Upgrade to Versalab M3 grinder?

[HB]

I've dodged upgrade fever in recent years. Some mighty fine espresso machines have graced HB's bench, and the Elektra A3 was really, really tempting (sorry, no amount of rationale could sway the master of the kitchen). But I've failed to squelch the Siren's song that began the day I saw this picture:


From the Bench review of the Versalab M3 grinder

The strangest things will impress a barista, don't you think? For weeks, Abe and his posse regaled us with pictures and commentary; my mind started clicking through the calculations... lemme see, $850... that's two Mazzer Minis. Ouch. Despite the eye-bulging pricetag, I could feel my grip on the Visa card weakening. "Hey, it would be better for testing espresso equipment, right?" I reasoned. Then a week after the Internet chatter of the M3 rose, so did the price: $1250. Gulp.

Is this crazy? Should I cede to the Siren's taunts, or put it out of my mind and be happy with my two grinders (Mazzer Mini and Super Jolly)?

[lennoncs]

I think it is one Heck of a lot of green for that grinder.

I wouldn't bat an eye if it were not for a couple of reasons.

1. Versalab is one buggar of a company to deal with and consistency is not one of their strong points, they really need to learn how to run an organization that deals with the public.
2. The build is nice but not the work of art people seem to think it is and the company made omissions and oversights in the name of "artistic" concerns. My view is grinder "first and foremost" let the form follow.

That said, it probably is one of the best out there for grind quality although Greg S. is very happy with the Kony.



Sean "Sliding on ablative heat shielding" Lennon

[barry]

it's messy. really messy.

[Abe Carmeli]

it's messy. really messy.

If you use a tray to catch the grinds, it really isn't much more mess than my Mini. I used the Mini tray for that job.

[another_jim]

Well, I bought one; and I think it's slight improvement over a conventional commercial grinder. The same level of improvement can be had from commercial conicals as well. At the old ca. $900 price, the M3 had a significant price advantage. At $1200, the nod would go to the Kony at the same price, since the company is more solid, and the parts situation wouldn't be as murky.

The delivery system is interesting, but needs improvement. For my cupping needs it's ideal, since the cups I use fit snugly against the funnel. However, many cups do not, and then the grinder makes a mess. I use the bubblewrap to wedge the espresso baskets against the funnel, and that works nicely. However, holding a portafilter oneself while it's grinding, is to my mind, simply an insult, a task worthy of a village idiot. So the buyer will need to rig up some sort of PF rest to prevent this frustration, since the design is too "pure" to have bothered with that.

[barry]

If you use a tray to catch the grinds, it really isn't much more mess than my Mini. I used the Mini tray for that job.

use it as a cupping grinder instead of an espresso grinder.... ugh.


--barry "still picking grounds out of my keyboard"

[JonR10]

It surely does a great job, but IMO it's way too expensive. For $1200 you could get a PAIR of Mazzer Mini-E grinders (one for decaf) and then you would have well-tested technology with a reputation for bulletproof build quality and readily available parts.

So, even though the grind quality and natural even distribution of the M3 may be superior I couldn't see buying one myself for that price. The Mazzer does good enough for me...

[Teme]

I have been wrestling with a similar dilemma - to go for the M3 or a MiniE? The MiniE is faster, makes less mess and it is more practical in daily use (no bean feed issues like the M3 and it has the PF rest). Still, the grind distribution pattern, the unique appearance and the potential for even better espresso made the M3 very tempting. If money and counter space were not an issue, I would have both of these grinders. But these are an issue for me and I have decided to go for the MiniE.

I.e. I voted no for personal reasons, but if you have the spare money and the space that allows the M3 to be your second grinder -I say go for it...

Br,
Teme

[HB]

Still, the grind distribution pattern, the unique appearance and the potential for even better espresso made the M3 very tempting.

It's also quite compact compared to the Kony. Even though I had some plausible rationale based on improving the quality of HB's equipment writeups, my temptation dropped off considerably with the price hike. Funny how the price remained the same for over a year, then within weeks of the first active discussion of it on the Internet -- bam! -- the price increases by over forty percent?!? Add to that Jim's comments about the poor ergonomics and extra mess, it's hard to stomach such an extraordinarily high premium.

Thanks for the comments and votes, it made my decision easier: I'm putting the money into my kids' college fund instead.

[another_jim]

At $1200, the nod would go to the Kony at the same price, since the company is more solid, and the parts situation wouldn't be as murky.

I got a letter from Laura Dearborn saying that Versalab prides itself for carrying spare parts for everything they've ever produced, and that people can be confident about the M3 on that score.

My original post didn't mean to impugn Versalab on its spareparts policy, rather it referred to the inherently greater risk for the buyer in dealing with any small newcomers to any industry as opposed to the established companies. While such caution is prudent for the buyer; it is certainly unfair to the startup company. However, that's business; and the startup has to offer superior price/performance in order to thrive.

