Yeah, I know, a lot of people can't fathom why anyone would pay "X" for a single dosing storage solution blah blah blah, But lets not go down that road....this isn't about hating on this setup. There ARE however some issues with this that I'll be sending along an email to LW.
I ordered the "Tall Boy" set and they came in well packaged. After checking it all out, I immediately roasted up 150 grams of a 50/50 mix of great Harrar and Yirgacheffe, and in another Iroaster, 150 grams of a Kenyan Peaberry. After cooling off and blending, I found that even with half the batch by weight being peaberry, i could barely get 21grams of beans in the tubes and had to tap the crap out of them to get them to settle enough to seat the caps. Even then, every single one of the caps had to be jammed down, crushing the uppermost layer of beans a wee bit. I use about 21.2 grams through the EK43 to allow for retention (virtually non existent) and this is cutting it too close for a storage set claiming up to 24 grams capability. Worst of all, going to put them in the charred block of Walnut(?)(Why LW? Just....Why? The natural block I see on the bottom would look so much nicer)
I found one entire side of the drilled holes were off, just very slightly ovalized as if once one side was drilled, it screwed op the other row. This necessitatied me twisting and jamming the tubes down into the slots. I was fearful I'd be breaking them then, and even more so once I need to get them out. WTF??!
I like them, and the idea well enough to try it out for awhile, but for the price paid, I was expecting a bit more quality control, and an accurate spec on capacity.

Beautiful photography.

Your beans expansion is what appears to be the issue. All your seams are wide open and the bean's surfaces are all smooth, suggesting low density/high volume. They're designed to have as little headspace as possible for the given dose range. I've held several different roasts in the tall boys and each will obviously fill to a different level, not just depending on bean type, but roast level as well.

The wood is acacia, not walnut. And LWW's site notes "Capacity will vary and depends on the type of coffee bean being stored."

Your feedback about the holder is important for them to hear about. It might be a common problem given the tighter tolerances.

Edit: just saw your response Tom...thanks. I was hoping that the expansion would have been accounted for as the ideal usage for these are just after roast, and to preserve freshness as they degas over a few days plus...I dunno. The Ethipian varietals I roasted are very commonly used, I can't imagine these staples of the coffee world wouldn't be factored in. Also, while it probably doesn't come through in the B&W so much, the roasts for the non pea berry were taken to first crack, ramped to 410 degrees quickly and dumped. Theses are not too far from FC. The Kenyan was dumped at first crack. This is a blend/roast level I like specifically for pour overs. Imagine if this batch was all AA instead of half peaberry. So, in your experience with these, how far after you roast do you set them up? What is your dosage for the tall boys?

Here's a couple shots of the capacity issue. I tared the Lunar out with the tube and funnel and filled to around 21 grams...

You have an eye for beauty though. A bit shocking they didn't have top notch production. I remember your thread on getting slayed tonight but mrs Silvia is totally awesome in that line-up:)

TomC wrote:Your feedback about the holder is important for them to hear about. It might be a common problem given the tighter tolerances.

Feedback?? It's not that difficult to do a little math and add the manufacturing tolerance to the diameter of the glass cylinder to understand a maximum dimensional value. Then, the hole in the wood would need to be slightly larger than that, by a distance that proved itself to be comfortable while inserting it into the wood (prototype here?). Air needs to escape and perhaps the wood might expand with humidity. The better question here might be - how snug does the hole need to be for the user and cylinder to feel 'proper', or well designed?
Suppose a rogue cylinder enters the supply chain, one that is too great of a diameter. That one is rejected, this is known as quality control.

I am empathetic to this purchaser, but at the same time, I'm amazed at the basic quality issues of tolerance, volume and precision. The irony that this functions poorly, does not meet the volume that it states, and is therefore frustrating to use is palpable. Add to this user's experience the hoopla of the fineness of material and manufacturing effort and keen care and 'quality' put into the set of vials, to the overall cost of the objects in question, the result is pure delight to my designer eye.

I'm not afraid to say it- fail. A claim of 24 gram capacity is exactly that, a claim of 24 grams of capacity. If there is tolerance to be added there, then the claim should state and include that, why not? How about stating the claim in better terminology, such as cubic volume or ml, instead of bean weight. I wonder if this too was tested, or the 24 grams was a just a rough guesstimate?. Of course the bean weight will vary, everyone who understands coffee knows that, right?

sprint jinx wrote:Feedback??

