One school of thought, championed by Ken Fox, believes that a dose of exactly 14g is best for all coffees, all grinders, all (double) baskets, all espresso machines. At the opposite end of the spectrum, we have folks like Chris Tacy, who disclaim the notion of a "traditional" double, spurn any and all general rules, and believe that every coffee, every basket, every grinder, every espresso machine has its own optimal dose.
My views lie somewhere between these extremes. I do not believe that a single fixed dose produces optimal results for all coffees and gear, nor do I disdain the notion of general dosing guidelines. Besides personal experience, several observations have influenced my thoughts:
I'm a big fan of Andy Schecter's brew ratios. The coffee:water proportion is a major contributing factor to the pour, and Andy has given us a simple, effective tool for describing this ratio. Coffee dose alone is not sufficient, especially when you look at lever machines, with their fixed water volume per pull. For example, to brew a traditional double on my Gaggia Factory lever machine, I use a 14g dose. That's because a full stroke of the lever nets ~28g liquid, for a brew ratio of 50%. On pump machines, I stop the pour by color (blonding), but typically strive for a brew ratio in the normale double range.
Puck headspace, as Dan Kehn has noted, is another important factor in determining dose. This is highly dependent on the espresso machine, and how far down the dispersion block extends into the basket. Jim Schulman has proposed other espresso machine considerations, such as the evenness of water delivery to the puck.
Given that all coffees and all machines are different, are there any measurable dose factors that can be used to formulate general principles? I spent some time this morning, carefully weighing the natural dose capacity of each of my dozen+ filter baskets. From top to bottom, left to right:
QuickMill single, Rancilio? single, Gaggia Factory 51mm single, Gaggia Factory 51mm double (2)
Marzocco 57mm double (2), QuickMill double, Spaziale 53mm pod basket, Spaziale 53mm double (2)
ridgeless "14g" Synesso double (2), ridgeless "18g" Synesso double/triple (2), ridged Rancilio? triple (2)

By natural dose capacity, I mean the amount of coffee that naturally fits in the basket. No tapping, just fill the basket and groom it level. I used the same ground coffee (Cuvee Meritage blend) for each weighing, and did my best to follow exactly the same dosing regimen for each basket.

Here are the results:
QM single: 12.4g
Rancilio single: 13.6g
GF single: 11.9g
GF double: 14.8g, 15.0g
LM 57mm double: 17.4g, 18.4g*
QM double: 17.1g
Spaz pod: 9.3g
Spaz double: 17.5g, 17.9g
Synesso 14g: 18.6g, 19.0g
Synesso 18g: 21.3g, 21.4g
Rancilio triple: 21.0g, 21.2g
* the only baskets that showed so much variance in capacity
A couple of observations:
Within each basket class (single, double, triple) there is significant variation in capacity. The basket capacity is likely to be of greater significance than the class label. The exact weight will vary a bit with the coffee used, but the relative capacity proportions are independent of anything but the basket size and shape. To achieve a desired brew ratio, you can use the natural basket capacity to estimate the target water volume when e.g. programming an automatic espresso machine.
The so-called "14g" double basket is a fiction, and the "7g" single even more so. To achieve these doses, you must carefully weigh the grinds, or adjust the grinder doser (or timer) to deliver this amount. The coffee grinds will not reach the basket rim, which makes levelling a challenge. Only the 51mm lever double basket approached 14g (really 15g), and none of the singles came close to 7g.
But this is not really an issue, unless you insist on a 14g dose. Unlike some, I have not experienced channeling problems when dosing over 14g. There is plenty of headroom, even at much higher doses. On the 53mm Spaziale S1, the natural basket capacity of 17.5g yields a puck that tamps well below the ridge line:

I don't see how this could possibly be termed overdosing, and it does not lead to channeling:

I'd also like to propose a terminology change. The terms "overdosing" and "underdosing" imply you have done something wrong. I prefer "updosing" and "downdosing", which reflects a purposeful attempt to vary the dose, rather than a mistake. "Overdosing" might be reserved for cramming so much coffee in the puck that locking in disturbs the puck integrity and causes channeling... but didn't Paul Bassett win the 2003 WBC in this way? I'm not even sure what "underdosing" is supposed to mean. Perhaps when you can no longer grind fine enough to get proper flow.
So far I've been focussing on the mechanical aspects of puck preparation. Taste is another issue entirely. Like Chris, I do not believe that all coffees are created equal. Some respond better to updosing with a coarser grind, others to downdosing with a finer grind, just as higher or lower brew temps may bring out the best taste profile of certain beans and roasts. But every espresso machine has different brewing characteristics, and baskets have significantly different capacities. So I prefer to use updosing and downdosing relative to a given basket capacity, rather than some ideal 14g standard.
OK, enough for now. Let the fun begin...



