EspressoGirl wrote:I am trying to understand dosing and in all the good coffee bars, they just overfill the basket (sometimes tapping the portafilter on the counter to get even more in, but still overfilling ultimately) and then they smooth it out NSEW style. This seems like an easier dosing method than weighing beans so it appeals to me. Is it considered acceptable? Does it really produce consistency?

Also, if I were to weigh out a dose each time, and my dose ended up with grounds lower than the top of the basket, how would I properly smooth the surface of the grinds since they would be too low for the finger sweep?

Sarah, again -- don't overthink this. The key is to produce consistency, and however you achieve this is perfect! But keep in mind one thing:

HB wrote:While this comment doesn't apply strictly to you, I'm reminded how often I read of someone who is contemplating spending $1500 to $2000 on espresso gear, and yet agonizes over "wasting" a few ounces of coffee beans each month. Relatively speaking, coffee is luxury on the cheap.

The baristas in the coffee bars a) aren't paying for the coffee that spills onto the counter or the floor when the overfill and then "finger-swipe," and b) coffee is a "cheap luxury."

Sarah, you are in New York, so let's say that you pick up your coffee beans at Gimme! -- $13.00 for a one pound bag. (Since you're picking it up, there's no shipping.) One pound = approx. 454 grams. Let's say you consistently dose 15 grams per shot -- you get 30 double shots, with 4 grams left over, per pound. At $13, the cost of the coffee per double shot is 43.3¢ Now, if a café is charging, say, $3.50 per double ristretto . . . well, you can see how, perhaps, spilling some coffee grounds isn't that big of a deal. (And keep in mind a café is buying their beans wholesale -- or they are roasting their own and thus, their actual coffee costs are even less!*

Cheers,
Jason

* Granted this is very simplistic -- and does not factor in the amortized cost of equipment, labor, other supplies (milk, sugar, etc.), or the lease on retail space, etc., etc. -- but you get the point.

zin1953 wrote:The baristas in the coffee bars a) aren't paying for the coffee that spills onto the counter or the floor when the overfill and then "finger-swipe," and b) coffee is a "cheap luxury."

Most baristas strike off excess into the doser for use in the next shot, so the waste is minimal.

Just filling and swiping will get you some reasonable accuracy in dose. It will always vary a little, but that dose may not be best for a particular coffee, or machine. You can always play with a variety of baskets with each basket giving you a slightly different dose. But as I said, a particular coffee may work best in your machine at a dose that is lighter than the fill and sweep method provides. For those instances, a scale works best. After a year or so you will be able to eye the dose and get it very close provided it is a coffee you use and know the weight of. When I try a new coffee, I will get out the scale to 'calibrate' my eyeballed dose.

What Dave said +1 - and a particular coffee may also work best at a dose heavier than the fill and sweep method provides, requiring you to tamp over a mound or use finger compression prior to tamping - don't hesitate to experiment! As Jason points out, coffee is cheap.

JimWright wrote:I've heard this before here, and this has piqued my curiosity. Where did these numbers come from if I may ask? Did someone do a study and figure out that variances of more than 0.3g could be tasted consistently?

The "oral history" as I've heard it is that Illy did research on this which lead to the standardization of grinder-dosers with this as a target variance. More recently, the story is that La Marzocco did similar work when developing the Swift to determine the max acceptable variance for it.

JimWright wrote:Color me the unreasoning skeptic, but I somehow have a hard time imagining how a 1% (in a triple basket) or 2% (double basket) variance in weight/mass could account for consistent, measurable differences in output given simultaneous variance in individual bean flavors, distribution and packing, plus temperature if not using a very temp stable machine.

Obviously, if you have gross inconsistencies in other areas you're going to have a hard time differentiating the impact of inconsistent dosing.

If, however, you are reasonably consistent in these other areas - I think you'd be shocked at the changes in flavour that result from relatively small changes in dose.

Rather than saying "trust me" I'd suggest that (assuming you have nailed consistency in these other areas) you simply experiment with changes in dose and see what you can taste. FWIW, the experiments I've been a part of have all validated the 0.3g mark as where pretty much anyone (rather than coffee professionals or fanatics) can taste the difference. Very skilled cuppers etc seem to be able to identify changes down to 0.1g.

But... test it.

another_jim wrote:I don't have as much commercial experience as Chris, but I don't know of any 3rd wave place in North America that doses their production blends at 14 to 16 grams, i.e. a level below the basket. Without the practice of doing dosing like this all day, I have a hard time seeing how it can be done consistently. According to Luca, the curved dosing tools are apparently more standard in Australia, where lower doses are used in some places. I don't know if anyone in Scandinavia or GB can consistently eyeball dose at 14 to 6 grams.

Actually, there are a fair number of places in the US that dose quite light. The most extreme example I know of is Barismo - but there are others. In Scandinavia, of course, you see very light dosing at a number of places (most noticeable in my experience in Iceland and Denmark).

The trick to dosing that light is:
1 - using the right grinder (you need fluffy output)
2 - not tapping or shaking or disturbing the coffee in the basket in any way prior to distribution.

As you note... without the practice of dosing a specific volume every day (regardless of it being light, moderate or heavy) it is VERY hard to be consistent.

TimEggers wrote:I'm hoping that reliable (and high quality) timers on grinders (like the Vario) will make a lot of the issues discussed here moot.

Will a precise timer help?

A timer assumes that the grinder running for a set period of time will always output the same volume in the basket.

My experience has been that trying to grind the "exact right amount" using a timer requires constant adjustment of the timer - especially given that any time you do any adjustment (even micro) to the grind the timer is no longer correct.
Probably the best I've seen is the modified Anfim - which seems to be accurate to right under 0.3g (albeit with the adjustment juggling issues noted above).

Arpi wrote:In my case, I've found that filling a double basket all the way up, and using it as a single shot, produces an unpleasant thick flavor. Same goes if it is too thin and watery (blonds early). The best flavor for me is in the middle of the two extremes. I usually get to that point either by using a double basket and underdosing (below the line mark) or by using a single basket. Weight 'underdosing' have given me better results than playing with temperature but it may be related to the grinder. When I upgraded from ascaso mini to the K10, my shots didn't blond as easy, which I think allows my to use less coffee.

Depends on the coffee.

malachi wrote:
The trick to dosing that light is:
1 - using the right grinder (you need fluffy output)
2 - not tapping or shaking or disturbing the coffee in the basket in any way prior to distribution.

As you not... without the practice of dosing a specific volume every day (regardless of it being light, moderate or heavy) it is VERY hard to be consistent.

Thanks for the info. I've been having luck with using the sifter distribution method. It takes me longer and I have to clean more, but it works well if you dose light as you can weight the grounds and still have fluffy output. I still need to distribute the top of the grounds (~1/8 inch) and edge with a toothpick.

Cheers

malachi wrote:Actually, there are a fair number of places in the US that dose quite light. The most extreme example I know of is Barismo - but there are others.

On the list for the next time I'm in Boston.