RapidCoffee wrote:BTW, I see you have a posted an instructional video on vac pot brewing, in which you advocate stirring the grounds with a whisk. I suppose that's OK though...

I also strongly advocate stirring when making scramble egg, mixing cake batter, and cooking pasta... which I think is OK.

coffee_monkey wrote:I also strongly advocate stirring when making scramble egg, mixing cake batter, and cooking pasta... which I think is OK.

Yeah, I probably deserved that. But I see nothing wrong with using a whisk to stir coffee grounds, whether it's in a vac pot or (on a smaller scale) in a filter basket. If it gets the job done, why not use it?

cafeIKE wrote:After trying the WDT for several months, I abandoned it as it appears to give no improvement. I tried several variations : Concentric circles, small circles, back and forth, inward, outward spiral.

My impression is that grinding half a shot into the bin on the first shot of the day and discarding the first couple of seconds of subsequent shots achieves better consistency. A gently side to side shake of the PF, down dose and a gentle tamp yields great consistent espresso. If I bother to use the BPF, the pour starts, tiger stripes and finally lightens evenly across the basket. What more could I want?

Nothing! Everyone can (and should) develop their own espresso style. The best way to do this is by experimenting with different techniques, and keeping an open mind.

My thanks to all who have contributed their thoughts to this interesting thread. We're all after the same thing, even if we don't always agree on how to get there.

I can understand Marshall's point of view on this. I'm as guilty as anyone of overcomplicating things. WDT is only 5 seconds though, are you really so pressed for time?

I try to pare back my technique to get it as simple as possible aiming for just a dose-distribute-tamp. I've dropped almost all the extra stuff I used to do except WDT. Does that mean it was all unnecesary? No - but as I got better at pulling shots I didn't need them anymore. To me, they were like training wheels I guess - you don't need them once you can ride a bike, but for a while there you definitely did, because without the training wheels I might've given up trying.

I don't consider the WDT a training wheel though. In back-to-back shots where I drop the WDT, the extraction is noticeably worse (more inconsistent shot-to-shot aswell) and the result in the cup inferior. This is for me, on my equipment with my clump-monster grinder. So each to their own - but in situations where it can help, it does help.

Just my 2p....

Abe Carmeli wrote:You're welcome, but before you start experimenting perhaps this little qualifier is in order: Updosing is very machine dependent and you will get varying results. It has to do with head space. On the L/M's & Synessos it works well. It will not work well on some home machines, and may cause uneven extractions.

I don't like updosing. I hate it, actually. I refuse to unless it's absolutely necessary, and most times, that's due to a decaf blend, or a less than superb quality coffee.

Even distribution in the basket is not entirely outside of the barista's control during dosing. Even with an entry-level home grinder. It's not rocket science. It's effort.

It's easier still with the higher end grinders.

RapidCoffee wrote:Yeah, I probably deserved that. But I see nothing wrong with using a whisk to stir coffee grounds, whether it's in a vac pot or (on a smaller scale) in a filter basket. If it gets the job done, why not use it?

Well, the initial question was "why don't the pro's use it?".

I think the question has been answered over and over again.

It's just not efficient, and the results aren't any better in the cup.

This isn't to stop HB's from using it as often or little as they want. If you could get your espresso in less time, with more finesse, and equal results, wouldn't you use that method on the bar?

Not that you were the one questioning it, but I don't think Pro's SHOULD use it, for reasons already given in the thread.

Jasonian wrote:Well, the initial question was "why don't the pro's use it?".

I think the question has been answered over and over again.

Jason, you sure got that one right. Most of the responses can be found in the original WDT article.

I am not a pro, I am an amateur (literal meaning: lover) of espresso, in the purist sense of the word. The WDT was proposed as a method to help home baristas (like myself) get an even distribution of coffee grounds in the filter basket prior to tamping, largely because existing grinders have design deficiencies that make this a challenge. It's not the only method, and like all techniques, it has both advantages and disadvantages. But it seems to have helped quite a few people, and I'm glad of that.

I have a simple challenge for those who dislike the WDT. Many home baristas have problems getting good extractions using current equipment and techniques. Rather than expending more energy in trying to discredit the WDT, come up with something better!

RapidCoffee wrote:I have a simple challenge for those who dislike the WDT. Many home baristas have problems getting good extractions using current equipment and techniques. Rather than expending more energy in trying to discredit the WDT, come up with something better!

Why can't we do both?

1. Mini Mazzer, controlled by commercial blender timer (Waring).
2. Leave the friggin' basket in the portafilter where God intended it to live.
3. Rapid flicks of doser while moving portafilter around to even the distribution.
4. Dose enough so that basket will be filled, but not overstuffed, after leveling.
5. Stockfleth's move.
6. Dead level tamp with convex tamper at "moderate" pressure.

This almost always works very, very well. I use a non-HX Isomac E-61 with the flow stopped down by an 0.5 mm gicleur and PID with thermal probe installed directly into the boiler. I regularly calibrate my palate by visits to the best local shops and roaster's labs, so I know I'm getting very good results. Hypercritical, but knowledgeable, guests tell me the same thing. I also get the same results on commercial equipment and did so on my (long ago, but not forgotten) afternoon with a GS3.

I'm curious is if those who don't use the WDT could post some videos of their typical extractions (with a bottomless portafilter). I ask because I have experimented with using the WDT and without and my flow is always more even with the WDT so I am going to continue to use it (at least for a while). The real kicker is the flavor, even without the WDT the shots were pretty good but there was a noticeable flavor change (and body change) when using the WDT. I'd love to be able to compare others non-WDT pours to what I have seen coming out of my own portafilter.

Any takers?

Marshall wrote:Why can't we do both?

That works too. My point is, it's easy to tear something down, but that doesn't help solve a problem. If you look at espresso-related message boards, many of the posts are of the "help me with my channeling" variety. The WDT is one possible solution.

Marshall wrote:1. Mini Mazzer, controlled by commercial blender timer (Waring).
2. Leave the friggin' basket in the portafilter where God intended it to live.
3. Rapid flicks of doser while moving portafilter around to even the distribution.
4. Dose enough so that basket will be filled, but not overstuffed, after leveling.
5. Stockfleth's move.
6. Dead level tamp with convex tamper at "moderate" pressure.

OK, I agree with two of your points (4 and 6). But not everyone has (or should have) a dosered grinder. Stockfleth's move does not work well with everyone's hand anatomy, nor does it automatically solve clumping and distribution issues. And if you've got a direct line to the Almighty, I've got some pressing questions I'd like to ask Her - none of which have anything to do with baskets and portafilters.

Marshall wrote:Italian baristas get great, consistent results with a flick of the doser and a simple "up motion" on the built-in tamper. My friend, Angelo, at EspressoPartsSource does this all the time, while cackling about the silly rituals that Americans enjoy (he means mine).

You might as well argue that this approach is the one we all should be using. But I (for one) would disagree. Different strokes for different folks...