To some extent, Jim is right, at least in my case. I do find a certain satisfaction in using simpler technology to make excellent coffee beverages; even if I could get similar results using inexpensive electronic gizmos, I might not want to. The aesthetics and tactile sensations add to the pleasure I take from the process of making shots.

But for budget conscious users who want certain levels of quality and control, levers and hand grinders often shoot well above what you can get out of electronic equipment at the same price point. There aren't many electric grinders sold at the HG-one's price point that match its quality, and there are none that match the Pharos at its price point. To get the level of temperature control and flow-profiling capability that you can find in a well-driven Caravel or Pavoni, you would have to spend many times their price to find pump-driven machines that give you the same level of control.

Some people would prefer to spend more money so that they can push buttons to achieve these results, while others would rather pay less even if it means that there will be a bit more effort required for each shot, as well as a longer initial learning curve before you have learned to control the machine. Calling one or the other approach more "rational" falsely implies that everyone needs to accord comparable weight to factors like time, money, and convenience, which is simply false.

Nice discussion.

By "rational," I mean purely economic rationality, i.e. something that can be defined in purely terms of dollars and cents by adding in costs, time, learning curves etc. This does not include internal rewards like aesthetics or the pleasure of using of ones own skills that Gary and Mark mention, or the ethical rewards like not trashing the planet that Pavel mentions.

"Rational" used to mean all these things, but by now it has been flattened into smart shopping decisions. My point is that when advocating these non-mass market or seemingly antiquated methods, it might make more sense to argue for them in these wider terms, rather than as some kind of "smart shoppers" find.

Depends on what tubes you are looking for. The Chinese and Russians are producing HiFi tube era replacements but the WW-2 and older vintages are hard to find and expensive. There are some tubes used in 60s vintage electronics that are no longer readily available either new, NOS or collector market.

another_jim wrote:Nice discussion.

By "rational," I mean purely economic rationality, i.e. something that can be defined in purely terms of dollars and cents by adding in costs, time, learning curves etc. This does not include internal rewards like aesthetics or the pleasure of using of ones own skills that Gary and Mark mention, or the ethical rewards like not trashing the planet that Pavel mentions.

"Rational" used to mean all these things, but by now it has been flattened into smart shopping decisions. My point is that when advocating these non-mass market or seemingly antiquated methods, it might make more sense to argue for them in these wider terms, rather than as some kind of "smart shoppers" find.

I would tend to agree with that.

rpavlis wrote:I forgot to mention in the previous post that there are two very different purposes for weighing devices:

(1) To determine the mass of an object or given quantity of material.

(2) To weigh out a specific mass of a material.

For purpose #1, when weighing objects or fixed samples, electronic balances are MUCH easier. One can simply put the object or sample on the balance pan and the mass appears on the electronic digital read out.

For purpose #2, however, I have always found mechanical balances far easier and faster. One can, depending on the style of mechanical balance, set it to weigh the desired mass. Then one can transfer, bit by bit, the material to the pan until it "balances." This is what one does when one measures out given masses of coffee, for example. When doing this with electronic balances one puts a little on the pan, waits until the readout appears, and then repeats this again and again until the read out shows the desired mass.

Thinking I may have rushed to judgement I got the old Ohaus off the shelf last night. I thought I'd do a Paul Bunyan vs. the Steam Saw test, to find out if I was wrong and that the mechanical balance really is faster for weighing a specific dose.

It took me several minutes just to clear off some counter space and level the Ohaus. Then another minute or so to tare the small cup I use to hold the beans. Once that was out the way, and I'd adjusted the weights on the beam to match the cup + dose, I started my stop watch.

It was a little awkward pouring the beans because of the tray supports. And when I overshot slightly, removing beans really got the the whole thing swinging. It ended up taking about 45 seconds.

Then I pulled my pocket scale out of the drawer, set it on the counter, flipped on the switch and set the cup on it in one motion. It was tared and ready for weighing in less than 30 seconds. I started the stop watch and began adding beans. It took about 15 seconds. Then I put it back in the drawer.

The Ohaus? For it to have a chance, assuming I would become more efficient using it over time, I would have to leave it on the counter 24/7. I don't have that much counter space.

I also question the durability aspect. I've dropped my pocket scale on the ground more than once, stuffed it into luggage carelessly, spilled coffee on it and it keeps on ticking. The Ohaus I have to baby. It's gangly and awkward and a little temperamental since the grooves where the weights sit are worn. It will probably still be working when the day comes that I drop my pocket scale one time too many, but I think that's mostly because it will see so little use in comparison.

Bye bye Paul and Babe.