VS_DoubleShot wrote:On the question of how we can know what the dose is if we aren't using a timer and we're not leveling - is it possible to dose and weigh once or twice, take a good look at it, and then eyeball it in the future (maybe even take a picture and hang it on the wall next to your setup). If I fill a basket from the doser and weigh that, now I know what (just an example) 16g looks like in the basket, unleveled, straight from my grinder and now I can duplicated that if my eyes function properly in a well-lit kitchen.

Once in a while you'd have to weigh again to be sure that you aren't way off but don't we all do a bit of measuring one way or another at some time or other (temps, times, weights) to be sure we're on track?

Anyone could argue this is too much guess-work, especially for a barista in a busy shop, and I'd say that's probably right.

This is pretty common, and what I assume most people do. Its accuracy is highly dependent on the coffee. As Mike said, it's less consistent with blends, but if the beans in a blend are all pretty close in density, the effect would be minimized. When running a blend with as much diversity as Meritage, I'd expect to see some variation, though probably not more than a gram or so. (again, as Mike said)

VS_DoubleShot wrote:FWIW, I think (forgive me if I'm wrong) that Jason is saying that the best tasting shot of espresso from a particular coffee is not necessarily a true representation of the characteristics of that coffee.

Yeah, that's what I've been trying to say. I guess it didn't come out well the first time, so the later attempt to use an analogy wasn't effective.

In terms of accuracy:

Weighing : ±0.1g

Timer [0.1s on moderate speed grinders] : ±0.3g with the odd outlier to keep things interesting. It's important to clear the detritus with a short clearing pulse of about a second.

Leveling for dosing is too much at odds with coffee, grinder and machine interactions to be worthy of consideration. [Always drive in 3rd gear???]

Untamping a dose. Now that's funny

Jasonian,

Sorry to pile on you, but I don't see how getting bad flavors from a coffee is any more virtuous by way of "authenticity" or what have you.

If I were to follow your line of reasoning, I would say that coffee farms are being "dishonest" when they remove defects from their greens or only harvest the ripest cherries.

As you know, there is an incredible amount of manual labor involved in coffee production. In my opinion, respect for the coffee means getting the best results you possibly can.

It seems you are taking a cupping mentality and applying it to drink preparation. When cupping, it is your job to identify the flaws in the coffee. But by the time the coffee is sourced, roasted, and about to be served to a customer, clearly you want to express the best aspects of that coffee.

Ryan

That said...

There is not one way to pull a shot that "tastes the best." And some styles of espresso reveal origin flavors more transparently than others. So perhaps what Jasonian is proposing is that he prefers espresso that highlights the origin.

I would generally agree with this idea but then argue that origin flavors are best presented against a pleasant canvas... for example acidity is communicated better with complementary sweetness.

Ryan

another_jim wrote:Of course, you can learn to celebrate the many facets of a coffee, both good and bad, by letting go of your rigid, over-controlled, western will to power, and never dosing the same twice

Personally, I aspire to being over-controlled. But I try not to be too rigid about it.

I have a couple of guidelines in this regard, and they serve me even as my circumstances change:
1. Control what you can
2. Keep some perspective
The latest iteration of these guidelines, prompted by giving up home roasting, has been to buy 5 lb deliveries of amazing, acclaimed coffees (currently, Intelli Black Cat) and vac freeze 7oz portions. I weigh each shot for 21g triples (Dalla Corte Mini, thin dispersion block) and grind per shot without hopper through a yogurt cup. I will stir with a point if there are obvious clumps, but mostly a few shakes and moderate swipe and tamp produce a channel-less shot. Leveling is via my finger tips on the basket rim.

Clearly, there are some compromises with this protocol. Some will shudder at the prospect of not using a hopper. These are people with much finer cupping sensibilities than I have. Besides, many evenings wind down with with a decaf cappa. Some day I'll buy a second grinder, but until then it's enough of a challenge to guess and change the grind without switching hoppers as well.

So, unlike my days as a home roaster, I've traded off the clear satisfactions of experimenting, blending, and getting surprised---for much more consistent shot preps. No question that the coffee, on average, is better; but the trade overall is a wash.

Finally, the great unknown factor in reading HB posts is whether or not the poster can cup his or her way out of a paper filter. Surely, coffee's flattest learning curve is becoming a reliable cupper--as it should be, IMO. And just as there's an art to being a home barista, there's a skill-set for reading and learning from this forum. Takes some time. And perspective.

for all the people skeptical about grinding by time I think it is worthwhile to mention.

