z0h wrote:totally agree- I should have been more clear that I was being a bit sarcastic about the scientific study comment.

That would not be read as a joke here. Several of our regulars are scientists or engineers, and others also have backgrounds in experimental controls. There have been several controlled test comparisons reported here by them.

Marshall wrote:That would not be read as a joke here. Several of our regulars are scientists or engineers, and others also have backgrounds in experimental controls. There have been several controlled test comparisons reported here by them.

yes I know- I too am a scientist (PhD in biochemistry/biophysics, postdocs in physical chemistry, x-ray crystallography/protein structure-function, many many years of experience in academic and industrial settings, blah blah blah) I'm also a professional chef with wide food experience, and I'm sorry that this wouldn't be appreciated. It underscores the importance and seriousness that some place on things like the difference between a temperature change of 1F vs. 1C when it comes to coffee.

I for one find many of these studies absolutely hilarious (even the ones that are truly valid scientific studies!) and would love to see more of them. I love it.

Jasonian wrote: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 really did not want to have to respond to this, but it has grown tiresome. You say that you want to build a coffee community, but then you do things like this. I could forgive the assumption that my espresso would pull atrociously uneven with no distribution, even in the face of Nicolas witnessing our results and reporting the opposite. However, when you try to accuse me, and my coworkers of being disrespectful to the coffee you cross the line.

Whether you want to believe it or not I have a great deal of respect, and passion for coffee. Your attempts to take a moral high-ground with rhetoric are unnecessary and unproductive. If you want to treat using a taste test barometer as the coffee equivalent to moral relativity then be my guest. I would however appreciate it if you refrained from making naive Kantian assumptions. How many grinders, and espresso machines have you tested redistribution vs no redistribution on? As Mike stated before we did not rush to conclusions about our change in espresso preparation. I also do not condemn or discourage the use of redistribution for preparing espresso. I encourage people to try different methods and see what works best for them. I was also very skeptical of the Anfim at first because of what I presume you would call doughnut extractions (extraction around edge with no flow in the middle) but within a few days, I had adjusted to the difference and was getting even flows again. Although I think you should at least recognize you are not the arbiter of coffee morality. If you are, then it would be greatly appreciated if you could put into print the commandments of coffee honesty so that we may all come into accordance.

I also find it rather amusing that you only weighed in on this thread after we had been mentioned and decided only to comment in our direction, since the thread was started by Marshall out of observation at the WRBC. He noted that all of the top 3 did not redistribute the coffee with their hands after dosing. I could also note that the two past WBC champs, Stephen Morissey, and James Hoffman also did not redistribute their coffee. Not to mention Chris Baca, Kyle Glanville, Pete Licata, and Drew Catlin from last year's USBC finals. Are they all also disrespectful to the coffee?

Now that I responded to how your post came across I will address what I hope you were trying to say;

Jason,

thanks for sharing your experiences with naked extractions and no redistribution. We too have done some experiments with this and have had different results. However if I was noticing that we were having uneven extractions I would have to agree with you that this is probably not the best method for preparing espresso. While on occasion one may get lucky and have an unevenly extracted shot that tastes good, my assumption would be this is rather unreliable and that most shots prepared in this way would not taste good.


to the rest of everyone reading this thread I apologize.

further to my earlier post about my experiences with no redistribution, due to 14gms in my PF basket being less than full and so precluding any levelling or redistribution - i have made a quick and dirty video of my pouring an espresso with my naked PF - its not the best camera work or filming but i think it does demonstrate that its possible to achieve a reasonable coffee even as a rank amateur without redistribution.

(i have only been using a machine for a couple of weeks, all my previous experience was with stove tops.)

galumay wrote:..... i think it does demonstrate that its possible to achieve a reasonable coffee even as a rank amateur without redistribution. (i have only been using a machine for a couple of weeks, all my previous experience was with stove tops.)

Your statement only proves that, FOR YOU, on your machine, after two weeks' experience with making "real" espresso, using the coffee you are currently using, ground on your grinder, that you can produce a coffee that is, in your words, "reasonable." To many people, "reasonable" is a shot that doesn't have to be spat out into the sink (or onto the floor, whichever is closer). My reasonable shot may be better than anything you have ever tasted.

I think the underlying question to pose to you is, can you make a better shot WITH distribution?
If "yes" they why aren't you doing it.
If "no," why not, and how do you know?

Your machine appears to not have a brew pressure gauge nor a boiler pressure gage or temperature readout. The point is that there are many variables at work here. As I mentioned previously in this thread, what works on one machine in one situation may not work on another.

Easy, Randy

In defense of galumay :

On my machineS with my grinderS, over the yearS many have exclaimed
"Wow! That's the best shot I've ever tasted."
No distribution or tamping what-so-ever. Nada!

Sometimes, if I'm feeling particularly puckish, I'll make them a real sinker with all the tapping, twiddling and falderal they came with.

In the immortal [paraphrased] words of Psyd :
If it works for you, do it. Don't presume that it's at all un/necessary.

