I grind for espresso at 350-450. For coarser grind, I go as low as 300.

Peppersass wrote:Denis rates the capacity of the Flat at 60g, and I repeatedly ground that much when breaking in mine.

That said, my Flat predates the safety cap, which may reduce the capacity somewhat. Maybe someone can chime in on that. I decided against adding the cap because my kids are grown and the Flat is less dangerous for adult fingers than the Conical.

Sorry, I mistyped. I meant 55g. This will vary a bit with the coffee.

opother wrote:I don't own either but against a time tested grinder and cutters specifically designed for drip by big companies with research, funding, and equipment needed to examine a multitude of possibilities at their hands. I know where I would place my bets.

Large companies with engineering research teams designed the burrs that the monolith uses. Given equal alignments it's fair to say that there would be no difference in grind quality between a monolith and another grinder assembled by a larger company.

I don't know how much effort larger producers spend on alignment and quality assurance by testing the grinder's actual extraction before going out. I'm sure they have QA processes as well.

JayBeck wrote:I've heard this which is a great bonus to the Flat. I think the flat looks better plus it is smaller which is why I was drawn to it. For me, pourover is an important ritual and I like the idea of a single grinder for both.

And for most pourover applications the hopper size isn't really restrictive unless you're regularly making something like an 8-10 cup chemex. It works perfect for most one or two cup applications.

mike guy wrote:Large companies with engineering research teams designed the burrs that the monolith uses. Given equal alignments it's fair to say that there would be no difference in grind quality between a monolith and another grinder assembled by a larger company.

I don't know how much effort larger producers spend on alignment and quality assurance by testing the grinder's actual extraction before going out. I'm sure they have QA processes as well.

Yeah, you get a lot of advantages of both a large company and a small company with the monolith.

So you get quality burrs and perfect alignment right out of the incredibly well packaged box. I tested the alignment on my flat for the first time since I got it using the white board marker test and it was spot on. I was expecting it to be close, but not that good.

JayBeck wrote:I've heard this which is a great bonus to the Flat. I think the flat looks better plus it is smaller which is why I was drawn to it. For me, pourover is an important ritual and I like the idea of a single grinder for both.

That's why I eventally opted for the EG-1 instead of the Monolith. Both are great grinders but have subtle difference. The EG-1 is made for unimodal grind distribution whereas the Monolith more as an espressogrinder.

I'm not sure I'm following what you're saying. The comments have been that the Monolith is a very good pour over grinder. You are commenting as if it isn't.

erik82 wrote:The EG-1 is made for unimodal grind distribution whereas the Monolith more as an espressogrinder.

It's true that Denis designed the Monolith Flat primarily for espresso, but LWW's literature suggests that the EG-1 was also designed primarily for espresso (see the section on Adjustment.) After all, the EG-1 is designed for single-dosing, which is first and foremost an espresso grinder feature, and espresso is LWW's heritage (c.f., HG-1.)

What LWW says is that they selected the burr set for unimodal distribution, which is evidently a characteristic of burrs in the best brew grinders. But that doesn't mean they designed the EG-1 as a brew grinder. My believe is that they jumped on the EK-43 espresso bandwagon.

In the past few years, some respected espresso "researchers" have claimed that the EK-43 produces superior espresso, particularly for light roasts, and folks have concluded that this must be due to the unimodal distribution of its burr set. But the bear in mind that the original EK-43 tests used non-traditional techniques for extraction, namely ultra-fine grind, long pre-infusion, very long shot times and/or very Lungo shots. In other words, we don't know how much of the difference in taste is due to unimodal distribution and how much is due to the extraction technique.

Regardless of whether unimodal burrs produce better espresso, some have concluded that because LWW burrs produce unimodal distribution, the EG-1 must be a superior brew grinder, like the EK-43. That may be true, but bear in mind that the EK-43 has huge 98mm burrs and the EG-1 burrs are "only" 80mm. Generally speaking, most people believe that larger burr sets produce a better grind, though it's not clear whether that has to do with particle distribution, consistency or both.

