Spitz.me wrote:This was really great for Hoffman to do. I enjoyed what I watched. I particularly thought it was useful - almost bordering on a public service to us - to mention that these grinders are fantastic, but are incrementally shifting coffee taste.

I fully understand using a numerical system to grade and communicate differences, but why would none of those grinders score a 10? Shouldn't there be a benchmark "perfect" grinder? The best grinders you can buy are also the best performers in terms of in-the-cup quality and they still don't get a 10? What does, or what will ever get a 10?

Good point.

Maybe it's the same reasoning as the college teacher that starts off the first class of the semester by saying: " Don't expect to get 100% in my class. I've never given a 100 and it's going to stay this way."

He explains in the head-to-head video that a 10 would be the best thing he's ever had. So yeah, basically unobtainable since inevitably a grinder isn't going to produce the best thing he's ever had every time. Still makes sense to me as a scale though since espresso production is always inconsistent in my experience, whether I'm making it or a professional at a shop is, there always seems to be a range. Sometimes my coffee is okay, sometimes it's great.

What if the best grinder he tested ends up being a 4 when someone finally figures out how to design burrs properly?

Ira

This is really what I think is going to happen in the next 5 years or so. There's going to be a huge change in burr geometry based on these new "modular" grinders with flexibility. Another reason to buy into a platform that can accept any burr type.

But then in that case, doesn't it make sense to disclose what grinder made him experience the euphoria of the 10? aren't these the best and most capable grinders you can buy?

Maybe the process should have been, "how difficult is it to get a 10" with these grinders. So, maybe it's easy to get a 10 with an ultra and medium to hard with a Niche... Or impossible. This, to me, is more in line with how we rate espresso gear in general. What's going to improve consistency?

Regardless,I liked the videos!

My Kafatek goes to 11.

If you'd feel better about one of them being a 10, then just add some to all the scores. If you want it to go to 100, add some and multiply by 10. The numbers don't matter, it's a relative scale, not absolute.

The scale is useful as a relative measure. If you decide 10 is perfection and you give the first grinder a 10 and then you realize the third one is a 12, what do you do? I see this problem a fair amount in reality dance competitions where everyone ends up with the same score because someone was over scored early. If one consider these scores only relevant in this test, then all that matters are the relative differences among the scores in this test. It's possible given what we know that the same test conducted by someone else might have come up with different scores for both that exact set of grinders and also for a similar set of the exact same grinders. I always point back the the original titan grinder test where as I recall, a Rocky won one of the rounds. Proving I guess, that everything we know is likely wrong.

Ira

The reality is that he isn't live and he can decide what objective metrics he's using to award each point on that scale.

I get your point IRA and I don't disagree!