How filter baskets affect espresso taste and barista technique - Page 5

#41: Post by **Bluecold** » September 8th, 2011, 9:28 am

malachi wrote:James' comments, while true, apply more to the Super Jollys et al of the world than (for example) to an Anfim Super Caimano (vented and fanned) or a K-10 (for example).

I like to think that James actually meant all grinders. In any case, the 68mm conical burrset has been in use since at least the early sixties.

September 8th, 2011, 12:30 pm

Coffees and dosing have changed since the 60s; otherwise this study would have been pointless. Instead of 6.7 to 7.3 grams of slightly staled brazils and robustas from a full doser turned into an asphalt and chocolate single (yeah, I'm old enough to have tasted them), we get specialty coffees in all sizes from singles to triples, usually ground fresh and dosed with a half dozen different techniques. The resulting shot is rarely drunk straight or with small amounts of milk; but for the top cafes it's a point of honor that they be excellent when consumed in this manner.

The way I use my 68mm conical is radically different from the way any cafe used it back in the 70s; and that is true of most 3rd wave cafes too. Italian cafes buy conicals for very high traffic uses because then the longer lasting, more expensive grindstones make economic sense. My guess is for conventional low dose, filled doser use, the taste difference between the 60mm to 64mm flats versus the large flats or conicals are non-existent. These grinders are now being used outside their original design parameters; and the taste differences we are getting are accidents from the designer's point of view.

The Mahlkoenig flat was specifically designed for 3rd wave espresso, so was the NS Mythos grinder. How different these are from conventional flat burrs I don't know. In use, they struck me as more like the conicals in their wider adjustment ranges; but I've never taste tested them.

#43: Post by **drgary** » September 8th, 2011, 6:15 pm

This fascinating thread leads me to wonder about similar considerations of dose and grind when using filter paper at the bottom of the basket. Since that's off topic for this thread, here's a link for those interested in pursuing that discussion: How to Make Decent Paper-Filtered Espresso

#44: Post by **malachi** » September 9th, 2011, 11:18 am

another_jim wrote:Coffees and dosing have changed since the 60s; otherwise this study would have been pointless. Instead of 6.7 to 7.3 grams of slightly staled brazils and robustas from a full doser turned into an asphalt and chocolate single (yeah, I'm old enough to have tasted them), we get specialty coffees in all sizes from singles to triples, usually ground fresh and dosed with a half dozen different techniques. The resulting shot is rarely drunk straight or with small amounts of milk; but for the top cafes it's a point of honor that they be excellent when consumed in this manner.

The way I use my 68mm conical is radically different from the way any cafe used it back in the 70s; and that is true of most 3rd wave cafes too. Italian cafes buy conicals for very high traffic uses because then the longer lasting, more expensive grindstones make economic sense. My guess is for conventional low dose, filled doser use, the taste difference between the 60mm to 64mm flats versus the large flats or conicals are non-existent. These grinders are now being used outside their original design parameters; and the taste differences we are getting are accidents from the designer's point of view.

IMPORTANT.
Read this.
Again.

#45: Post by **Ian_G** » October 13th, 2011, 6:52 am

Ian_G wrote:I think I see what you mean. A top notch grinder will produce a grind pattern that conforms to an ideal. That is to say, it will produce so many particles at < x microns and so many at > y microns in twin peaked normal distributions consistently. This is the pattern that has been used to develop a basket hole configuration.
Lesser grinders cannot be guaranteed to either produce the same distribution of particles or, if they do, to do so repeatedly. More likely is that the distribution of particle sizes will vary not only from the ideal distribution, but also from shot to shot.

I have now bought and used both 18g and 22g VST baskets. The only difference I can find is that I can use a finer grind for any given dose, compared to the previous baskets I was using. My results are consistent. Obviously variability in grind from shot to shot will result in differing flow rates, but what specifically is the the practical effect of the "wrong" particle distribution?

October 13th, 2011, 1:26 pm

Your formulation about particle distributions is speculative and sadly, somewhat pointless.

Speculative because not even laser sizers can distinguish between small changes in one grinder, or multiple grinders set to similar espresso grinds. People who have asserted such differences and published a few graphs have not done an adequate sample, and have therefore failed to notice the large sample to sample variances in measured distributions.

(Sadly) pointless because you can easily tell that changing the grind changes both the flow and the taste. This is the phenomenon to be explained, not the inconvenient fact to be brushed under the carpet. Since extraction and grind size measures do not explain these facts, talk about grind sizes and extraction are just noise for now.

This study records the facts about grinder adjustments, flow and taste. It does not attempt to explain them.

#47: Post by **Ian_G** » November 6th, 2011, 3:23 pm

I have no idea what you are talking about.

I was really referring the question to Malachi who told me (eventually) that having a top notch grinder was essential. It turns out that what he was saying was complete crap. I just wondered if he had the balls to own up.

#48: Post by **sazerac** » March 15th, 2012, 4:10 pm

In the review you used three different VST baskets. Were these ridged or ridgeless? I can't find any mention of this in the article. Does it even make a difference?

March 15th, 2012, 5:08 pm

The ridgeless ones (and the pair of 20 gram ones) are new to me; I tested the ridged ones. The ridges are outward and did not obstruct tamping. I do not know if they change the dose/grind to flow characteristics of the baskets.

#50: Post by **shadowfax** » March 15th, 2012, 5:44 pm

I don't think the ridges make a darn bit of difference, except that they make the basket stick in the portafilter a little better and can make it a little easier to gauge how high your dose is (looking at your tamper's depth in the basket when you tamp is also a pretty easy option) to ensure adequate screen clearance.

The ridged baskets were all that was available when the baskets debuted last year, and the ridgeless editions are new. The 20g version is also new, and I like it. It's just ever so slightly taller than the 18g version, and works nicely for 19g doses that are usually 'pushing it' in the 18g basket. It seems to work about the same on my GS3 (which is pretty tolerant of minimum screen clearance) for the doses I use, but the grouphead stays cleaner. It's unnecessary, but useful.