Marshall wrote:Never used or implied the word "outsider" and don't know why it would paraphrase anything I wrote, especially regarding anyone in this conversation. The readers I said I was concerned about are the lurkers who never post here, but far outnumber us. Dan would have the statistics.

Another apology! I seem to be offending everyone this evening......

I was not in any shape or form quoting you but - at least to my mind at the time I typed that message - summarising the mindset of someone who came to HB for the first time from the world "outside" digital scales, commercial espresso machines and grinders in home kitchens - and therefore to my mind an "outsider" in coming from outside into this group, not in the sense of being excluded either initially or at any time in the future from an elect - and simply looking to improve the quality of the coffee they make at home.

I hope this is now clearer. It looks like I need to weigh my words more carefully than my coffee.

Once again, Marshall, I had no intention of misrepresenting or disrespecting your perspective, with which I largely agree. I hope I have not caused any offence.

Ken Fox wrote:Trying to specify a set of rules or parameters applicable to the whole home espresso making community is basically a waste of time. People will do what they will do, and there is a wide variation in technique(s) that can yield results pleasing to many people.

Ken Fox wrote:I don't updose (or do so hardly ever, anymore) yet I acknowledge that many people do and most of those people are pleased with their results.

Ken Fox wrote:We should not be about defining a set of rules for other people to use in the pursuit of any individual's espresso nirvana. We should also not be labeling fully reasonable practices used by others as being somehow aberrant, lest other people define our own practices as being similarly bizarre.

Bravo!!!

michaelbenis wrote:I have yet to taste a dose variation of 0.2-0.3 g in the cup for a 7.5g classic Italian espresso using any SO bean.

1 - That's your experience. Which is why you should prepare your shots in the manner which works for you.
2 - There are people who feel strongly about taste differences from dose variance under 0.3g.
3 - In the professional community, the general consensus about the "normal" taster's threshold seems to be at 0.3g.
4 - The above statement is of course not for some mystical perfect size dose from any cultural tradition (grin) but rather a generalized statement (applying instead to doubles pulled from an LM basket).
5 - I don't quite understand the inclusion of this being a single origin coffee.


FWIW (and I've said this before) the way that the (good) coffee shops get around this is by training baristas using a scale - but not weighing before dosing or grinding. Instead, baristas dose by volume and then weigh as part of training. Usually this is some variation of the following "drill":
1 - grind, dose, distribute
2 - dump into a paper cup
3 - repeat 9 more time
4 - weigh each cup
Places I've worked have both a target dose (and acceptable deviation from that dose) and an acceptable shot to shot variance. You don't get to work bar until you can execute this drill within the parameters.

Once you can do this - you can quickly get to the point where dose size is consistent and predictable.

Of course - this doesn't mean you should do this at home. At home you're not making a hundred shots back to back in a shift with a line out the door. So you can take your time if you want. It's up to you.


Final point (and again something I've said repeatedly).
Leveling does not equal distribution.
Leveling is of some (perhaps marginal value). It can be handled in various ways.
Distribution is vital. It too can be handled in various ways.

Never mind Mike. I am not offended I am just a little... I know that you didn't mean any arm. I put my best friend up when I saw a few of you use your friends as avatar. I have been using his face as mine for a while on another site. Mike I must say that your dog is very very nice. Striking really.

In Mike's defense I was getting that "outsider" feeling before his post...

Thanks for the comments Chris. The ranges are interesting, not rules. I'd certainly be interested to hear from the people "who feel strongly about taste differences from dose variance under 0.3g" and in particular whether they find this for everything or more for certain beans from certain regions etc.

I hope it was clear I was just reporting my own experience and of course I will do what works for me... until I find something better... and of course expect everybody else to do the same.

The info on SO was for no other reason than that it was my own experience I was reporting. I'm glad it's generated a bit of practical discussion about dose variance in the cup so I can try and understand it better and how my experience squares with others. I believe that could be a useful exercise.

What works for you?

malachi wrote:Final point (and again something I've said repeatedly).
Leveling does not equal distribution.
Leveling is of some (perhaps marginal value). It can be handled in various ways.
Distribution is vital. It too can be handled in various ways.

