malachi wrote:BRAVO!!!!!!

Agreed!

* * * * *

Marshall, while I have not always seen eye-to-eye with Chris and Ian (indeed, I feel as though I've found myself in agreement with you more often during the time I've spent here), I feel the need to paraphrase Shakespeare: me thinks thou doth protest too much.

Cheers,
Jason

P.S. I'd insert a smiley face, but apparently they seem to set you off, and certainly that's not my intention.

malachi wrote:A less busy machine needs MORE frequent cleaning (not less).

+2

I'm not authorized to speak for SCAA, but am reasonably sure they wouldn't have a problem with: "Looking for a detergent? Try cheap coffee!"

But, as this thread seems to have slipped into crazyland, I will unsubscribe.

Marshall wrote:But, as this thread seems to have slipped into crazyland, I will unsubscribe.

+1

Moderators: can we please sink this thread?

Nik wrote:Are you suggesting that at the end of the day after making a half dozen drinks that a back flush with detergent should be run through it? Or, a water back flush with the detergent regimen once a week.

I'm suggesting that it is wise to backflush with detergent after each "session" (ie once per day in most people's cases).

Peppersass wrote:+1

Moderators: can we please sink this thread?

To be honest, this is IMHO one of the more valuable and useful threads that has appeared on HB.com in a while.

malachi wrote:To be honest, this is IMHO one of the more valuable and useful threads that has appeared on HB.com in a while.

OK, maybe I got a little too harsh. I don't find the thread offensive, just somewhat long-winded and repetitive (the pot calls the kettle black, as my mother used to say ), and a few posts have come close to insulting other members.

It's certainly of value to point out that pulling a shot flushes out rancid oils, and that as a result machines used less frequently need to be cleaned more often. But does it really take 5 pages to get that point across?

cafeIKE wrote:Most of us have been around the block enough to know that a machine change rarely results in significant cup improvement in the hands of a competent user. Of the 2175 posts relating to the GS/3, only 248 mention taste. Couldn't find 1 that says the cup is much improved over its predecessor.

Most of us upgrade our machine for additional features or ease of use or cachet, but only the deluded expect massive cup improvement.

I think you might find that a similarly high percentage of posts on HB.com about any brand of espresso machine relate to mechanical or usage issues as opposed to taste. That's the nature of the beast (espresso machines and forums where people talk about them.)

I do agree that in most cases a machine upgrade isn't going to make a dramatic improvement in taste, but you left out one reason for upgrading, and that's consistency. I suppose consistency could be inherent in "ease of use", but consistency is so important to espresso production that it deserves its own category. My GS/3 most certainly has resulted in a much higher percentage of good-tasting cups than my old Silvia. I'm not saying that someone couldn't learn how to get more consistency out of a Silvia than I did, but it's a lot harder, and after a certain point I felt it was more important to be able to focus on understanding and choosing the coffee instead of how to satisfy the requirements of the machine.

So in a very real sense, the GS/3 has improved the taste in the cup quite a bit because it has helped me to make more good-tasting cups. To a lesser extent, it's also true that the GS/3's best cup is better than the best cup I got with Silvia. I suspect this is due to temperature stability, but I don't really know -- there were changes in the coffees, grinder and my technique during the transition from one machine to the other. I believe some of the experts here have said that Silvia "muddies" the shots, whereas a higher quality machine can bring out more of the flavors in the cup. I've found that to be true. But perhaps this is a poor example, as there are so many problems with Silvia that even the low-end E61 HX machines don't have. Still, it's an example of better taste through upgrading.

All that said, as has been repeated here and elsewhere often enough, the most dramatic changes in taste come from 1) changing the coffee, 2) changing the grinder, and 3) changing the barista.

another_jim wrote:When you find an offensive post, please use the exclamation button on that post to report it, and a moderator is notified. This is necessary, since HB is a little different from CG, and moderators do not normally step in when manners deteriorate or the arguments get vehement, providing the arguments are even remotely on point.

For coffee, there's lots of historical precedent for this

Perhaps not your intention, but what I got from that article was "It's not all about the taste..."

We've become a nation of coffee sophisticates—to the point where McDonald's feels compelled to roll out some semblance of an espresso program—but we're still rubes when it comes to the real purpose of the place: It's not the coffee. It's what your brain does on it.

The only trouble with the new, proudly bean-centric places that keep popping up is that they tend to be austere obsessives. There's barely anything to eat other than a perfunctory pastry, and never, ever any alcohol. You're supposed to contemplate your coffee, top notes to finish, in worshipful silence, a notion as wrongheaded as a caramel frappucchino.

Regards, Henry