another_jim wrote:You can simply say "I don't believe you" instead of posting over and over again.
To repeat: I calibrated the Fuji for cupping according to the SCAA protocol (70% to 75% passing through a size 20 screen), and easily picked out the cups compared to the Bunn because they were more extracted tasting, i.e. softer, with more prominent sweetness and body, and subdued acidity (OK for brewing very bright coffees, miserable for cupping). Then I ground it far coarser (how coarse? -- well none of it passed through the size 20 calibrating screen; I haven't seen a grind this coarse since canned coffee for percolators) and the cups became much closer in taste. I could still pick out the Fuji, barely, for a slightly cleaner taste (presumably the lack of fines due to the much coarser grind setting).
Ok I'm not saying I don't believe you. Let's reset this, I'm not trying to tick you off.
I didn't see how you were gauging. I may have missed it from the other thread.
As you well know, and I mistook what you were agreeing with in a prior is that a simple 1-stage screening as in the SCAA cupping protocol doesn't tell us very much about the grind profile. All it says is that 25% of the grounds are larger than the screen. The composition of the grind could be sharply bimodal with sharp peak of 75% of the mass right below the screen size and 25% right above. Or it could be a perfectly flat mix of absolutely every size of particle evenly distributed. Or it could be a few whole beans sitting on the screen with 75% talcum fine powder passing through.
All of which pass the single sieve test in the protocol. All of which will brew very different cups.
Can we agree on that?
That would appear to account for the differences observed in the cup between your Fuji 220 and other grinders.
It would be interesting to take refractometer readings.
It would be interesting to produce a detailed graph of the particle sizes from this grinder and the others. While they may both pass the same sieve setting, it is unlikely that they're producing similar distributions.