I don't think my temp is high, in fact it's probably low as I only say a water dance once or twice. Most of the time I never see it.
Yes I do use fresh coffee - I roast my own usually in a gene cafe
thanks to all

Yerushalmi wrote:Am I missing something here? It seems to me the only way I've found to make delicious espresso.

Yes, I believe there is a problem. It's not your enjoyment of a rather extreme ristretto, but the statement that this is the only way you can make good espresso. If you cannot get a decent pour using the so-called golden rule (~50ml double in ~25 seconds), then something is going wrong: coffee (have you tried fresh beans from a specialty microroaster?), puck preparation, brew parameters...

Actually.... I don't know if I would agree with that.
It's entirely possible that - given unique personal taste and specific beans in use you could find a situation where you were unable to get a shot from the "golden rule" which tastes good to you -- and have nothing "wrong."

As a caveat - I famously think the so called "golden rule" is at best a very rough suggestion and at worst deeply misleading (and is without a doubt very poorly named).

CoffeeOwl wrote:My question is if you use fresh coffee?
Then if yes, just skip all the Schomer's mystic pizza stuff and watch the machine temp to be not too high, grind the coffee (finer then for the schomerish stuff) , use something sharp like a needle to level it, then tamp.

Fresh Coffee + rough control of brew temp + fine grind + leveling and tamping != good espresso.
The "schomer mystic" stuff is not designed to address the issues of stale coffee.
And "fresh coffee" does not equal Good Coffee.

JmanEspresso wrote: a proper double shot... ...Meaning, 16-18grams, 2.0-2.5oz, under 30seconds.

Uhm, while that sounds good, what about it makes that 'proper' and , say, a 50 ml doppio pulled in 25 seconds from 14g 'not proper'? The only standards that I know about are the INEI, and the WBC. Neither of which describe that as a 'proper' double. OTOH, the WBC doesn't rule it out, either. Just curious as what high water mark you're using, and under what bridge? ; >

malachi wrote:As a caveat - I famously think the so called "golden rule" is at best a very rough suggestion and at worst deeply misleading (and is without a doubt very poorly named).

I tend to refer to it as the 'Golden Rule of Thumb'. It is a perfect place for a newbie to start at, as you can (almost) reliably depend on that recipe and following the Four M's to get you something better than what you'll find at most chain stores and lots of independents. From there, experiment and adventure, but it's a great place to start out and a great place to do some diagnostics if you're trying to suss out a problem via the interwebs or the telephone.

malachi wrote:Fresh Coffee + rough control of brew temp + fine grind + leveling and tamping != good espresso.

Ok, but if the start point is bitter espresso and a sweet one is only possible to get by very very long pour, then I would start solving the problem this way.

malachi wrote:The "schomer mystic" stuff is not designed to address the issues of stale coffee.

I know and I didn't mean that - rather I do not think that it is a good way of starting to learn to prepare the puck, not to mention Schomer's claims that it is the only way to do it.
For the reference - the post about my stale coffee tasting good is here.

malachi wrote:And "fresh coffee" does not equal Good Coffee.

Yep. Four months ago I had a chance to taste a batch of fresh beans of a popular line of cafes - it tasted like roasted grass, even though it was really fresh. They used to have good coffee two years ago.

malachi wrote:Actually.... I don't know if I would agree with that.
It's entirely possible that - given unique personal taste and specific beans in use you could find a situation where you were unable to get a shot from the "golden rule" which tastes good to you -- and have nothing "wrong."

Uh huh. And when was the last time you found that only a 90 second pour tasted good?

I have never argued for slavish adherence to the golden rule. We are talking about an extreme case here, not 25s vs. 30s or 40ml vs. 50 ml. When the pour is this far out of "normal" bounds, something odd is going on.

Psyd wrote:'Golden Rule of Thumb'

Oh, I love that! Superb!

Made my day!

But I think John's onto something here. And maybe part of the answer's in the temperature.

Generations of espresso research and real world applications by the Italians, including Dr. Illy, needn't be taken as a bible but one might assume that they have some merit. For any troubleshooting exercise I like to have some sort of benchmark reference point that makes it easy for me to divide and conquer the problem and eliminate variables.

The 14 to 18 gram double with a 20 - 30 second extraction time and 2.0 - 2.5 oz standard double or 1.0 to 1.5 oz ristretto - is a really good place to start. I've tried extraction times as short as 20 seconds and as long as 50... have updosed (21 grams in a "triple" basket and same fluid volume as the lighter charge weights)... downdosed... and still end up coming back to a general set of standards that works best for me. Not surprising is the fact that although I find variance (some coffees work better with more restricted shots or slight lighter does) I rarely if ever find better results outside these parameters. The given on this is a good grinder with burrs in decent shape and a coffee of known and consistent quality.

Having a standard benchmark has become even more important to me of late as I'm developing espresso blends and there are some that just don't deliver the goods no matter how I pull the shots. I focus my further refinement on those that pass muster when I pull the first few shots with fairly standard parameters.

RapidCoffee wrote:If you cannot get a decent pour using the so-called golden rule (~50ml double in ~25 seconds), then something is going wrong.

RapidCoffee wrote:Uh huh. And when was the last time you found that only a 90 second pour tasted good?

Just because I disagree with your first statement doesn't mean that I am saying the latter.

Cheap debating tactic IMHO.