Yes, feedback. That's another way manufacturers of all sizes improve their products.

sprint jinx wrote:I'm not afraid to say it- fail. A claim of 24 gram capacity is exactly that, a claim of 24 grams of capacity. If there is tolerance to be added there, then the claim should state and include that, why not? How about stating the claim in better terminology, such as cubic volume or ml, instead of bean weight. I wonder if this too was tested, or the 24 grams was a just a rough guesstimate?. Of course the bean weight will vary, everyone who understands coffee knows that, right?

Their "claim" does just that. I cited it above. That's probably why they state "on average". They should consider giving a volumetric value for those who need that assurance in their life. But I've never heard of anyone single dosing precise "volumes".


The lowest density, darkest roast I have on hand, Red Bird's Sweet Blue weighs out 20.5g in a tall boy without compressing any beans. I doubt they were using roasts like this when they arrived at their estimates.

FastGlass wrote:I found one entire side of the drilled holes were off necessitating me twisting and jamming the tubes down into the slots. I was fearful I'd be breaking them then, and even more so once I need to get them out. WTF??![/i]

That sucks.. Not sure if you saw my post but this happened to me. I just put it on a warm flat surface and it eventually settled back to normal after a couple of days.

It was suggested that the wood was not fully dry, so I guess that must be it.

It's disappointing to hear another person has experience this but hopefully you'll get it back to normal too. Frankly I don't care too much as I'm in the process of making a 20 tube version that will hold an entire bag of coffee (17g each dose). 12 is simply not enough for me.

If anyone wants mine (or Woody) PM me.. Once I have my 20 tube version, I'll probably put my bean cellars up for sale on BS section if it hasn't already been accounted for.

TomC, concerning the feedback comment-
The point I am trying to convey about the hole diameter is this - It is a hole, of a particular diameter and depth, that which has to be chosen upon, after deciding upon the needs of the hole. It requires zero feedback from the user, because the purpose of the hole is basic. It works well, or it does not. In this user's case, and from what I read above, also in another case, the hole size causes interference with the glass vial diameter. That interference should not happen. The hole size should err on the larger end of the spectrum, if at all. Wood is an imperfect medium for holding tight tolerance, I'll grant that there is fluctuation there. However, drilling a large enough hole such that there is never any binding is a simple and effective solution that is far superior to having the vials bind. My point alludes to a basic premise of quality. I do believe in user response; perhaps to gather insights on how to make a product better. But when the vials don't fit, when that's all that they are intended to do, well, I see that as a problem. And, the fact that you can't bring yourself to agree says to me that your bias about this object's beauty is obscuring your vision.

I state a few of our culture's learnings here:
Chrome don't get you home. (Harley Davidson)
PT Barnum's favorite quote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There%27s ... ery_minute
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/all+show+and+no+go



Concerning the capacity issue-
Had they tested a variety of roasted beans, they might have adjusted the numbers. Jamming in 21 grams and crushing the beans with the cap does not meet the claim of 23-24 grams. That's data, its irrefutable evidence that the claim is not correct.

I looked at the drawing on the seller's page. In the lower right corner, there is a square drawn, indicating the size of one square centimeter. This might be evidence that a calculation was done to determine the final size, in filled volume, of the vials. Either with or without the volume calculation, testing would have proved the resulting claim. Again, would it not have been wiser to err on the other side of the spectrum? Suppose the claim was 22 grams, (on average), and a user discovers that 24 grams fit in, is that as big of a problem as claiming 24 and not fitting 21? There would be more head space above the beans, but at least the claims are not frustrating.

Sprint Jinx, I'm throwing my lot in with you on the previous post. So much R&D (presumably) going into valve design, machining and vial design....why skip out on the actual product testing to back the set?
Anyhow, I've got a line out to the company pointing them to the multiple issues. We'll see what comes of it.
Here's a quick video of the binding issue and its severity.

Dang, that is some damning evidence of bad interference.
If it were mine, I'd be boring out the holes with a forstner/spade bit on my drill press.

I'll even volunteer to do the work involved:
Glass drawing states that the diameter of the vial is 30mm.
I'll bump that up to 31mm, because, we wouldn't want them to touch, right?
I'll then opt to not purchase a 31mm bit, because they look expensive. Instead, I'll convert the mm to inches and lookie here, its very close to 1.25", which is a common size.
Looks like Home Depot has the answer -
http://www.homedepot.com/p/Bosch-1-1-4- ... /203274561
$6 and Bob's your uncle.

So, perhaps this will leave a piercing at the bottom of the hole in the block. Maybe that would be a feature instead of a problem. Perhaps air would sneak in/out of that hole as one inserts and removes the vials. I dunno, but I can say that I would want to test it out.