May I be so bold as to say that I do not agree. I got involved in this thread understanding (and maybe misunderstanding) that by not leveling it was implied that there was no WDT or any other distribution or grooming being assumed. And in so doing I maintain that my machine/grinder/coffee setup allows me to do away with much of the grooming and still get good results ( I have already commited myself to re-try, perhaps in a more disciplined way, to increased grooming and distribution control (control is an illusion) in an attempt to further improve).

That being said, thanks to all for the insight. FWIW, tomorrow morning I will drink at least 5 (1 double and 4 singles) very different espresso shots. I will sink any, and probably many, sub-par shots. And I will do this because of you! Because you put a doubt in my mind. Because I want to pull the best shot that I can , and because I just like the darn juice!

I think that's great Sylvain, and it's one of the ways in which this HB community is so wonderful for stimulating us all get even more out of fine coffee.

It's unfortunate you felt there was an outsider thing. Sometimes people here express themselves quite passionately, which is an expression of how much enthusiasm and work we all put into continually rethinking our approach and refining our technique to get even more pleasure out of this extraordinary bean.

I wish you a fruitful morning. And send woof from the Old English Sheepdog to the St Bernard!

Cheers

Mike

Marshall wrote:We think we're having some kind of private conversation among ourselves, but we're not. For every person who posts on H-B, hundreds (thousands?) will read it over the years. Many of these readers take the most extreme examples of obsessive procedures as the norm or at least as a goal for the serious espresso maker. At this point most will throw up their hands, say "these people are crazy" and stick to their drip brewer.

My underlying theme is to point out that these procedures are unnecessary to full espresso enjoyment and that espresso can be successfully made in the home without turning one's kitchen into a laboratory.

I think you read too much intent into these posts. For me, advocating weighing each dose, using the Stockfleths Move for Dummies, and following the WDT (for certain classes of grinder) isn't about turning one's kitchen into a laboratory. My intent is reducing the initial weeks of learning about espresso to rote mechanical instruction.

Yesterday was a prime example. In a brief 40 minutes, I worked with a newbie owner who brought his shiny new equipment to Counter Culture Coffee's Friday espresso lab. His initial pours after weeks of reading internet articles and practicing at home were barely passable. After 40 minutes of instruction, most of which was reviewing the basic mechanics of dosing accurately, distribution, and flushing correctly, his espressos were within the 20% range of the best his equipment can do. He left with renewed enthusiasm, confident that he could reproduce these results at home, simply because I had reduced the steps to something anyone with opposing thumbs could master in one session.

In other words, I don't advocate that seasoned home baristas or professionals adopt a level of "laboratory precision" in their day-to-day routines. But for the newbie, they'll slice weeks off their learning curve, and most importantly, get closer to discovering what good espresso tastes like in days, not months. This point may be lost in our vigorous debate of minutia.

HB wrote:In other words, I don't advocate that seasoned home baristas or professionals adopt a level of "laboratory precision" in their day-to-day routines. But for the newbie, they'll slice weeks off their learning curve, and most importantly, get closer to discovering what good espresso tastes like in days, not months. This point may be lost in our vigorous debate of minutia.

There's another aspect to it as well, at least for me. I have quite a few interests, included among which is espresso and coffee. I doubt I am unique in that regard.

There are things I do within this realm of "interests" that I consider creative and challenging, and other things I find uninteresting and mundane. Since I am seldom completely concentrating on one thing and one thing only, I find myself in multitasking mode more often than not. It helps me to take those aspects of any interest that I find to be mundane, and to turn them into rote processes requiring little if any real concentration.

Deciding on what dose to use for a given espresso may be a creative part of espresso making, but actually grinding that quantity and getting it into the PF in a reasonable distribution is something that I find uninteresting and mundane. Having a rote process requiring very little of my attention for this sort of task appeals to me. If I was employed as a barista in a Cafe, my efficiency in tasks such as dosing into a PF would be very important, but as a home barista making a few beverages each day, it is not. What is important is that I do it accurately, by whatever method.

Aside from any added precision in dosing that I get from weighing each dose, my procedure allows me to concentrate on other things that I personally find more interesting and deserving of my creativity.

ken

malachi wrote:Leveling does not equal distribution.
Leveling is of some (perhaps marginal value). It can be handled in various ways.
Distribution is vital. It too can be handled in various ways.

+1. Leveling is only of benefit insofar as it contributes to a) good distribution and b) level tamping. IMHO it's axiomatic that you will not get an optimal pour without even distribution of the coffee grinds.