Beezer wrote:I've had a lot of people recently ask me for recommendations about getting an espresso machine, especially after they've tasted the coffee I've made for them. It's hard to explain to them that they really need to spend a fair bit of money on a machine and then several hundred more on a grinder in order to make decent espresso, not to mention getting good beans and spending the time to learn how to use the gear. Most people would rather just get a cheap machine, even if it means getting mediocre results.

I must confess to having something of this mentality when I first started. Not that the equipment I chose was all that cheap: a PIDed Silvia and a Macap M4 grinder. The primary justfication for not spending more was that that I was relatively new to drinking espresso (turned on to it in France and Spain) and wasn't sure that I loved espresso enough to want to make and drink it every day. Once I verified that, out went Silvia and the M4 and in came equipment capable of making consistently good espresso. Although I trusted the experienced people on this site, it's hard for a newbie to initially make the necessary financial commitment. Once hooked, however, it was no problem for me.

Although I trusted the experienced people on this site, it's hard for a newbie to initially make the necessary financial commitment.

The most difficult aspect of spending the money for me was believing that the quality of the equipment would make as much difference as it does.

The machine just pushes water though the puck.

To the extent the espresso machine's bottom line function may be accurately described as pushing water through the puck, it is a rather complicated process which well engineered and constructed machines do significantly better than others which are less so. Hence, the bucks.

BDL

Apparently, "pushing water through a puck" in exactly the right way is difficult and if you want it to be straightforward and consistent, exactly the right way can get expensive. And to Dick's "features and ergonomics" affecting or driving price levels, I would add, for many, aesthetics.

My own biggest concern was whether the upgrade would really result in better espresso than I was getting out of the La Pavoni. And frankly the primary lesson I learned was just how well these old levers can do, at least with a lot of practice, exacting care and focus on every shot. I would not be the first to say on this board that there are LP shots I simply cannot replicate on a GS/3 - but it's also the other way around.

So for me the shot-after-shot, day-after-day ease and consistency proved the biggest upgrades. Especially making half a dozen shots or more every morning: no surfing, no waiting, no LP sneeze to clean up, no more espresso pleasure regressing toward a grim task. And a huge plus is the ability for experimentation enabled by that consistency and stability - I would argue that these higher-end machines open up new coffee worlds that are impossible, discouraging - or at least very tough - to explore otherwise.

Anvan wrote:Higher-end machines open up new coffee worlds that are impossible, discouraging - or at least very tough - to explore otherwise.

Hear! Hear! And the same for the rest of the post as well.

On a related front, in my experience the differences between very good and excellent HX machines is more apparent in the cup than those between very good (Duetto, Vivaldi) and excellent (LM Strada) DBPIDs. That is in no way meant to imply there's not an important difference between the DBPIDs.

Sure there's a great deal of commonality between well-dialed-in DBPIDs above a certain quality threshold, but I suspect that with more time, more cups, and a less distracting environment that many user/drinkers would begin to experience a difference between shots from the different machines.

My (limited) experience with DBs lines up better with Anthony's than Dick's conclusions. The "comparo" is interesting and suggestive, but beyond showing that very good DBPIDs make very good espresso, it's meaning shouldn't be pushed too far.

BDL