I have timed how long several baristas who are very consistent dosers +-.5gram per shot, and while they use how much coffee is in the portafilter to tell them when to stop... they still ran the grinder for the same amount of time each time they dosed a shot to within +-.25secs.

A lot of these questions and suggestions have skirted the 'pro vs home' barista techniques. My technique is to weigh the dose of beans, and dose the burrs individually. This insures the same grind from dose to dose, the same dose from cup to cup, and the same result, if I keep the other variables close, each time. And yeah, I WDT and level each basket before putting it in the PF. While I would advocate that kind of ritual for any HB looking for consistency, I would absolutely expect a pro to laugh me out from behind the counter if I suggested that. I love that I can take that kind of time ('cause, I think I like the ritual almost as much as I like the coffee...) but I remember what kind of time constraints I had on me when I was pulling for customers.
And, like people, (Jason) I like to think that I'd like to get the best a person has to offer with each interaction, even if it isn't that persons inherent personality. I've worked with total pricks, total downers and total slackers, and convinced them to be nice, productive, and happy on the gig. While I've worked with mostly decent coffees, (cause my roaster friends are inherently good people) I still prefer the lie that they tell me to the lesser truths.

Bar baristas cannot afford the time you take.
But beyond that - they can afford to waste far more coffee than you can; the good ones are far more consistent in all phases of building a shot than any home barista (without complicated techniques); are looking for consistency above absolute quality when working the bar (not the case in competitions); and with few exceptions are working with equipment that makes consistent quality a lot (LOT) easier to come by.

And you need to differentiate not just Home Baristas and "Pro" Baristas, but rather Home Baristas, Bar Baristas and Competition Baristas.

Bar baristas cannot afford the time you take.

I think that that is why I pictured them laughing...

And you need to differentiate not just Home Baristas and "Pro" Baristas, but rather Home Baristas, Bar Baristas and Competition Baristas.

Kinda the point that I was making. Looking at the URL leads me to believe that the info here is meant to be tailored for those at home? I dunno...
Anyhoo, in the arena of time, I would think that the competing pro and the working pro would be under similar constraints. If you don't beat the clock, you're not moving on to the Bonus Stunt anyways...

Martin wrote:Finally, the great unknown factor in reading HB posts is whether or not the poster can cup his or her way out of a paper filter. Surely, coffee's flattest learning curve is becoming a reliable cupper--as it should be, IMO. And just as there's an art to being a home barista, there's a skill-set for reading and learning from this forum. Takes some time. And perspective.

I heartily agree. And, going a step further, the endorsement I nearly always disregard is "My friends say it's the best espresso they ever had."

After being shocked by a San Francisco restaurant that exceeded (by a good margin) the flavors I was getting at home from a favorite coffee, I've been re-evaluating all my home parameters and techniques (hi/lo pressure; thin/thick disk; double/triple basket; updose/no updose; etc.).

"Tastes great" isn't good enough anymore. I'm seeking the holy grail of maximum clarity!

"Tastes great" isn't good enough anymore. I'm seeking the holy grail of maximum clarity!

Here there be tygers, Marshall! ; >

As they say in racing, "How fast can you afford to go?"
Maximum clarity, as with maximum velocity, is an exponentially increasing expense conversely couples to an ever-narrowing margin of improvements. I ain't saying that you can't do it, brother, but that that holy grail may be a bit more expensive and elusive than the original to which you referred!
To quote another career path of mine, sound recording, "It's far easier to be done than finished." Being happy with the results that you can reasonably achieve is a hard thing, but not as hard as following perfection down that rabbit hole.
Good Luck, and publish your findings, willya?

shadowfax wrote:The quality (repeatability and adjustment granularity) of timed dosing certainly varies from grinder to grinder. I believe that most of the very high end ones (Mazzer Electronics and Mahlkönig K30, for example) are pretty impressive on both fine-grained adjustments and consistency. I'm also reviewing the new Baratza Vario grinder, which has timed dosing, and it works pretty nicely on this front as well, although, so far, for the coffee I have used and my Elektra T1, it doesn't perform as well as the larger grinders at hands-free distribution. I get channeling and sometimes even a bit of spritzing at the beginning of shots when I just dose and then tap (or not) and tamp.

mikemckim wrote:I did quite a bit of testing when we were trying to decide what direction we wanted to go with espresso grinders. I have to try to find all my notes on my computer, but my testing was with the Ditting/Mahlkonig espresso grinder. I ran 250 shots based on the assumption that every coffee house should shoot for serving at minimum 250 espresso drinks each day. I ran both a single origin coffee and a blend. The blend did have more variation, but my theory is that is due to density of coffees at different degrees of roast and the ratio of those coffees in each shot. I will look for my notes, but I want to say that I never had more than 1 gram differential and in the single origin it was single digits and the blend was less than 20 shots. I do understand that 1 gram can make a big difference, but I would challenge that with the most accomplished barista leveling 250 shots any day...hmmmmmm, maybe I should give Clancy a new job description.

