The Northern Italian espresso would not be complete without a touch of fruity Eastern Ethiopian or Yemeni coffee, a reminder of the coffees traded by the Venetians. The final product is sophisticated and complex, and perfectly suited to the Northern Italian espresso ristretto and the traditional cappuccino. Espresso Aficionado evokes the marble countertops, rococo decor, and the sweet elaborate pastries and brioschi of the coffee bars of Venice, Milan, and Trieste.

We call our Northern Italian coffee blend Espresso Aficionado as a nod to the espresso purists who wax poetic over this, the most complex and challenging of the espresso styles. As with all lightly roasted espresso blends, it can be challenging to pull, and requires slightly hotter temperatures, say 203 degrees, to extract all its potential sweetness.

Aficionado is Counter Culture's "espresso purist" blend; La Forza is their chocolate bomb blend for milk drinks and Toscano is their popular sweet, nutty espresso blend. To keep things simple, most of the above scores were only preference of one over the other, but this weekend I scored each espresso using the SCAA scoring sheet. For example, a pair from yesterday:

Mazzer Super Jolly:
Crema appearance: 3.5
Crema persistence: 3.0
Tactile balance: 3.0
Taste balance: 3.0
Overall: 3.0

Mazzer Kony:
Crema appearance: 3.0
Crema persistence: 4.0
Tactile balance: 3.5
Taste balance: 3.5
Overall: 3.5

Prior to the start of the Titan Grinder Project, I thought the Kony would be the one to beat. Surprisingly, the Super Jolly has held its own round after round. Although the Kony won 8 of the blind taste matches, it was usually a close call, just as it was today where 0.5 point separated the two espressos. Does this mean then that it would be a waste of money to upgrade from a Mazzer Mini / Mazzer Super Jolly to one of the conicals represented in this review? Not necessarily. One difference that has been evident to me is the relative "forgiveness factor" of these two classes of grinders. I've not posted much about it, but I've had the Cimbali Max for the last few months on loan from T.J. and I've also logged a few months behind the Macap conical (it was a loaner from Chris Coffee as part of EspressoFest 2006 in Charlotte, NC that took the long scenic route through my kitchen on its way back to Albany ). In terms of the forgiveness factor I've been mulling over for months, my informal ranking is:

Mazzer Mini < (Mazzer Super Jolly | Cimbali Max) < (Macap conical | Mazzer Kony)

Note: I reserve the right to revisit this ranking. For example, the Jolly and Max / Macap and Kony could be switched in terms of pulling a proper extraction; they're very close. But in terms of realized benefits for this barista, the more forgiving grinders represented in the TGP produced less sink shots and higher total scores than my usual grinder, the Mazzer Mini.

Concluding thoughts... Tuned to the optimal extraction, the Mazzer Super Jolly and Kony are very close. Maddeningly close. With some blends, especially those with booming chocolate notes, they were nearly indistinguishable. For lighter, more nuanced espresso blends, differences emerged, the Kony favoring greater separation of flavors and brighter, more citrus notes. These characteristics were the "tell" it was an extraction from the Kony. Although the Super Jolly and Kony frequently exchanged scores on tactile balance (i.e., does it feel full bodied, round, and viscous), I noted a more buttery mouthfeel to the Kony espressos, despite that the two espresso had similar weight on the tongue.

[jesawdy]

A weekend's worth of pucks...

Err, Dan, I hope you had some company, or that you didn't drink all that! Yowza !

I've have been using the Cimbali Max exclusively for the last month or so, and I rarely make day to day adjustments to the grind setting. Typically, I only adjust the grind for a new coffee or a change in dose, and pretty much never for day to day variations. I went through the better part of 5 pounds of PT's Bella Espresso, pulling some from the freezer each week, and left the grind setting alone. I will be curious to see how the other Titans compare.

Most of my grinder hours have been logged on a Rancilio Rocky... and to be fair, it didn't get LOTS of adjustment either (although it would over a week's time), but it did have lot of variation in the results. Being a stepped grinder, I vary the dose as much as I vary the grind setting to achieve the desired results.

[cannonfodder]

I noted a more buttery mouthfeel to the Kony espressos, despite that the two espresso had similar weight on the tongue.

I had the same observation, the Kony had a better mouthfeel, very palate coating. I still find your taste results interesting. My taste testing revealed obvious differences between the Super Jolly and Kony, most of the time.

I must mention that I have a preference for brighter, fruited blends and shy away from some of the deeper blends. To be honest about it, I don't care much for Black Cat, RedLine is more my speed. I thought the Kony took those bright flavors and pushed them over the top, they went from bright, sweet and fruity to harsh and overpowering.