Randy G. wrote:I think the underlying question to pose to you is, can you make a better shot WITH distribution?
If "yes" then why aren't you doing it.

This strikes to the heart of the matter. For the home barista, taking a few extra seconds in pursuit of the godshot is time well spent. At this point in my espresso journey, with a world-class grinder and a prosumer espresso machine, I can easily pull a good shot with minimal fuss. But I do not begrudge the few seconds it takes to carefully distribute, level, and tamp prior to pulling the shot. Part of the reward is the knowledge that I've done my best to get the most out of the coffee.

galumay wrote:further to my earlier post about my experiences with no redistribution, due to 14gms in my PF basket being less than full and so precluding any levelling or redistribution - i have made a quick and dirty video of my pouring an espresso with my naked PF - its not the best camera work or filming but i think it does demonstrate that its possible to achieve a reasonable coffee even as a rank amateur without redistribution.

(i have only been using a machine for a couple of weeks, all my previous experience was with stove tops.)

I hope you won't take offense at some constructive criticism. This is nice work for only two weeks, and you're clearly on the right track. But that would be a sink shot in my kitchen. Early blonding, even though cut short at 20 seconds and 35ml, with a pale froth atop the crema that suggests stale beans.



Not a great argument for the no-distribution approach.

Randy G. wrote:I think the underlying question to pose to you is, can you make a better shot WITH distribution?
If "yes" they why aren't you doing it.
If "no," why not, and how do you know?

as explained, redistribution is not an option due to basket size, 14gms is less than full.

if redistribution isnt needed to make a coffee good enough to win a regional barista championship then i can probably learn to live without it!

RapidCoffee wrote:I hope you won't take offense at some constructive criticism. This is nice work for only two weeks, and you're clearly on the right track. But that would be a sink shot in my kitchen. Early blonding, even though cut short at 20 seconds and 35ml, with a pale froth atop the crema that suggests stale beans.

no offense, thanks for the feedback. the issues you mention though are not a reflection of lack of redistribution though, i can easily extend the length of the pour beyond the 22 secs it took with minor adjustments to tamping pressure or grind fineness. there is no "pale froth" atop the crema, the beans are not stale, it may be an artifact of the light conditions when filming?

a 14gm, 35ml, 22 sec pour is certainly within the technical specifications for an espresso, it tastes fantastic and is a quality of espresso i have rarely received in a cafe - thats got me pretty happy after only 2 weeks and while i realise there is always room for improvement i dont want to get obsessed with the technical aspects of coffee making and lose sight of the main purpose of making it - to drink it!

galumay wrote:a 14gm, 35ml, 22 sec pour is certainly within the technical specifications for an espresso, it tastes fantastic and is a quality of espresso i have rarely received in a cafe

That is one awful looking shot -- grind finer, a lot finer, and taste again. As far as leveling, probably you don't need it, since any channeling on that thing was straight down the middle.

Had an espresso at Trabant's 2nd Ave location in Seattle, and they not leveling. They at least one competition barista on staff (don't recall his name), and it was a source of discussion with the other barista's.

slightly off topic,
They also had a little Zack & Danni's roaster on the counter, and had been experimenting with some green coffee someone brought back from Hawaii in slow periods. They were definitely interested in learning more about the business. The enthusiasm was fun. The Synesso with wood handles was cool.

another_jim wrote:That is one awful looking shot -- grind finer, a lot finer, and taste again. As far as leveling, probably you don't need it, since any channeling on that thing was straight down the middle.

what a silly non-constructive comment! if i ground a bit finer than that the shot would obviously choke, given that its right in the ballpark at 35mls in 22secs. there was no channeling, i cant imagine what would make you think there was from the video.

i certainly hope smart arse, elitism is not a common trait on this forum, as someone with very limited experience making espresso with new equipment, i would expect a more mature response.

i may not have made a lot of espresso, but i have certainly drunk plenty - in many countries including italy.

It would be worthwhile nevertheless to get some fresh beans and try it again ground finer to see what it tastes like. I have found that my espresso tastes best when it drips like warm honey from the portafilter.

Of course you may find that this is not the case for you. Keep in mind as well that if your temperature is too high or your beans are too old, your espresso make be more palatable pouring loosely as it does in the video. It will probably be more like strong coffee than espresso though -- a very different taste.

Adrian

galumay wrote:there was no channeling, i cant imagine what would make you think there was from the video.

The first few seconds of an extraction are a better indicator of channeling than 10-15 seconds into the pour. The frame below is from very early in the pour and already two streams have formed:



I see no striping, spindly stream(s), and early blonding. Not as bad as this one below, but it's clearly channeling and looks like straight down the center.

galumay wrote:what a silly non-constructive comment! if i ground a bit finer than that the shot would obviously choke, given that its right in the ballpark at 35mls in 22secs. there was no channeling, i cant imagine what would make you think there was from the video.

i certainly hope smart arse, elitism is not a common trait on this forum, as someone with very limited experience making espresso with new equipment, i would expect a more mature response.

i may not have made a lot of espresso, but i have certainly drunk plenty - in many countries including italy.