And just because LWW says they selected their burrs for the unimodal grind (without telling us how they determined that), doesn't mean the Monolith Flat doesn't produce a unimodal grind. Denis hasn't commented on that one way of the other. It's true that the Flat's uses Mythos burrs, and the Mythos is an espresso grinder, but that says nothing about the particle distribution. In fact, Socratic has done studies of grind distribution that show the particle distribution of the EG-43, EG-1 and Monolith Flat are very similar -- almost identical. All three produce a mostly unimodal grind. [That said, there are troubling variations in the multiple grind distribution charts Socratic has published, possibly calling their sifting methodology into question.]

My point is that there's only anecdotal support for the thesis that unimodal distribution produces better brewed coffee and espresso, and no support for the claim that the EG-1 produces a more unimodal grind than the Monolith Flat.

Personally, I very much doubt that anyone could distinguish a difference in taste between brewed coffee ground on the EG-1 and the Monolith Flat in a blind taste test, provided that the same brew parameters are used. But that's just my guess.

JayBeck wrote:This is what I was hoping to hear. Hopper size aside, the Monolith starts to sounds like a value if you consider that in addition to a $1700 espresso grinder it is also a $1700 brew grinder. Only the behemoth EK43 can make the same claim that I'm aware of which means the flat is $1,000 cheaper and much smaller - perfect for the home user.

I like single dosing but the reason I was drawn to the Flat is for it's small size, top tier grind, and multipurpose use. Sounds like better espresso than a K30 and better pourover than a Forte BG which would cost about the same and take up 3x as much space.

$1700? The Flat costs $2,450. That's only $250 cheaper than the Mahlkonig EK43. But it's $845 cheaper than the Lyn Weber EG-1.

The K30 would definitely take up a lot more space than the Monolith Flat, though I'm not sure it's 3x. Maybe more like 2x. A Forte BG would take up a little less space than a Monolith Flat. And the Forte BG is nowhere near the price of a Monolith Flat -- it's only $919.

JayBeck wrote:I'm not sure I'm following what you're saying. The comments have been that the Monolith is a very good pour over grinder. You are commenting as if it isn't.

We're talking top of the market grinders here so there is no bad because there's only excellent and slightly more excellent. The Monolith should be a very good grinder for brew because the Mythos burrs are known for producing a much more unimodal grind than traditional flat burrs. The EG-1 was designed around burrs that deliver a very unimodal grind.

As peppersass wrote they shouldn't be much different and it comes down personal choice. I didn't say the Monolith would do much worse but rather that based on the burrs I chose the EG-1. Not having anyone in the neighbourhood that has both to test them side-by-side I needed to make a decision based on the specifications without any real-world experience.

One study showed pretty similar results but I'd like to see more data especially with grinder that've ground more than 30KG a piece and are fully broken in. So only looking at the theory the EG-1 should give a bit more unimodal grind which is the the key if you're looking for a grinder for pourover. How this will results in the real world and how much difference it'll give tastewise is another story. Along with peppersass story about the EK-43 we can also ask ourselfs how important perfect alignment is because EK-43's aren't known for there good alignment but do deliver superior results for brew.

In the end you can't go wrong with a Monolith but if you do want to do brew than go for the Monolith Flat.

Peppersass wrote:$1700? The Flat costs $2,450. That's only $250 cheaper than the Mahlkonig EK43. But it's $845 cheaper than the Lyn Weber EG-1.

The K30 would definitely take up a lot more space than the Monolith Flat, though I'm not sure it's 3x. Maybe more like 2x. A Forte BG would take up a little less space than a Monolith Flat. And the Forte BG is nowhere near the price of a Monolith Flat -- it's only $919.

You missed what I'm saying. The MFlat produces an espresso quality equal or greater than a K30, which is huge and $1700. This thread indicates it also creates a brew grind that exceeds a Tanzania $1700. So I can buy a K30 and Tanzania for $3400 and take up 3-4 times the space or spend $2450 for a MFLAT and get the best of both worlds. I'm talking about the big picture.

It's a value when you compare what all you're getting in a single purchase. There's no other combination of purchases for an espresso and brew grinder that I'm aware of that can meet or exceed what you get for $2450. That was my point.