First off, I'd like to say how much I enjoy all the info and discussions on the site. It's a real gold mine for coffee enthusiasts. First time poster here. Now, over to the topic at hand (and please, read through the post before commenting that there already are comparisons of the LIDO and Pharos )

The OE Pharos is most often described as an espresso grinder, while the LIDO is described as a cupping or allround grinder. A fair amount of people seem to adhere to this opinion, though I do not understand what it is in the design of the two grinders that should make them superior for each grind size respectively. Is there really any design difference warranting a marked performance difference for these grinders in different grinding ranges?

If I am allowed, for a moment, to put aside secondary considerations such as burr size, speed, heat, bean/grounds transport before and after grinding, and only focus on the grinding, I envisage that there are three main aspects governing the resulting grind, namely, (1) the degree of off-axis rotation of the inner burr, (2) the amount of play in the system and the stiffness of the inner-outer burr fixation, and (3) the geometry\materials\finish of the burrs.

The degree of off-axis rotation will lead to a spread in particle size. This will increase the fines in coarser grinds, and limit the how fine one can grind without rubbing burrs (and will cause wear on one area on the inner burr). The play and stiffness will also lead to an increased spread in particle size, as the inner burr is pushed back and forth inside the outer burr, such as is the case with most cheap manual grinders lacking a lower axle bearing. I hypothesize that a soft system could lead to a more brittle failure of the bean, possibly creating more fines. Perhaps this effect is dwarfed by other aspects. Finally, the burr design, materials and finish are obviously important, but I have no knowledge of this beyond the basics.

I should add that I am neither a professional barista nor a mechanical engineer or grinder producer. I am in no position to challenge the perceived results in the cup from these grinders provided by the many experienced people on this and other boards. What I am searching for, is a reasoning behind the results founded in the specific design differences in the grinders. For example, some report that the Pharos produces excessive fines at coarser settings, pointing to the fact that it was "designed for espresso", while others praise the Lido for its coarse grind, similarly noting that it was "designed as a cupping grinder". Aren't both grinders designed around conical espresso-type burrs, with the intent of obtaining a very stiff system altogether? So where are the differences?

At present I don't own a single hand grinder, but I have researched and read enough to understand most of their build and function, including that of several of the cheaper single-bearing grinders. If this question has been dealt with and answered before, I'd love to be pointed in the right direction. If the alignment/stiffness/play otherwise are optimal, perhaps we're off to a long discussion about burr mechanics and design?

I believe you are correct that the burr set in both is technically an espresso burr, and either will produce some degree of fines. The Pharos however, with a large burr that is normally only found in big and expensive commercial grinders, and a highly stable precise alignment, is particularly well suited to espresso.

I can only vouch for the Pharos with my personal experience, and I will say that although I primarily use it for espresso, don't discount it for other brewing methods. It does a mighty fine french press, and although it certainly produces some fines I don't find it to be objectionable. I don't do drip or pour over, but I have used it for vac pot with good results. It also is a very fast grinder, I can make quick work of 80 grams for a large french press, although you have to stop and empty it half way through.

I believe people who have used both have reported that they prefer the Lido for non-espresso purposes. I assume this has more to do with the burr used than any particulars of the design.

I think the Lido was also designed with portability in mind. For example, if someone wanted to take a grinder on a trip to origin for cupping purposes. I've been sifting grinds from smaller diameter burr grinders and the amount of fines are quite small, less that I would have expected. I suspect the same would be true of the Lido.

The difference between these grinders is not stiffness/play like in other grinders. The difference is solely in the burrs, as you suspect. We are in for a SHORT talk, because we can't talk much about it until someone does some tests. (here is my "short" 2 cents).

I think the hunch is that something happens in explicitly-espresso burrs similar to what happens in these baratza graphs Baratza Grinders - Particle Distribution at Various Settings. Namely, the espresso burrs (the ceramic flat burred vario in this case) are notably inferior to the conical burrs found in these "lower end" grinders for the coarse end. Note that the grinders besides the vario have similar burrs (38mm conical) that the lido has. Of course, we don't have a similar graph for robur burrs- and many like yourself have suspected that there is no reason why titan conicals shouldn't perform better than the smaller counterparts in all aspects (or reverse, that the small burrs should be the same, just slower). This hasn't stopped me from getting a titan conical for espresso and a 38mm conical for drip though!

I just ground some coarse in both, and they look the same, virtually. I think you'd have to go through a bunch of coffee dialing in the grinders and do several rounds of double-blind tasting before you could make an informed decision on it. To my knowledge, nobody has done this.

See.....

Hand Grinder Roadshow

Dave,
I've read your roadshow multiple times, and have found it very informative (thanks for the contribution, btw). I'll likely buy the Lido based heavily on that write-up. You do mention that the bearing alignment allows somewhat more play in the Lido, which is understandable. I reckoned that this difference had to be so small as to only be relevant at finer grinds. Such slop could have an impact on espresso grinds (as you attest to tasting), but is of little practical importance in coarser grinds.

Thus, as far as I can conclude, the reason for distinguishing (marketing?) them as, respectively, an espresso and an all-round grinder is not due to the Lido yielding a coarse grind superior to that of the Pharos; I see no reason that it should. Rather, it may be that the Pharos is a full-on espresso grinder with its various quirks, while the Lido is more portable, has a larger hopper, and is perhaps easier to adjust from one grind type to the next. These things make the Lido more practical for other-than-espresso grinding, albeit still, theoretically, yielding inferior grinds with a similar PSD profile at all grind sizes.

Cheers.