Ken Fox wrote:14g does not come close to filling the baskets I use most of the time, and even with the lower volume baskets I recently bought, after grinding the coffee is below the rim before I lightly tamp and way below the rim after tamping.

I think the extra headspace is a good thing, not a bad thing. Assuming a properly functioning espresso machine set at around 9 bar, I can't think of a reason why a basket which is underfilled but which has appropriately ground coffee reasonably distributed, will produce a bad shot.

The only issue is how one gets 14g (or 12g or 15g) into the basket on a repeatable basis. My solution is to weigh the coffee. Some people think they can do it visually. I don't trust that my sense of this will be repeatable, which is why I'm using a scale.

In Italy, they do this by adjusting the dosers in their grinders, so it is a total non-issue in a busy cafe. In a home setting this is not an option, so you have to find some other way to do it and I find that weighing is a quick and effective solution.

ken

Thanks Ken I agree completely. Your mention of this topic simply affirms what I was doing since the beginning (and what I thought was taboo) of my espresso making. I'm not having any trouble getting even tasty pours at an underfilled 14g dose (by weight).


Now why can't they make a smaller basket so that we can get the same dose but with an overfill, level, tamp approach?

k7qz wrote:Ken-

1) Thanks to Wikipedia, I now know what a Ramekin is. Initially I was imagining it to be something one purchased at an Adult Novelty store...

this reminds me of what happened when I accidentally mistyped the URL for a Kitchen store in Philadelphia http://www.fantes.com with an "a" instead of an "e" at the end.

ken

TimEggers wrote:Now why can't they make a smaller basket so that we can get the same dose but with an overfill, level, tamp approach?

Initially, I had the same thought. In fact I had the same thought a while back, but ironically my quest for smaller baskets in the UK only got me larger baskets. Although I am now the proud owner of what must be bordering on a triple La Cimbali basket, which I purchased believing it would be a small double basket. It does however have a very nice shape and has taken beautifully to a 14g weighed dose without any issues with the ridge. Previously, I'd thought that too much headspace was causing me chanelling problems, but in actual fact I am just a numb nut, and I was simply trying to stretch out the extraction beyond the capabilities of a smaller dose (13.5g if my memory serves me correctly)

But I digress...it's easy to get caught up in the "14g is the new black" with all this. There seem to be 2 important things going on:

1. Choosing the best dose for the coffee you are using, whatever that dose might be
2. Smaller doses seem to make getting good extractions much easier to achieve, but there's the issue of having to weigh your dose because its hard to do by eye.

IMHO:

(2) would be solved in the short term by a small basket that makes dosing by levelling achievable for such a "small" dose, but...

(1) could see you almost anywhere in the range of say 12.5 to 18g or more, meaning that you'd need a good selection of accurately sized baskets to cover the range, and a repeatable tap then level approach to vary the dose upwards from a smaller starting point.

I'll be the first to admit I love my dosered Mazzer Mini, I don't find it a hassle at all to use in a home context, even if my use is totally different to that which the design was intended for. Except for this weighing business. But, as I've thought about all of this, enjoying better coffees for my efforts, I wondered, is this relatively-repeatable-dosing-without-filling-the-basket what Mazzer had in mind with the Mini-E electronic timed dosing ? Given that outside of Italy, the rest of the world were filling and levelling, it seemed an expensive, almost irrelevant, luxury. I'm thinking that an accurate, and programmable timer is a good way of dealing with this issue. We're perfectly happy varying the temperature of our machines between different coffees, is it a massive stretch to imagine us all eventually adjusting the timers on our grinders to get our favoured dose ?

Doubtless there's a flaw in my argument, but it seems like there's some potential ? To my mind, it'd be one very good reason for picking a Mini-E. Or buying an accurate, finely programmable digital timer to use with something else.


Jon

TimEggers wrote:The hardest thing for us relative newbies is that all you pros (the ones we look up to for guidance) can't agree on anything!

This relates to the fencing instructions I give: 'You will be taught quite a few different things out here, some of which will contradict each other. The only thing that you will be told that isn't true, however is, "This is the one true way to fence."'

'Pointy end, other guy', and, 'Don't get stuck' are the only two hard and fast rules in swordfighting."
Espresso seems to be much the same!

In other news, it seems that the monsoons have been the thing that has been making my life so weird lately. I'm so unused to humidity making any sort of a difference on my extractions that when it soared to nearly 100%, it tended to throw my technique off. Seems that updosing and tamping harder is a viable method to cure dry air extraction problems, and down dosing and tamping lighter is the way to cure humid extraction problems.
Mine aren't done, but I think I'm on the right track.

JonS wrote:

But I digress...it's easy to get caught up in the "14g is the new black" with all this. There seem to be 2 important things going on:

1. Choosing the best dose for the coffee you are using, whatever that dose might be
2. Smaller doses seem to make getting good extractions much easier to achieve, but there's the issue of having to weigh your dose because its hard to do by eye.