Veering slightly OT here, but this suggests to me that if you are not one of those who weighs the coffee routinely, grinders with timed dosing could make a material difference in home prep consistency... Seems obvious of course, but I'd been curious to hear people's actual experiences of this, and there it is. I'm probably in the minority here, but I dose visually, redistribute if not even and fluffy, and level (I own a gram scale but don't use it day to day). My consistency is usually but not always reasonable and of course not up to what I wish it were, and without going down the road of weighing, it sounds like the larger timed units might be the lazy man's substitute...

Been reading this thread, but refrained from posting, as I dont think I have the level of 'geek' to contribute, but..what the heck. Thought I would state how I do my grinding/dosing etc etc..

Grinder: Mazzer Major, w/ Doser(sweeper mod from vanes, upside down funnel over star)
Machine: QM Anita, Boiler-1.3max, Brew, 10BAR

First, I weigh out my beans, every time. I grind per shot.

Load up hopper with one dose, for a double. Updosed, 16grams.

Dose into PF.. clear out throat, brush any extra on doser edges/corners of things, twack clean. Then, WDT with a tiny wisk, level, and lightly compact everything, chicago chop style, evenly over the basket. I BARELY have waste, but always a TINY extra so I know the whole basket got compacted evenly. Then, Light tamp to level, lift up to see where there are extra grounds on edges.. use tamper to add them to the puck, then, 50lb tamp(I find this is the easiest to repeat, I have a hard time being consistent wit 30lbs) With this method, I get beautiful pours almost everytime. I use a double basket, and a naked PF.

When I used my hand grinder, I used a Norpro canning funnel, and WDT'd, then brushed all the grounds into a mound in the basket, lifted up the funnel, tamped and went. Surprisingly, it worked well.. but I didnt like how big the canning funnel was.. and prefer the method stated above.

With the triple basket, I kinda follow the method described in Jon R's article on this site.. but ive yet to be consistent with the triple. Sometimes they are textbook, othertimes I get some side channels.

I hate my single basket.. Standard E-61 i believe. It came with Anita. In any case.. I hate it, it is impossible to get a good shot. It just gradually slopes down to a smaller circle. I like the LM style, with the definite 'hole' with straight sides, then it slopes up. Maybe ill get one.

Point is.. regardless of whatever funnel i use, or dont use a funnel, whatever tamp style i use.. If I DONT use the WDT, I CANNOT be consistent. WDT almost guarantees a good shot.. and since I wont be opening a cafe for at least a couple years.. I will swear by it. When I open my place.. ill need to learn something newer/much faster.

Sorry for the length.
Jeff

Normally I would either use the WDT or my finger to level off the coffee but after my last two shots that may be a thing of the past. Throwing caution to the wind I decided to see what I'd get with no distribution or leveling after dosing. For both shots I dosed as evenly as possible ending up with a small pile in the center of the basket. Without tapping or shaking I tamped normally & pulled the shots. Both times I got the nicest looking pours I'd seen in ages & both shots were creamy & delicious. Again two of the best I've tasted in awhile.

With the SJ or Zass?

I've never tried using the Zass for espresso, that's my travel grinder for press pot. This was with the SJ w/stock burrs & doser.

JmanEspresso wrote: I don't think I have the level of 'geek' to contribute,

(sweeper mod from vanes, upside down funnel over star)

Boiler-1.3max, Brew, 10BAR

First, I weigh out my beans, every time. I grind per shot.

Updosed, 16grams.

clear out throat, brush any extra on doser edges/corners of things, thwack clean. Then, WDT with a tiny wisk, level, and lightly compact everything, chicago chop style, evenly over the basket.

Light tamp to level, lift up to see where there are extra grounds on edges.. use tamper to add them to the puck, then, 50lb tamp(I find this is the easiest to repeat, I have a hard time being consistent with 30lbs)

I use a double basket, and a naked PF.

I used a Norpro canning funnel, and WDT'd, then brushed all the grounds into a mound in the basket,

I kinda follow the method described in Jon R's article on this site.

