Since technical points are now a max of 77 vs. 239 for sensory, I would say this is a doubtful conclusion,

what is the difference in points from 1st - 3rd place??

how much did HP lose by in the worlds??? perhaps a timed grinder and zero waste would have given her a win??

you are saying one or two extra points wont make a difference??

jon

RegulatorJohnson wrote:you are saying one or two extra points wont make a difference??

jon

No. I'm saying no one would give up leveling, if they thought it might compromise the cup in any way.

Marshall, to answer the question-- No.

I think recent advances in grinder design in the timing and dosing/distribution aspects are extremely beneficial to barista. But let's not forget that, technique wise, it's not revolutionary.

Many "classically trained" barista do this on a daily basis, and have done so for years. When you dose/distribute you round your index finger and create a nice little "dome" of coffee. Practice yields same results as settling by fork tapping. So in this case, it would be a slightly looser grind and a greater (appearance wise) fill on the portafilter. It depends on the style/taste profile, -- your espresso paradigm -- whether or not you choose to dose in this manner.

Many of the new barista["new" more in a sense of understanding the history of espresso fundamentals, as compared to just time behind the bar], believe that the only espresso paradigm that exists is their own. Understanding how to make great shots leveling vs. not leveling or updosing vs downdosing or tapping vs not tapping, finer grind vs coarser grind or any combination of those is a great asset to have. Making great espresso is about consistency and taste. They've found a technique that works great for them. Many millions of shots have been pulled using a similar technique for years. Let's hear it for history repeating itself.

shadowfax wrote:Marshall, I've noticed the same phenomenon of hands-free distribution. I know James Hoffman has talked about it, but I think I took notice when I saw my friends at Cuvée Coffee do this on their Super Jollies and K30s. It certainly works for them. And while Dan can thwack the crap out of the Super Jolly and hold the portafilter at a slight angle and get a perfectly centered mound that looks just like the ones out of the Mazzer Electronics, the K30 mounds are rarely so pretty--often fairly clumped-looking, in fact. But Clancy tamps them down, locks into the LM, and pulls. Always really nice results--even flow, and just wonderfully bodied shots.

I tried this with the Robur on my Vetrano some time ago with almost indistinguishable results from my carefully leveled shots. The Elektra T1 is a total $#%@& about it--really horrible results if you don't distribute the mound out to the sides: terrible channeling and sink shots below.

Next time you're there, have them pull a naked PF this way, and watch what happens.

I am not a fan of the no-distribution method. I've experimented with it quite a bit, long before it become a curious phenomenon. While I've had several results that tasted fine, the pours were atrocious, regardless of how well the distributing-dosing worked out. I simply cannot in good conscience consider it an honest representation of that coffee when the extraction is so uneven, regardless of how pleasant the results may be.

R.E.S.P.E.C.T.

We either let the coffee be itself, or we don't. We either try to be as honest as possible, or we focus only on the morality of "taste".. which is hardly a complete morality at all, in my book.

Just my $.02.

Jason, I'm a bit confused by your post. Are you talking specifically on the K30, or on the general array of grinders that you've used? Also, what do you mean by "no distribution?" It's not possible not to have a distribution. How you arrive at the distribution you've got, and whether or not you get a good one for the machine you're working with, are at issue. I really don't understand the apparent claim that hands-free distribution inherently results in uneven extractions. My own minimal experience goes against this, at least on my Robur/Vetrano combo.

Would you mind to clarify these questions? Have I misunderstood you?

Nick,

I am of the opinion that the ultimate respect for the coffee is presenting a cup that showcases it as good as it can be...regardless of how you get there. Obviously there are known variables that will produce good or bad results, but there are fundamentals that can serve as a starting point. Every pro golfer has a slightly different swing, but all of them can pound a golf ball 300+ yards down the middle of the fairway. They all start with basic fundamentals and tweak them. We approach coffee much the same.

I think that it is great that people like Jason ask questions and challenge the conventional, but the fact is that it is nothing new. When I worked for Espresso Specialists 7 years ago there were roasters and coffee shop owners experimenting with the exact same things. And 7 years from now, someone will come along and do and say the exact same stuff and they will think it something new.

Nick, keep working and experimenting. Philosophy of preparation is no substitute for practical experience. You have worked with Clancy and Dan and they are very talented coffee professionals with a good amount of experience in both the coffee shop environment and the lab. Remember that there are many roads that lead to Rome...or something like that.

Jasonian wrote:Next time you're there, have them pull a naked PF this way, and watch what happens.

I am curious why you phrased this as above. What exactly is going to happen? Dan and Clancy are both out of town or they might respond themselves, but since they were mentioned, they have spent many, many hours testing, experimenting, pouring with all types of equipment and the method they currently use is their preferred. Not based on philosophy, but based on practical experience and experimentation.

another_jim wrote:If the grind isn't clumpy, one can level by rocking the tamper slightly before pressing down.

Since any amount of force is going to compress the coffee, rocking a tamper could lead to an uneven distribution. Assuming a left to right movement, the coffee will be compressed and displaced on the left, compressed overall as the tamper levels and futher compressed and displaced on the right. The fore and aft points will be less compressed, perhaps leading to figure-8 pours.

The famous nutating motion would seem to build a mound that is then compressed.

cafeIKE wrote:Since any amount of force is going to compress the coffee,

There's some sort of logical fallacy deep within this (counter)argument. "Any amount. . .could. . ." is hardly disputable, but isn't this going awfully deep into the ether? I shake the pf to level before I level with my finger. Why? I like to shake.

As a coffee mortal, I employ all sorts of micro practices that are grounded in the partially empirical (I weigh the coffee to be more consistent than if I didn't weigh). Other practices may be no more than nervous ticks (WDT: right-left, right-left, right-left; up-down, up-down, up-down) for which I have no first-hand evidence. I also touch the bill of my cap and grab my crotch, practices that work for me in baseball and cribbage but await further study before I can I can give more than a preliminary recommendation for espresso.

...and grab my crotch, practices that work for me in baseball and cribbage...

Crotch grabbing in cribbage...

Martin wrote:I shake the pf to level before I level with my finger. Why? I like to shake.

Me too. I almost never level with my finger. Usually only if I'm asleep at the switch and forget to move the PF.

Perhaps in 10 years we can look back and laugh, "Remember when we used to think tamping mattered?"