Fine grind and low dose pucks tend toward the loose end, tamped or not. Not a whole lot of difference as can been seen on the puck photos.

Since I flush and brush after every shot, it's a non issue.

AND I'm not advocating not tamping. I simply demonstrated that it's possible to pull decent shots with NO TAMPING WHATSOEVER.

When the p00r n00b gets diverted into all kinds of silly hand manouevers, as recommended far too often on the web, I see RED. It's backwards. Learn to make espresso as they do in Italy* with the great coffees easily available today and once you can do it consistently, ONLY THEN venture off into the realm of updosing, tamper profile and all the other arcane Americana.

Call me Don Quixote...

* I had my first espresso 40 years ago with an Italian girl friend :
First-a, you grind-a da caffe
Next-a, you fill-a da basket
Next-a, you make-a da room
Next-a, you pull-a da shot
Nothing has changed.

Ike, the claim that you're not advocating anything sorta falls flat when, right after making that claim, you describe the antithesis of your position as "silly" and "arcane". Not to mention some of the stronger adjectives that you've used.
And the sheer number of posts that ended with your suggestion to come to this one smelled a bit of proselytizing.
Look, again, it's horses for courses. I tamp. I have a ritual that I'm not un-fond of. Mostly because the end result is honey-dripping, tiger-tailing, crema-laden rich, dark, ambrosia-like espresso.
Now, why'd you wanna go and change a thing like that?
There is nothing wrong with suggesting an alternative technique, and there is nothing wrong with presenting that technique in a positive light. But if you have to convince folk that all other techniques are bunk to get any traction, something tells me that you're selling snake oil.
So if you're not, 'lighten up Francis'! Let us know what you've found, let us that wants to try it, and quit poking fun at those that don't agree that it's the shizznatti.

Hi, my name is Chris, and I tamp, amongst other ritualistic espresso techniques. I've tried to stop, I really have, but I likes my 'spro slow and goopy, like it's s'posedta be.

cafeIKE wrote:When the p00r n00b gets diverted into all kinds of silly hand manouevers, as recommended far too often on the web, I see RED.

I haven't read many posts on tamping technique, except a few long threads prompted by Mark's article Tamping Science, Theory and Practice, Part One. Other than that, most comments are limited to "keep it level, keep the pressure consistent." Not overly proscriptive in my book. On the other hand, there's pages of discussions about distribution techniques, including my own Stockfleths Move for Dummies. I admit that thread is over the top, but intentionally so, as one should infer from the topic's title.

Back to the original topic, I voted "Not very important". The consistency of the tamp does matter for some espresso machines more than others, but my opinion is also weighted by the fact that mastering tamping technique is the lowest rung on the ladder of essential barista skills.

Psyd wrote:Look, again, it's horses for courses. I tamp. I have a ritual that I'm not un-fond of. Mostly because the end result is honey-dripping, tiger-tailing, crema-laden rich, dark, ambrosia-like espresso.
Now, why'd you wanna go and change a thing like that?

I tamp, too. I never said not to. EVER.

The issue is recommending a n00b

Randy G. wrote:- Tamp again, this time at the final force you will be using, and once again, quickly remove the tamper. The removing of the tamper quickly after each step creates a partial vacuum which "sucks" the loose coffee along the sides back onto the puck to be compacted in the next tamp.
from Dosing and leveling ... I'm probably doing something wrong...

Does anyone really 'believe' this matters in the cup? Focus on what makes a tastable difference. Once you can pull shot after shot and no sinkers, then it's time to worry about a few grains of stray coffee.

I like my espresso a tad less Schomer than what you describe, and was pulling same long before I discovered the internet coffee world. I've run the entire gamut of calibrating 30lb tamps, removing the grounds around the rim, tapping, twirling, etc. My espresso is better than it was a decade ago. Better Coffee, Better Grinders, Better Machine have made it so. Not folderal. Too many times I've helped an espressionist who's just sunk a few kilobux into better than good hardware and is pulling the most awful dreck.
Reason 1 - BAD coffee : Reason 2 - "Belief" that gorilla mashing-tapping-twirling is required.

