| |
Main
Date: 23 Jun 2006 07:58:43
From:
Subject: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
I recently started managing a coffee shop in Montana. The previous
manager had trained employees to wipe grinds back into the doser when
they run their finger over the top of the basket to level the coffee.
This bugs me and I find myself reminding employees not to do it
constantly. Can someone out there tell me if this is an OK practice or
am I right to be appalled?
-Michel
|
|
| |
Date: 23 Jun 2006 10:03:51
From: nimbus
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
It is a freshness issue, and you're right to be appalled. Coffee should
be freshly ground if you care about quality. If you're doing back to
back shots, then it would be acceptable.
Your hands should be clean anyway. And it is (approx) 200 degree water
hitting that coffee, so there is no real sanitation issue.
Wash your hands. Grind fresh. If you're business needs that extra half
cent worth of coffee, it has bigger problems to fry.
-nimbus
Paul Sack wrote:
> mtallichet@gmail.com writes:
>
> > I recently started managing a coffee shop in Montana. The previous
> > manager had trained employees to wipe grinds back into the doser when
> > they run their finger over the top of the basket to level the coffee.
> > This bugs me and I find myself reminding employees not to do it
> > constantly. Can someone out there tell me if this is an OK practice or
> > am I right to be appalled?
>
> I've noticed this at several coffee shops. It bugs me, too. But if
> it's okay to touch the coffee grinds at the top of the puck with one's
> hands, it should be okay to put them back in the doser.
|
| |
Date: 23 Jun 2006 10:02:08
From: Randy G.
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
mtallichet@gmail.com wrote:
>I recently started managing a coffee shop in Montana. The previous
>manager had trained employees to wipe grinds back into the doser when
>they run their finger over the top of the basket to level the coffee.
>This bugs me and I find myself reminding employees not to do it
>constantly. Can someone out there tell me if this is an OK practice or
>am I right to be appalled?
IMO, there are times when this would be OK and times when not. In an
AM rush when you know you are going to use all that coffee and more,
and the doser is being emptied every two or three minutes, and the
grind is right, and the pulls are good, and the portafilters are not
dripping back into the doser, and the barristas' hands are dry, then
it is OK. But all these factors coming together at once is difficult
to achieve. The logic would dictate that if it is that busy that
saving the ground coffee is necessary then how would you find the
timeto be sure all is dry and clean?
The better solution would be more accurate dosing so there is not
enough waste to worry about. A local shop has an 'electronic' grinder
that can be easily adjusted for dose and grind. It grinds right into
the PF. Elegant solution for this problem.
Randy "probably cost more than my Volvo" G.
http://www.EspressoMyEspresso.com
|
| | |
Date: 24 Jun 2006 18:46:49
From: bernie digman
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
Randy G. wrote:
> A local shop has an 'electronic' grinder
> that can be easily adjusted for dose and grind. It grinds right into
> the PF. Elegant solution for this problem.
>
>
> Randy "probably cost more than my Volvo" G.
> http://www.EspressoMyEspresso.com
>
>
>
We use a Swift. =) I can't remember the last time I had to worry about this sort of stuff. =).
I worry about not catching a tiny stone which will do a number on ceramic coated discs. Ouch.
Bernie
|
| |
Date: 23 Jun 2006 12:06:10
From: Paul Sack
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
mtallichet@gmail.com writes:
> I recently started managing a coffee shop in Montana. The previous
> manager had trained employees to wipe grinds back into the doser when
> they run their finger over the top of the basket to level the coffee.
> This bugs me and I find myself reminding employees not to do it
> constantly. Can someone out there tell me if this is an OK practice or
> am I right to be appalled?
I've noticed this at several coffee shops. It bugs me, too. But if
it's okay to touch the coffee grinds at the top of the puck with one's
hands, it should be okay to put them back in the doser.
|
| | |
Date: 25 Jun 2006 00:25:04
From: Colin B.
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
Paul Sack <paulsack@illiac6-dev.cs.uiuc.edu > wrote:
> mtallichet@gmail.com writes:
>
>> I recently started managing a coffee shop in Montana. The previous
>> manager had trained employees to wipe grinds back into the doser when
>> they run their finger over the top of the basket to level the coffee.
>> This bugs me and I find myself reminding employees not to do it
>> constantly. Can someone out there tell me if this is an OK practice or
>> am I right to be appalled?
>
> I've noticed this at several coffee shops. It bugs me, too. But if
> it's okay to touch the coffee grinds at the top of the puck with one's
> hands, it should be okay to put them back in the doser.
