A general guideline for making espresso usually says something along the lines of 2-2.5oz of coffee in 20-25 seconds. Does that recommendation imply 2.5 oz or 2.5 fl oz (gramms or milliliters?) If it's milliliters, should the crema volume be counted? I can't find this info anywhere... Thanks!

As for me, I use gramms as a reference point in this matter. 1 oz = 30 gramms. Bear in mind that different coffee, blends, freshness—play vital part in crema formation and the volume of it. Other than that, I do not look much for the exact weight/volume—taste should be your guide. And also, when it blonds—I flip the switch off.

Happy experimenting.

These are guidelines or starting points, not hard and fast rules. 2 oz = 60 ml in this case and that's including the crema.

The most important thing is the taste, of course, but when your just starting out and maybe haven't tasted any good espresso, guidelines can help get you in the ballpark. You don't want a gusher that rushes through in just a couple seconds or an overextracted pull that takes more then a minute.

Now that I'm pulling with a lever, I'm no longer timing my shots and I just pulled two very nice one ounce (30 ml) shots using 14 grams of Liquid Amber blend espresso 12 days post roast (roasted to FC+). The shots were sweet, citrus, with nice chocolate, thick crema, and a dark, rich, licorice flavor underneath.

Check out this thread that includes the Andy Schecter "standard" brew ratio definition. Although not universally approved it is pretty much what most of use or should use when describing the brew ratio.

You will see that volume does include crema. Personally I use weight to verify brew ratio. It is easier to get a "constant" result, has crema volume does reduce after a while.

Brewing ratios for espresso beverages

Hope this helps.

Thanks, everybody. Excellent chart!!

Wait, 32 grams of beverage for 16 grams of beans? ~1oz in weight for a double espresso with a corresponding volume of ~2 fl oz according to that chart. That's 32g/60ml ratio. Is that right? I have been getting 2 oz (60grams) out of 16 grams of beans for several months now... Wow. I'm gonna try a finer grind.

asdf777 wrote:I have been getting 2 oz (60grams) out of 16 grams of beans for several months now...

Unless your 2 oz of liquid has zero crema, it's going to weigh significantly less than 60g. Most of my shots are ~50% brew ratio normale doubles, and I generally pull ~50ml of liquid from a 15-16g dose of coffee. The 50ml liquid volume is 80-90% crema when I cut the pour, hence the disparity between liquid volume (milliliters) and weight (grams).

RapidCoffee wrote:Unless your 2 oz of liquid has zero crema, it's going to weigh significantly less than 60g.

I think you meant 2 fl oz. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but 2 oz of anything weighs 56.6990463 grams. Ounces or grams is a measure of weight. Fluid ounces or milliliters is a volume measure. That's what has been causing me personally a lot of confusion lately: when people said 2 oz, I couldn't figure out whether they actually meant 2 fl oz or actual oz (weight).

So yeah, I get a lot of crema, and my 2 oz of beverage is about 3 fl oz (90 ml) in volume. From the chart, it looks like the grind is way too coarse, which kind of explains the crappy coffee I've been getting.

asdf777 wrote:So yeah, I get a lot of crema, and my 2 oz of beverage is about 3 fl oz (90 ml) in volume. From the chart, it looks like the grind is way too coarse, which kind of explains the crappy coffee I've been getting.

Of course we're talking about fluid ounces (volume), rather than using ounces for weight/mass. AFAIK everyone is using grams for measuring coffee dose and liquid weight (mass) in the espresso world. Thank goodness.

IMO 3 fluid ounces (90ml) is too much volume for a double. It's the extraordinary 16g double that does not blond well before that point. You are either pulling lungos, or overextracted doubles. Either way, not to my taste.

RapidCoffee wrote:You are either pulling lungos, or overextracted doubles. Either way, not to my taste.