[AndyS]

I got a letter from Laura Dearborn saying that Versalab prides itself for carrying spare parts for everything they've ever produced, and that people can be confident about the M3 on that score.

My original post didn't mean to impugn Versalab on its spareparts policy, rather it referred to the inherently greater risk for the buyer in dealing with any small newcomers to any industry as opposed to the established companies. While such caution is prudent for the buyer; it is certainly unfair to the startup company. However, that's business; and the startup has to offer superior price/performance in order to thrive.

As you know, Jim, this is particularly ironic in Versalab's case. They designed the M3 grinder around the four-piece Italian DRM burrset which is emphatically praised by David Schomer. When Versa finally began to produce the grinders, they discovered that two of the four pieces were no longer being manufactured. Talk about a "murky" parts situation.

They ended up having the missing burrs made in the US.

[another_jim]

If you use a tray to catch the grinds, it really isn't much more mess than my Mini. I used the Mini tray for that job.

use it as a cupping grinder instead of an espresso grinder.... ugh.


--barry "still picking grounds out of my keyboard"

I thought it absolutely terrific as a cupping grinder; but I wedged the cups to seal against the funnel with a bubblewrap base. What stops you from doing something like that?

This could be a major market for Versalab, since the design seems friendly for cupping use. I would think a minor mod would fix the problem.

[HB]

Instead of holding the portafilter like the "village idiot" or wedging cups beneath the funnel with bubblewrap, I would fashion something a little more elegant:



A local cabinet maker named David Thaxton crafted it. With some adaptation, it might work within the clearance of the M3's funnel. Similarly EspressoParts.com had a solid aluminum tamping stand at their SCAA booth that could serve much the same purpose (sorry, not sure if they have added it to their website). Of course this adds the cost of modifications to an already expensive grinder... on the other hand, it is hard to deny the "can do" appeal of Jim's solution:

[another_jim]

Instead of holding the portafilter like the "village idiot" or wedging cups beneath the funnel with bubblewrap, I would fashion something a little more elegant:

There's a problem with a stand like that; although I have to admit it's more elegant than bubblewrap. Such a stand would have to slide into place horizontally. But the grinds overtop the basket in a mound, so sliding out the PF after grinding would spill the grinds (the bubblewrap was my "mark 2" basket carrier -- it may look awful, but it's still better than my bathsponge). The PF, basket, or cup has to removed downward, not sideways. So an elegant stand would require a bit of ingenuity, not just a dab hand with machine tools.

[barry]

I thought it absolutely terrific as a cupping grinder; but I wedged the cups to seal against the funnel with a bubblewrap base. What stops you from doing something like that?

time. and we're not using the same cups.

i found it worthless to grind directly into filter cones or into cups which didn't come up past the base of the cone. on thursday, i used some cupping glasses which go up about a half inch or so past the base of the cone, and even then, the quantity of grounds left on the plastic cone rim was completely unacceptable (totally fuzzed up the ring). maybe it would be less of a problem at a coarser grind; i'll have to try that out this week.


hey, are you going to be at the intelly barista competition?

[another_jim]

hey, are you going to be at the intelly barista competition?

First I've heard about it.

[barry]

call marcus and ask if you can sit in, or judge, even.

[DavidMLewis]

i found it worthless to grind directly into filter cones or into cups which didn't come up past the base of the cone. on thursday, i used some cupping glasses which go up about a half inch or so past the base of the cone, and even then, the quantity of grounds left on the plastic cone rim was completely unacceptable (totally fuzzed up the ring). maybe it would be less of a problem at a coarser grind; i'll have to try that out this week.

I'm really surprised. When I saw the grinder in Seattle, that was one of the problems. It was explained to me that the ring was there to keep the portafilter from cooling while in contact with the cone. Since there are a number of plastics that insulate thermally while conducting electrically, at least enough to dissipate the static charge, I sort of assumed that this would be taken care of on the way to production.

Best,
David

[Abe Carmeli]

Dan,

Since price is an issue here, perhaps you should throw the following into the equation: I noticed that I'm able to get on average 18 double shots out of 1lb of beans. I am not counting grinder calibration shots. It is ~ 30% more shots than I get from the Mini. With the Mini, I dose and level using Schomer or Stockfleth which is wasteful but necessary. I end up shaving off about 4-6 grams of coffee on each shot. With the M3, there is no waste. I grind exactly 16 grams for a 16 grams shot, tap the basket a few times, tamp & pull the shot. I do not shave off any excess because there is none.

[AndyS]

I'm really surprised. When I saw the grinder in Seattle, that was one of the problems. It was explained to me that the ring was there to keep the portafilter from cooling while in contact with the cone. Since there are a number of plastics that insulate thermally while conducting electrically, at least enough to dissipate the static charge, I sort of assumed that this would be taken care of on the way to production.

It may be a problem when using the M3 as a cupping grinder (I haven't tried it), but it is not a problem for espresso grinding.