It happens routinely at the coffee shop we frequent. From a hygiene point
of view, it's clearly a non-issue. From a freshness point of view, they never
have ground coffee in the doser for more than three minutes at a time--they
serve a lot of shots, and they're consistently exceptional.
|
| |
Date: 23 Jun 2006 09:09:30
From: Ken Fox
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
<mtallichet@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1151074723.374319.109830@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>I recently started managing a coffee shop in Montana. The previous
> manager had trained employees to wipe grinds back into the doser when
> they run their finger over the top of the basket to level the coffee.
> This bugs me and I find myself reminding employees not to do it
> constantly. Can someone out there tell me if this is an OK practice or
> am I right to be appalled?
> -Michel
>
There might be a hygeine issue that would make this technically forbidden by
local food service regulation. Aside from that, depending upon how busy
your shop is, you may be (probably are) serving a portion of stale grounds
with fresh ones, to the next customer, assuming that you grind "per shot,"
which any good cafe would. Ambient humidity and temperature change and
perhaps also you have different operators and the grind must be adjusted
regularly to get good espresso drink time/volume parameters. If you put old
grounds back in the doser you make adjustments difficult to do.
Finally, the major expenses of any cafe are going to be rent and labor, with
raw coffee cost representing a proportionally small expense. The cafe will
save next to nothing with this practice and will probably degrade drink
quality.
ken
|
| |
Date: 23 Jun 2006 13:05:32
From: daveb
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
I do not see anything wrong with it.
Is there a concern for what?
I'd think 200 F water would take care of that.....
and
they think it is O.K. at the US Barista Championships!
dave b
877 286 2833
dave
mtallichet@gmail.com wrote:
> I recently started managing a coffee shop in Montana. The previous
> manager had trained employees to wipe grinds back into the doser when
> they run their finger over the top of the basket to level the coffee.
> This bugs me and I find myself reminding employees not to do it
> constantly. Can someone out there tell me if this is an OK practice or
> am I right to be appalled?
> -Michel
|
| | |
Date: 24 Jun 2006 04:31:54
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
On 23 Jun 2006 13:05:32 -0700, "daveb" <davebobblane@gmail.com > wrote:
>they think it is O.K. at the US Barista Championships!
only for the first set of shots in any drink set, when the second set
of shots will be made immediately after.
--barry "USBC judge"
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Jul 2006 08:51:11
From: Brent
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
If the next round of shots is going to be delayed, level off into the dump
tube, if you are about to dose another shot, into the doser shouldn't
matter...
As a point, I use the doser cover to level the grounds - it's straighter and
more consistant than a finger, and is normally easily found, on the doser!
Brent
>
> >they think it is O.K. at the US Barista Championships!
>
> only for the first set of shots in any drink set, when the second set
> of shots will be made immediately after.
>
>
>
>
> --barry "USBC judge"
|
| | | | |
Date: 04 Jul 2006 05:30:29
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 08:51:11 +1200, "Brent" <me@privacy.net > wrote:
>As a point, I use the doser cover to level the grounds - it's straighter and
>more consistant than a finger, and is normally easily found, on the doser!
do you have a bottomless portafilter to check the uniformity of your
extraction?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 04 Jul 2006 23:07:20
From: Rob van Loenhout
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
"Barry Jarrett" <barry@rileys-coffee.com > wrote in message
news:b6vja2ts31p4dtprittgbkks8k4e0m47io@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 08:51:11 +1200, "Brent" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> >As a point, I use the doser cover to level the grounds - it's straighter
and
> >more consistant than a finger, and is normally easily found, on the
doser!
>
> do you have a bottomless portafilter to check the uniformity of your
> extraction?
>
Just curious Barry - would you expect better results with a finger than a
doser lid? For the record i use the slightly curved handle of a teaspoon.
Bottomless pf on the work machine, usually get a uniform extraction.
Rob vL
NZ
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 04 Jul 2006 08:28:11
From: Ken Fox
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
"Rob van Loenhout" <wontwork@dontbother.not > wrote in message
news:44aa4b3e@clear.net.nz...
>
> "Barry Jarrett" <barry@rileys-coffee.com> wrote in message
> news:b6vja2ts31p4dtprittgbkks8k4e0m47io@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 08:51:11 +1200, "Brent" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>> >As a point, I use the doser cover to level the grounds - it's
>> straighter
> and
>> >more consistant than a finger, and is normally easily found, on the
> doser!
>>
>> do you have a bottomless portafilter to check the uniformity of your
>> extraction?
>>
>
> Just curious Barry - would you expect better results with a finger than a
> doser lid? For the record i use the slightly curved handle of a teaspoon.