I'm confused again... Sorry for being geeky, but how would lungo be different from an over-extracted double?? That's how lungo is defined, as over extracted espresso, no? (http://www.thenibble.com/reviews/main/b...ation4.asp)

In my case, the grind was just too coarse. The pull time was 28 seconds.

asdf777 wrote:Sorry for being geeky, how would lungo be different from an over-extracted double?? That's how lungo is defined, as over extracted espresso, no?

No need to apologize. I believe you are confusing two different drinks:

Lungo: a "long" (higher volume, higher mass) shot that is properly extracted (ie, ~18-20% solubles extracted from the puck)

Lungo di merda: an over-extracted double

Lungo di merda, eh? This is funny Thanks!

AndyS wrote:Lungo di merda: an over-extracted double

And at the other end of the spectrum we have the ristretto de caca, an underextracted double shot, cut short at 1ml or less, no dose or grind adjustment, also unbalanced in flavor.

(Still, I'd take a ristretto de caca over a lungo de mierda any day.)

BTW, after wasting half a pound of coffee on adjusting the grind to get to 14g of coffee/28g of liquid ratio in 28 seconds, I finally got it. Still can't drink it straight, but with milk, it's a whole lot better than it used to be. The sour taste is gone, but it's still very bitter.

Interesting side effects of adjusting the grind:

1. I san spin the portafilter to dislodge loose coffee without losing the puck.
2. Can't use my la marzocco double basket anymore because my 58mm tamper touches the walls before being able to apply 30lb of pressure.
3. The vario grinder becomes very sensitive at this grind level and each notch on the left side results in 2-3g of difference in liquid in the output. (I used to move the slide several notches just to get a 3-4 g difference).
4. Have to mix double espresso with 3 ounces of milk to get a decent cappuccino (not too weak). Is 2 fl oz of espresso + 3 fl oz of milk still considered a cappuccino, btw?
5. My eyes are popping with all this increase in caffeine intake (it's probably double or tripple the amount I used to get with "lungos" )

I'd recomend not worrying too much about the volume (or weight) in the cup. Focus on the pour, how long it takes, what it looks like, and what the crema look like for clues, but the most important thing is taste. It takes awhile and some experimentation to develop a taste for what's happening in the extration. Is it too hot or cold, over or under extracted, too concentrated? At first everything just tastes like bad coffee, but eventually you should be able to taste a shot and figure out if you should change the temp/dose/grind (or maybe a combination) to get rid of the unpleasant flavors, and bring out the good ones.

I have a fairly low tolerance for caffiene, so it takes me awhile to pull and taste enough shots to really get a feel for a blend, keeping a notebook has been really useful helping me remember what I did last week, and what I should be changing today.

And if you're puling a lot of shots experimenting you don't have to drink every one, just take a sip, or even take a sample from the pour itself, that way you can try more shots, and your tastebuds won't get fatigued. This is another area where keeping notes has helped me a lot.

TrlstanC wrote:At first everything just tastes like bad coffee, but eventually you should be able to taste a shot and figure out if you should change the temp/dose/grind (or maybe a combination) to get rid of the unpleasant flavors, and bring out the good ones.

Yes, I seem to be stuck at this first stage for the moment.
I've pulled three shots since I got my Cremina that were pretty good: balanced flavours, plenty of sweetness, no overpowering sourness or bitterness. Everything else has been comparable to the espresso found in the average shop around here, which isn't encouraging. Periodically pulling a good shot and not knowing what I did to get there is incredibly frustrating, as is not knowing precisely what to do to dial in something that seems just off the mark. On the other hand, I've tried splitting shots into two or three separate glasses throughout the pull, and some of them go straight from battery acid in the first portion to bland bitterness in the second.

I suppose I have all day tomorrow to practice though, so we'll see if I can get any more consistent in my pulls before caffeine gets the better of me.

We call the good ones God shots... and as you noted there are two reasons.

One is... God that was a good shot.

The other is God, why can't I do that again?



-Cecil

PS. It does get better, but then you wish for more of the first one, because you get so many more of the second as you get better... The second ones get better rapidly with practice though.