My knockbox looked like that a couple of times. 6 double espressos in a day will give you a buzz, 12 will give you a heart attack, 20 will make your brain explode. After that many shots, even dirt tastes like espresso.

[another_jim]

... 6 double espressos in a day will give you a buzz, 12 will give you a heart attack, 20 will make your brain explode. After that many shots, even dirt tastes like espresso.

Yep. That's one of the reasons for doing the "beat the Robur" thing -- a pair of shots to compare, wait a few hours and repeat. It's a nice stress free way to get through the tasting job.

[k7qz]

Hey Dan (and others):

I'd be interested in your ranking of some SO shots between the Jolly and the conicals. What I've noticed in running SO's between my Mini E and Kony is... You know, I think I'll just wait to see what you taste in the cup as a way to verify whether or not I'm imagining this difference...

The other thing I've noticed with the conical is that because of a (perceived?) better definition of taste in the cup, that I've extended my "window" of peak flavor on most blends by two or three days.

Anyone else noticed this latter finding?

[HB]

I can tell you that both the Kony and the Robur like having some beans in the hopper.

This post from Greg Scace has long been buried in this thread, but deserves UNBURYING. I think that Greg made a very valid point and one that needs to be considered in this thread and in all its "derivatives."

Follow-on discussion split to Is single dose [without hopper] grinding inconsistent?...

[another_jim]

The testing today completes my first round with the TGP grinders, and it's time for me to state my interim conclusions.

First off, the big commercial conicals clobber the home grinders like the Lux, and even semi-pro grinders line the Mini and the M3 when it comes to pulling consistent shots. The bottom line on this is simple -- no sink shots at all, the grinders dial in with one or two test shots, and stayed dialed in for however long the coffee lasts. No off shots, and even the small grinder adjustments I used to make to the Mini and M3 from shot to shot are reduced to the vanishing point.

This consistency is probably related to another property of these conicals -- ultra even flow. If the shot starts in a dribble, the grind is too tight, because it will stay a dribble. I've become used to seeing the flow accelerate with my previous grinders. If this happens with the conicals, it is invisible to the eye. It looks like the flow turns on, and runs steady from there on out. The Versalab never had this characteristic, so it may be something only conical grinders do. Or it could be that the bigger planar grinders with adequate transmissions will also do this.

When it comes to taste, things become more subtle. In the early blind testing I did on my own and with Marc, I used some blends that were not open ended in terms of flavor, but which had a distinct and mediocre ceiling. For these coffees, there is little advantage, taste-wise, to using a large conical.

I'll probably get some grief for this statement, but I think this caveat also applies to the main line, "comfort food" espresso blends like Black Cat, Toscano, Ambrosia, and Palladino. These are fine coffees; but they are masterfully designed to be forgiving and consistent over a wide range of circumstances. This is a desirable property, but it also means that good quality low end grinders will do them just as well as the high end ones.

However, when it comes to light roasted SOs and competition blends, the story changes. In Marc's blind tasting round of Klatch's USBC blend, the Mini lost every round, in subsequent rounds with less storied blends, it did just as well. In my "Beat the Robur" tastings, using a blend very similar in concept, the semi-pro grinders put on a good show, but were clearly beaten. The commercial conicals were so close the Robur that deciding the winner was a judgment call. If you want to taste high end coffees to their full extent, a high end commercial conical grinders will do better than a basic commercial grinder. If that is out of the question, and you have a high threshold for annoyance, the Lux and other grinders using the Trespade conical burr may be a better call for this than the small commercial flat burr grinders like the Mini.

Dan has arranged for me to hold on to the Robur and MXK for a few days when the Jolly and Kony come in, so that they can enter the "Beat the Robur" stakes, and more importantly, that Marc and I can do another round of formal blind taste testing, using the experience gained from the first round to get the wrinkles out.

I'm very curious to see how these grinders fit in. It looks like Dan is giving the nod to the Kony, and fitting the Max and Super Jolly in somewhere in the middle, between the conicals and the small flats. John and Dave on the other hand, think the Super Jolly equals the conicals, and Ken has the same opinion of the Max. So while my take of the conicals versus the semi-pro grinders is probably the consensus of all the testers, we are heading for some disagreements about how good the"full commercial" flat burr grinders are. Stay tuned.

Finally, another thank you to Jim P of 1st-line equipment, the sponsor. This project has ballooned way beyond a simple review of his top end grinders, and changed into an extended meditation on all things grinder. I hope he isn't too annoyed by this; and I hope when the dust settles, it will create an informed consumer market for these dream machines.