IMHO:

(2) would be solved in the short term by a small basket that makes dosing by levelling achievable for such a "small" dose, but...

(1) could see you almost anywhere in the range of say 12.5 to 18g or more, meaning that you'd need a good selection of accurately sized baskets to cover the range, and a repeatable tap then level approach to vary the dose upwards from a smaller starting point.

I'll be the first to admit I love my dosered Mazzer Mini, I don't find it a hassle at all to use in a home context, even if my use is totally different to that which the design was intended for. Except for this weighing business. But, as I've thought about all of this, enjoying better coffees for my efforts, I wondered, is this relatively-repeatable-dosing-without-filling-the-basket what Mazzer had in mind with the Mini-E electronic timed dosing ? Given that outside of Italy, the rest of the world were filling and levelling, it seemed an expensive, almost irrelevant, luxury. I'm thinking that an accurate, and programmable timer is a good way of dealing with this issue. We're perfectly happy varying the temperature of our machines between different coffees, is it a massive stretch to imagine us all eventually adjusting the timers on our grinders to get our favoured dose ?

Doubtless there's a flaw in my argument, but it seems like there's some potential ? To my mind, it'd be one very good reason for picking a Mini-E. Or buying an accurate, finely programmable digital timer to use with something else.


Jon

There are actually at least 3 or 4 issues here:

(1) Easier & more consistent extractions with smaller doses, which coincidentally are in the same range of dosing as used in Italy where the machines were developed and which still represents an enormous market for traditional espresso machines;

(2) More "subtle" and "balanced" tasting extractions at lower doses presumably because the machines were developed to extract espresso at these sorts of basket doses;

(3) in reference to your point about "outside of Italy the rest of the world fills and levels," you make assumptions "not in evidence." Commercial and semi-commercial espresso machines in the home is a very uncommon phenomenon outside of N. America, and in the other places where you do find this, generally you are going to find people doing more or less the same things N. Americans are doing since that is where the bigger online venues are located and where the great majority of enthusiast posts are to be found. As to what is common practice in bars in Spain or Portugal or Germany or Japan or Estonia, I haven't a clue how they do it; I'd bet they rely on their dosers like the Italians do. I'd be very surprised if commercial establishments outside of N. America take their cues from David Schomer rather than from the Italians.

(4) Humidity and aging change the coffee itself and the type of extraction you get. These factors likely effect both the weight of coffee (beans absorb humidity and you end up with more water and less bean material in what you ground) and the time it takes to grind it. If you wanted to be precise about it, a study would probably be needed to look at how consistent weighing or timing are in regards to other factors such as time/volume extraction factors and taste. I don't know the answer to this, but I'm reasonably sure it is an important factor. Will you get the same weight or volume of ground coffee per unit time if you change the type of beans in your grinder? I doubt that too, but it would need testing to be sure.

There is going to be more than one way to achieve consistent dosing in PF baskets; in addition, there is going to be a range of lower doses that can work for various coffees and it probably includes most everything from 12-16.5 grams, with the proviso that the upper end of this range is close enough to what I have earlier referred to "overdosing," that it may not deserve to be called "lower dosing." And this discussion leaves aside for the moment the fact that many current espresso blends are probably formulated with higher dosing in mind, which means that you may have to drink something else if you want to see the positive impact that lower dosing might have on your own enjoyment of espresso.

ken

Here's a thought.

Is it the amount of coffee, or is it the physics of a certain proportion of coffee to the size of the filterbasket?

Is an 18g dose in a 21g basket akin to a 13.5g dose in a 16g basket(what I believe most actually are)?

Is it the headspace combined with a flexible matrix(aka - light tamp) and fine grind that helps to make things self-"sealing" during extraction?

Ken, your corrections and collaborations are welcome:

Ken Fox wrote:There are actually at least 3 or 4 issues here:

(3) in reference to your point about "outside of Italy the rest of the world fills and levels," you make assumptions "not in evidence." Commercial and semi-commercial espresso machines in the home is a very uncommon phenomenon outside of N. America, and in the other places where you do find this, generally you are going to find people doing more or less the same things N. Americans are doing since that is where the bigger online venues are located and where the great majority of enthusiast posts are to be found. As to what is common practice in bars in Spain or Portugal or Germany or Japan or Estonia, I haven't a clue how they do it; I'd bet they rely on their dosers like the Italians do. I'd be very surprised if commercial establishments outside of N. America take their cues from David Schomer rather than from the Italians.

I do agree with you here. Originally I'd written something along the lines of "Only N. Americans fill and level", but then I thought that sounded like I was N. American bashing, so I changed it. And then there's the coffee scene in Australia which I think has taken a number of cues from N. American practices, as well as the UK. Your point about "online venues" and commercial / semi-commercial machines at home probably best describes the division of these practises. David Schomer's influence on the overall methodology here has been huge. My comments were an over-generalisation for certain, and weren't quite what I'd meant to say !