I agree 100% with others that shot was a gusher, an obvious sink shot. It's not elitism calling a bad shot a bad shot, especially coming from someone with many years experience and a certified barista competition judge to boot. And yes, it is very possible to tell a bad shot from a video. (On the other hand, it's not possible to tell a good shot from a video.)

As Jim said grind finer, the shot should ooze out like liquid honey as others have said.

After I sold my old Zaffiro to a friend, he showed me with great pride that he now pulled shots "with real crema." His old Starbucks Barista had a pressurized portafilter, and he'd never produced the real thing at home. The shots were pretty poor, but he reminded me that pulling shots for the first time that look to the inexperienced eye something like good coffee shop espresso is in itself a real achievement.

So, I vote to take it easy on galumay, even though his video shot sucks.

galumay wrote:i certainly hope smart arse, elitism is not a common trait on this forum, as someone with very limited experience making espresso with new equipment, i would expect a more mature response.

I certainly hope that some newbie, who, because they have consumed a few reportedly good espresso, thinks they can take it upon his/her/itself (I try not to judge judge), after just two weeks of making espresso, wouldn't attempt to preach to folks who have been researching the same subject on a scientific level, nor try to tell us that this espresso made with all of two weeks' experience that their espresso is good when plainly it is not.

There are scientists here who have used electron microscopes to examine ground coffee to rate grinders. Others have done such research into brewing temperatures that their discoveries have been incorporated into commercial machines- many of them. One participant here designed and produced a tool for measuring brewing temperature that it is taken in very high regard. I can go on, but if you come in with an attitude that two weeks' experience and the creation of a very poor espresso and think you should be taken seriously, or that you are supplying some important data point to be considered, you are going to be very disappointed.

On the other hand, if you take the time to start reading, hit the FAQ's, do a bit of searching here, maybe you will learn, and you will be making better espresso in a very short time... It may take more than two weeks, though. Looking at that shot you created, I would have immediately thrown it into the sink. You need to set higher standards, but it takes time and experience to learn how to set the bar, and where to set it.

And... if you want to learn to make better espresso I can even recommend an article I wrote. Mind you, I have only a little more than 8 years experience of making espresso at home and home roasting, and I have only owned three espresso machines, so I am a relative newbie around this forum, and the article was only about 12 or 13 typed pages, specifically aimed at helping those new to the world of espresso at understanding the process and diagnosing problems, so I apologize if it seems a bit elementary and basic to you, but still, it may be of some assistance:
http://home.surewest.net/frcn/Coffee/HowToEspresso.html

And you can hit my website (link in the SIG below). Nothing for sale, no banner ads, just lots of useful information (to some).

So lighten up, take a deep breath, and settle in for the long haul. After 8 years of nearly-daily creation of espresso, I am still learning... A LOT! Because there is SO much to learn.

cafeIKE wrote:In the immortal [paraphrased] words of Psyd :
If it works for you, do it. Don't presume that it's at all un/necessary.

Wow! Quoted (nearly, but whatever it was, he did actually and accurately capture the essence of what I said, and since I don't even remember the exact words, this is good enough for me!) by cafeIKE. I'm very flattered.

That point came home for me after the last discussion of this type, about the WDT. I don't care what anyone thinks about it, I care what my cup tastes like, and how easy or difficult it is to make that happen consistently.
I tried stopping the WDT. I had far more spritzers and channeling, and many more twisters and donuts. While this could very well indicate a flaw in my other preparation techniques, the WDT solved the problems, and I can almost literally, pull an acceptable-to-great shot in my sleep. Which, when I have a 7AM call across town, is just about how I do them! ; >
To suggest to someone else that their technique is wrong, flawed, or unnecessary is about as silly concerning their coffee making as it is concerning their lovemaking. As long as it is getting the desired results, who are you to suggest that?

great post Chris.

mikemckim wrote: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.



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.

I meant "see" literally. I will agree that the best taste sometimes comes from the ugliest of pours, but I am philosophical by nature(and formal training), as you know.

I'm just not under the impression that the best taste is always the most accurate representation of the coffee. I see it as sort of a loophole to get the desired results, despite the coffee (rather than because of the coffee). Of course, this is just my perspective, and as always, your mileage may vary.

I did say to watch it when he was there, because I recognize that Clancy probably knows how to use this technique to get to the desired results pretty well, and it would be worth it to have him do the prep so Nick can watch the pour, and taste the result.

I tend to agree that cup quality is more important than how pretty a pour is.. but the pour does tell us something about the extraction, whether we want to admit it or not.

And to contradict myself (yet again?), presenting a great tasting cup is of a very high importance when presenting a particular coffee to a consumer. Presenting a lackluster cup of coffee can give the wrong impression of the growers or roaster of that coffee. And yet.. the philosopher in me just can't get past the previously mentioned factors/concepts.

Cheers.