[HB]

Split follow-on discussion to Duranium burrs for Mazzer Super Jolly grinder...

Finally, another thank you to Jim P of 1st-line equipment, the sponsor. This project has ballooned way beyond a simple review of his top end grinders, and changed into an extended meditation on all things grinder.

I add my thanks to yours. By the way, should HB members happen to chat with the good folks at 1st-line equipment, consider extending your thanks too, if you're so inclined. Earlier this year Jim P mentioned several members expressed their gratitude for 1st-line's sponsorship of the Holiday Wish List Gifts (Mazzer Mini + discounts) and it meant a lot to them.

I have focused on the Mazzer Kony / Super Jolly + Duranium burrs since my time with the Titan's is rapidly coming to a close. After dialing in both grinders this morning, I only had time for two side-by-side blind taste tests using Counter Culture's Aficionado blend. The blend seems lower in acidity, less fruity, and bigger in chocolates than I recall; I'll have to ask Peter if its flavor profile has shifted or my memory is failing (or both!). To the results:

Round 1:

Mazzer Super Jolly:
Crema appearance: 4.0
Crema persistence: 4.0
Tactile balance: 3.5
Taste balance: 4.0
Overall: 4.0 (yum!)

Mazzer Kony:
Crema appearance: 3.0
Crema persistence: 3.0
Tactile balance: 3.5
Taste balance: 3.5
Overall: 3.5

Round 2:

Mazzer Super Jolly:
Crema appearance: 4.0
Crema persistence: 4.0
Tactile balance: 3.5
Taste balance: 3.0
Overall: 3.5

Mazzer Kony:
Crema appearance: 3.0
Crema persistence: 3.0
Tactile balance: 3.0
Taste balance: 3.0
Overall: 3.0

The Super Jolly with Duranium burrs took both rounds by a hair. I cannot say whether the new burrs affected the scores. Although I borrowed Lino's Super Jolly, I've not done any blind side-by-side taste tests using it. My impressions above are from dialing in the two Super Jolly's. My preliminary thoughts on the early extractions with the Duraniums: If you're a latte lover who craves bass notes and chocolates, it may be worth checking into these space age burrs next time you change them. That said, it wasn't a blind taste test and thus my comments should be given appropriate weight (read: near zero ). I will try to squeeze in a couple more Jolly taste tests before shipping the Titans to the HB Grinder Depot, also known as Jim Schulman's apartment.

[cedar]

I recently saw the Anfim Super Caimano, and it is getting some pretty good (but limited press) press.

For instance here:

http://forum.coffeed.com/viewtopic.php?t=1171

Burrs are 75mm, built with a solid geometry that works well with the RPM, (aprox 800). You get a range of grind particle variance that is very, very good. Slightly more fines than a mazzer major, slightly less than a Robur. I am not saying this grinder is perfect, but it is a solid step in the right direction. I know a chain of stores that uses this grinder and roburs, and hands down it seems to outperform the roburs according to the baristas, and also what I saw.

and

I was part of a massive test on these grinders, i can say that for the cost, usability, and amazing accuracy of dosing, it is about the best grinder readily available.

More discussion in that thread about the grinder, especially regarding how well it doses.
(hope it's OK to quote you here Philip)

Also here:

http://www.home-barista.com/forum...s-t4443.html#50030

My favorite shop in Victoria BC recently got an Anfim Super Caimano. In concert with their 3 group Synesso, the improvement in shot quality over the Super Jolly and the Macap MK7 was nothing short of astounding.

The Caimano models are available with titanium burrs (see: http://anfim.net/en/prodotti.html); 49th Parallel is bringing them into Canada: http://www.49thparallelroasters.com/storeGrinders.html

Any thoughts about including a Super Caimano in some of this TGP analysis? (apologies if the SC has been discussed earlier in this long thread.)

cheers,

Stephen Duff

[another_jim]

Any thoughts about including a Super Caimano in some of this TGP analysis? (apologies if the SC has been discussed earlier in this long thread.)

The grinders in this review are sponsored or our own; in other words: you supply, we try.

A caveat. Originally, this was supposed to be a test of grinders that were a step up from the Mini class; but still somewhat proportioned for home use. This is basically the Jolly, the Max, the MXK and the Kony. The Robur and the 68mm conicals got added as references; but without some drastic surgery, none are suitable for home use, even by the generous standards with which we use the term. The Major class grinders, like the Caimano, have roughly the same dimensions as these, so would also be a tough fit on a kitchen counter. And we are no longer talking about fitting under the cabinets here, that ship sailed long ago; these things also have very large and counter unfriendly footprints.