Ken Fox wrote:(4) Humidity and aging change the coffee itself and the type of extraction you get. These factors likely effect both the weight of coffee (beans absorb humidity and you end up with more water and less bean material in what you ground) and the time it takes to grind it. If you wanted to be precise about it, a study would probably be needed to look at how consistent weighing or timing are in regards to other factors such as time/volume extraction factors and taste. I don't know the answer to this, but I'm reasonably sure it is an important factor. Will you get the same weight or volume of ground coffee per unit time if you change the type of beans in your grinder? I doubt that too, but it would need testing to be sure.

Certainly I would expect a difference in timings for different bean types. That's exactly what I meant when I said:

JonS wrote:"We're perfectly happy varying the temperature of our machines between different coffees, is it a massive stretch to imagine us all eventually adjusting the timers on our grinders to get our favoured dose ?"

And any hassle factor relating to this does rather depend on how often a home-barista swaps blends. I think an accurate and repeatable digital timer would help with this. (assuming the grinder itself shared the same accuracy)

I would also assume, a smaller, though noticeable change as the beans age. I think the approach has some merit, but until I buy / build an accurate timer or a Mini-E, or someone else who owns these tries it out, I guess we won't know how much of a factor this is in practice.

Ken Fox wrote:There is going to be more than one way to achieve consistent dosing in PF baskets; in addition, there is going to be a range of lower doses that can work for various coffees and it probably includes most everything from 12-16.5 grams, with the proviso that the upper end of this range is close enough to what I have earlier referred to "overdosing," that it may not deserve to be called "lower dosing."

I agree, there's probably no one-size-fits-all solution to the problem. I wasn't really trying to claim that. Different folks will settle on different approaches that best suit.

So it's just me that finds some kind of poetic irony that there's perhaps a well thought out reason to why Mazzer fitted an electronic timer to the Mini-E when they ripped the doser off ?

Perhaps the timer idea has no merit. Perhaps the only folk who shelled out the extra $200 or whatever for the Mini-E over a dosered Mini, or picked it over a Super Jolly, were the neatnicks who wanted less fling from the doser, and no doser to sweep out, rather than being interested in the possibilities afforded by a timer. Note: I'm not on a "Buy a Mini-E" trip here, it's just that to my knowledge, it's the only grinder shipping that out-of-the-box might actually be any good for repeatable smaller doses without extra steps or equipment. And I know a lot of folk have them, and might want to comment.

Personally, I chose a dosered mini because of the clump-breaking abilities of the doser lever, because it was cheaper, and because I figured that I'd better get used to a doser if I was planning on later upgrading to something bigger and more capable (read: Kony, which is what I had in mind at the time, and in fact nearly bought instead). The timer feature never came into the comparison, it just didn't seem like a feature I'd use. And it also seemed to make the grinder more expensive than it needed to be. I'm wondering now whether as a "Disciple of Schomer" I simply missed the point

(BTW, I'm not knocking David Schomer, or anyone else for that matter. We can argue about technique until the cows come home, and frequently do, but what's really important is how our collective understanding of coffee progresses and the increased enjoyment of it as a result. But I am really thrilled that my general results have improved literally overnight, and the fact I get more shots out of a bag of coffee is a welcome bonus )

Jon

HB wrote:When I'm evaluating an unfamiliar espresso machine, one of my standard fixes for channeling is to increase the headspace, under the assumption that it helps even out the dispersion of water and prolongs preinfusion. I've noted the enhanced forgiveness diminishes, at least for "overdosed" baskets, when the puck no longer touches the dispersion screen once fully expanded, especially for machines having no preinfusion.

Prompted by this discussion, this morning I tried several extractions downdosed to 14 grams and 2.5 notches finer with nary a quick below the rim Stockfleth's redistribution (not easy, but doable). Although I could not break my 30# tamping habit, the extractions were even and the espressos were good... quite good in fact.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Not that I'm an expert by any stretch, but...I've definitely previously noticed an "avalanche" effect with the pours once the grind reaches a certain level of coarseness with a greatly reduced dose. They fall apart big time, the puck can't hold back the pressure. A larger dose requiring a coarser grind (for the same shot timings) would generally cross this line. For the puck to not be able to expand and touch the screen, which would otherwise keep it together, at this coarseness of grind, would spell disaster based on what I've seen with my machine. The higher doses (with coarser grinds) probably require more attention to headspace as a result, and the machine itself must surely play a part in this.

Jon

Great discussion...

Are the down dosers experiencing puck imploding in the middle to the puck?

When I try to dose 14 gr with plenty of head space the shot starts out fine but many tend to implode somewhere in the middle of the shot. Dose 17 or 18 gr of the same coffee and it touches the screen during extraction which can spell disaster for an E61 BG. Maybe there is a fine line between too much and two little coffee and certain coffees pull great no matter what dose you use.