.

I like the LM style, with the definite 'hole' with straight sides, then it slopes up. Maybe ill get one.

Oh, Jeff, you so have the level of geek to contribute.
Welcome to the club, we meet on Tuesdays, and there are T-shirts.*
The force is strong in this one...




*I have an LM T that I got from a CG'er, a Rocket Roasters T from Larry, an Espresso Smith T from Tal, and a Barista Jam T that I had smuggled in from Barefoot, from Andy.

Not sure if there was ever a satisfactory answer to the original question in its original context. Thought I'd throw in a couple of pence, knowing all or most of this will be review or already known.

You want an even extraction (right?). Working backwards, to achieve as even an extraction as possible, you'd need a coffee-ground matrix (puck) with even density and mass laterally. Tamping evenly doesn't hurt, though the more important thing is to have a laterally consistent (in mass and density) puck. How do you achieve that?

The most simple way is to present the coffee grounds (dose) into the basket perfectly evenly. If you were able to dose in a way that presented a particular mass of coffee perfectly evenly into the basket, then there would be no reason to then physically manipulate the coffee in order to improve the distribution, nor to control the mass (amount) of coffee in the basket.

Physical manipulation of the coffee (leveling, finger-strike leveling, etc.) comes into play when you are, for whatever reason, dissatisfied with the lateral distribution of the grinds, and/or dissatisfied with the quantity (mass) of coffee in the basket.

Some of the newer grinders feature two important elements:
1) timer switches
2) improved dosing mechanisms

The timer switches allows the barista a new level of control over the dose (mass) of coffee. Granted, using time to control mass is always going to depend on how well correlated the time of the grind is to the mass of the coffee ground (different grinders and dosing mechanisms vary greatly in this regard). If, for example, 3.52 seconds of grinding consistently yields 18.3g of coffee, you can probably use the timer to control your dose rather than leveling off excess coffee.

With improved dosing mechanisms (and improved techniques), the lateral distribution of grounds is (or at least can be) greatly improved. This reduces or eliminates the need to physically manipulate the coffee grounds to improve the distribution.

I think this somewhat represents the theories at play that have led to Marshall's and other's observations about some of the competing baristas.

Practically speaking, the jury's still out on whether or not the Mazzer E-series doserless grinders, Mahlkonig espresso grinders, Anfim grinder-dosers, dosing-chute modified Mazzers, etc., dose the coffee well enough to truly eliminate the need for physical manipulation of the coffee. For instance, reigning US Barista Champion Mike Phillips used a Mazzer Robur E and still employed finger-leveling. The issue, in my mind, is whether the resultant dose is too "center-heavy" in its lateral density. Such a distribution-flaw would not necessarily be revealed by observing a bottomless portafilter extraction.

I will add that while Mike did use "finger striking" with his Robur E, he still did use the Robur-E. In other words, the newer-design grinders do provide some improvements, even if one does not take advantage of every element. Assuming that a grinder doses very well, one unique opportunity presented is to be able to dose lower than you would otherwise.

Anyway, good topic, and I hope I didn't do more harm than good by posting.

Nick wrote:For instance, reigning US Barista Champion Mike Phillips used a Mazzer Robur E and still employed finger-leveling. The issue, in my mind, is whether the resultant dose is too "center-heavy" in its lateral density. Such a distribution-flaw would not necessarily be revealed by observing a bottomless portafilter extraction.

I will add that while Mike did use "finger striking" with his Robur E, he still did use the Robur-E. In other words, the newer-design grinders do provide some improvements, even if one does not take advantage of every element. Assuming that a grinder doses very well, one unique opportunity presented is to be able to dose lower than you would otherwise.

Interesting set of points, Mr. Cho. I would argue that the bottomless portafilter can give at least hint that an extraction is "center heavy;" You just have to watch it bead at the start--it ought to bead slightly heavier in a ring pattern. Of course, that's useless if it beads evenly and exhibits the problem later in the pour (when you can't see), but I would be surprised if that were the case. In my experience, other minor distribution flaws are the worst in the first few seconds, and seem to (appear to... which can be deceiving, I know) self-correct. Of course, you'd never know if a problem like that was bad at first, and then recovered, or not, and that sucks, because I suspect that a lot of doserless designs will have a similar problem when you just dose by holding the basket right in the center of where the grinds are dispensed (and how much more can you really do in 2-4 seconds?); I'd guess that the important question is how bad that is for whichever grinder you're using--whether you can sense it in the cup consistently, untouched pucks vs. well-groomed ones.