Here's a simple challenge that could benefit all :
Break your ritual down into individual tasks.
Start with the most basic and detail for us what goes awry until step X is added back.
[I'll reward you with a great malt when you visit Woodland Hills]

That's is, unless you shake the grinder while swinging from the chandelier.

I answered "not at all," since "sometimes" or "for some people" wasn't available.

All that matters is how the shot flows. If you dose a 14 gram basket at 14 grams, a 7 gram basket at 7 grams, etc. etc, tamping won't matter. The higher you dose a basket, the drier the puck will stay, and the more tamping becomes important to prevent channeling.

I was curious enough to try it; I pulled a shot w/o tamping. Keep in mind I change nothing else with my procedure other than the tamping; I kept the grind the same, did the wdt, leveled, etc. As someone posted earlier, it was MESSY!!! I was surprised that the flow wasn't faster than it was. Taste wasn't horrid, but not what I would get with a standard par shot for me. That being said, I'll stick with my tamping. i'll stick with my polishing too. I don't believe polishing does anything distinguishable taste wise, but the tamping and polishing is part of the hands on process that makes espresso fun!

There was some "screen tamping" talk that was brought up. Astra machines are self tamping machines; this entails a thicker dispersion block which in turn makes them screen tamping machines. I purchased my Pro with the thinner non self tamping dispersion block so I can't comment on how well it works. Interesting to get some feedback on that. Seems it would be inconsistent tamp pressure based on varying density of grinds and how far the PF is screwed in.

Ian, I think you're right about there being more important factor for good espresso than tamping, but based on my VERY LIMITED testing, tamping makes a difference. I would say tamping IS a factor though.

FWIW, I find the simplest tamps the best; no nutating, NSEW, convex tampers, etc. My "best" tamps are from pushing straight down with my flat tamper. I finish with a polish just because I do; no harm no foul eh?

Joel_B wrote:I change nothing else with my procedure other than the tamping; I kept the grind the same, did the wdt, leveled, etc. As someone posted earlier, it was MESSY!!!

To Ike's credit, this was never going to be a successful test. He suggested that if you grind finer, a tamp could be omitted from your regime. Tamping compresses a coarser grind to provide a firmer resistance to water flow. Not tamping would, well, not restrict that flow, and something else would have to replace it.
For your experiment to tell you anything at all, try grinding finer until a simple 'get these grounds below the dispersion block' tamp (as if you were simply giving it a bit of a mash on the plasti-crap tamp attached to the doser of the grinder) provides you with a 25 to 30 second 1.5 to 2 oz.
Then tell us what you think! ; >

Psyd wrote:Tamping compresses a coarser grind to provide a firmer resistance to water flow.

<warning type='thought experiment'>

Intuitively I would say tamping affects only the initial wetting and thus the first moments of the coffee puck's expansion. That is, tamping doesn't create a firmer resistance per se, but rather helps create a more uniform surface that the water initially flows over, resulting in a more even wetting/expansion. As the grind is made finer and the headspace increased, the importance of the evenness of this ephemeral microflow diminishes. Motivated puckologists are welcome to test my theory using Ian's method of documenting water penetration in Buyer's Guide to the La Spaziale Vivaldi II:

woodchuck wrote:0 seconds



3 seconds



6 seconds



9 seconds

</warning>

In initial example - what was the coffee?

Rocky Roaster Organic Espresso 3 days post roast.

I have no idea what's in the blend. It's FC+. Seems like the beans are quite different as the noise level from the MaxH and MC4 sounds like it's reduced by 50%. The coffee grinds very 'smoothly' with minimal clumping.

It just happened to be in the MC4 grinder, which was cleaned when this blend was started.