peacecup wrote:Right, 7g:25ml, this is a 28% shot. So 14g:50 ml would fit the bill as a traditional doppio. Sorry, I said 60ml, but I was thinking in ounces, which is the regular old 2 oz doppio. By IENI standards this is NOT a lungo, its a doppio espresso. My point was that Andy's brew ratio chart somewhat REDEFINES the traditional terminology, albeit it is more precise. For example, Andy's "regular espresso, single, med., at 7g, only produces 14g of liquid - the IENI definition would be 20+g (unless the shot was all crema).

So...I'm saying that an IENI double has a lower brew ratio than does Andy's double. Because the majority of posters here on HB tend towards following Andy's guidelines, they're more accustomed to "ristetto-ish" doubles. Hence, when they taste a traditional double they find it less palatable. Its like switching from strong ale to lager. I think this is why I could not get any of the Ponte Vecchio reviewers to seriously evaluate shots in the 25% brew ratio range.

That's my point: unless you know whether the volume is crema or liquid, it's hard to make reasoned comparisons. I'm a big fan of Andy's brew ratios because a) it's hard to measure volume as precisely and reproducibly as weight and b) it takes crema production out of the equation.

On pump machines that extract with 9 bars of pressure, you can expect nearly 100% crema to pour into the cup. I have no argument with the traditional IENI definition of espresso, assuming that the 25ml single or 50ml double is mostly crema. This shot was pulled as a 50ml double, but would eventually settle to 30ml or less. I'm sure the brew ratio was (slightly) over 50%.

Bottomless pour on a Vetrano rotary pump machine.

[Edit: irrelevant pix deleted.]

Unless all our shots are the same density (same amount and type of crema), claiming 14g and 50ml is a normale double is rather vague. My apologies to the IENI, but it's much more precise to specify a 50% brew ratio.

Kudos (again) to Andy for his attempt to quantify our espresso terminology with brew ratios.

RapidCoffee wrote:I have no argument with the traditional IENI definition of espresso, assuming that the 25ml single or 50ml double is mostly crema

No offense John, but this is probably a false assumption. I suspect the 25 ml is mostly liquid. My first point is that there is no right or wrong definition (albeit Andy's is more precise), but that the taste of a typical HB double differs from that of a "IENI" double. And it happens that IENI is the standard definition (witness Mark Prince's article dated 2003), so this is what causes confusion. Obviously the OP was thinking in IENI terms when he asked the question.

My second point is that I agree with Mark Prince's premise that a good "traditional" double can be great - and that it is actually more difficult to pull off than a good ristretto.

PC

peacecup wrote:No offense John, but this is probably a false assumption. I suspect the 25 ml is mostly liquid.

No offense taken. But I don't think we have enough info to judge what is meant by "25ml".

peacecup wrote:...I agree with Mark Prince's premise that a good "traditional" double can be great - and that it is actually more difficult to pull off than a good ristretto.

No argument with the first premise, no strong feelings one way or another about the second. My standard pull is 45-60ml from a double basket dosed to 16-18g, extraction time around 25-30 seconds, 9 bar pressure, brew temperature in the vicinity of 198-204F, etc. And I believe that I am actually pulling "traditional" doubles.

But I could be wrong.

peacecup wrote:BTW Mark Prince long ago wrote an article on Coffeegeek about the traditional double. As he became a more skilled barista he had initially gravitated towards ristrettos. He later realized that it was more difficult to pull a really great double, but that when he did it was very rewarding.

RapidCoffee wrote:My standard pull is 45-60ml from a double basket dosed to 16-18g, extraction time around 25-30 seconds, 9 bar pressure, brew temperature in the vicinity of 198-204F, etc. And I believe that I am actually pulling "traditional" doubles.

I've been through five SCAA certification workshops as part of sensory judge training for barista competitions. At the regional level, it's a one day workshop and at the USBC level, it's a two day workshop. Each candidate is evaluated by WBC certified trainers during mock competitions. When you score a particular drink, they ask for your rationale for each score (crema appearance, taste balance, tactile balance). The shot volume was rarely mentioned among sensory judges, though the tech judges may give it more attention.

From a technical viewpoint, it's helpful to compare preparation notes by weighing the coffee prior to extraction and liquid produced. Andy's correlation of brewing ratios to traditional drinks is a good shorthand, but honestly I think it's more meaningful to compare taste notes than compare volumes and weights. Consider for example:

malachi wrote:Suggested dose and brew temp were, IMHO, ideal for use in milk drinks (where the caramelized sugar, honey-roasted nut and powdered chocolate notes really shown).

I found I preferred straight espressos at a lower dose and lower brew temp. There I got espresso that was glorious... chocolate dusted sweet pink grapefruit with candied pecans and a shot of aged Flor de Cana rum.

From Ecco Caffe Experimental Espresso

...versus a nice picture of John's shotglass. Which tells you more about how it tasted?

HB wrote:...versus a nice picture of John's shotglass. Which tells you more about how it tasted?

Point taken. But the discussion did revolve around shot volume (not taste) for describing the "traditional" double.

Sigh. I know what I like, and that's generally an extraction that fits the above description. But I will never be half as eloquent as malachi in describing the resulting espresso flavor spectrum: "...chocolate dusted sweet pink grapefruit with candied pecans and a shot of aged Flor de Cana rum." Wow. I can almost taste it from here.