> Bottomless pf on the work machine, usually get a uniform extraction.
>
> Rob vL
> NZ
>
>
Not Barry, but I think there would be a tradeoff. With a flat surface such
as a hopper lid or a knife (or teaspoon) you'd get a very consistent dose
but be unable to overstuff the basket. With a finger sweep, you could
create a mound on top (as I do) and cram an extra couple of grams (or so)
into the PF (e.g. "updosing").
ken
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Jul 2006 04:20:01
From: D. Ross
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Jul 2006 10:33:41
From: Brent
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
>>>
>>> >As a point, I use the doser cover to level the grounds - it's
>>> straighter
>> and
>>> >more consistant than a finger, and is normally easily found, on the
>> doser!
>>>
>>> do you have a bottomless portafilter to check the uniformity of your
>>> extraction?
>>>
>>
>> Just curious Barry - would you expect better results with a finger than a
>> doser lid? For the record i use the slightly curved handle of a teaspoon.
>> Bottomless pf on the work machine, usually get a uniform extraction.
>>
>> Rob vL
>> NZ
>>
>>
>
> Not Barry, but I think there would be a tradeoff. With a flat surface
> such as a hopper lid or a knife (or teaspoon) you'd get a very consistent
> dose but be unable to overstuff the basket. With a finger sweep, you
> could create a mound on top (as I do) and cram an extra couple of grams
> (or so) into the PF (e.g. "updosing").
>
> ken
>
And from a consistency point of view, that is where using a lid works well -
especially if several people use the machine.
In Rob's case (from memory) the curved teaspoon allows for slight over
dosing, and allows for consistency in over dosing. This means that Rob is
able to call in his coffee order from a few minutes away from home so his
coffee is ready and waiting, prepared to his standard when he arrives home
:) It is also based on Rob's blend / machine combo needing a bit more coffee
in the pf than level to get the taste etc just so.
In terms of using a finger (or non flat object - which a doser lid can be as
well) to updose (or underdose) as a rule I would suggest this requires more
skill on the part of the barista to know what is going on with the grind etc
to get that better than good shot. If you don't have the skill, or skilled
staff, then level is easy to recreate...
Brent
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Jul 2006 22:51:55
From: Rob van Loenhout
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
"Ken Fox" <morceaudemerdeThisMerdeGoes@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:4gvc6rF1ogma2U1@individual.net...
> "Rob van Loenhout" <wontwork@dontbother.not> wrote in message
> news:44aa4b3e@clear.net.nz...
> >
> > "Barry Jarrett" <barry@rileys-coffee.com> wrote in message
> > news:b6vja2ts31p4dtprittgbkks8k4e0m47io@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 08:51:11 +1200, "Brent" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >As a point, I use the doser cover to level the grounds - it's
> >> straighter
> > and
> >> >more consistant than a finger, and is normally easily found, on the
> > doser!
> >>
> >> do you have a bottomless portafilter to check the uniformity of your
> >> extraction?
> >>
> >
> > Just curious Barry - would you expect better results with a finger than
a
> > doser lid? For the record i use the slightly curved handle of a
teaspoon.
> > Bottomless pf on the work machine, usually get a uniform extraction.
> >
> > Rob vL
> > NZ
> >
> >
>
> Not Barry, but I think there would be a tradeoff. With a flat surface
such
> as a hopper lid or a knife (or teaspoon) you'd get a very consistent dose
> but be unable to overstuff the basket. With a finger sweep, you could
> create a mound on top (as I do) and cram an extra couple of grams (or so)
> into the PF (e.g. "updosing").
>
> ken
>
I over dose, tap the pf on the bench then sweep the mound back and forwards
2 or 3 times then sweep off. I can easily overstuff the basket to the point
of not being able to engage it in the grouphead all depending on how hard i
tap the pf on the bench. Might be time to go back to the finger sweep
method for a while.
Rob vL
NZ
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 05 Jul 2006 04:07:38
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 23:07:20 +1200, "Rob van Loenhout"
<wontwork@dontbother.not > wrote:
>Just curious Barry - would you expect better results with a finger than a
>doser lid? For the record i use the slightly curved handle of a teaspoon.
>Bottomless pf on the work machine, usually get a uniform extraction.
the theory on using the dosing chamber lid to scrape off the grounds
is that this creates a non-uniform distribution of grounds, with the
coffee puck denser at the distal end of the sweep and less dense at
the near end of the sweep.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Jul 2006 12:16:14
From: sprsso
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
You know, I've been reading about this technique for years now, and
had hoped it stayed at the home use level. Unfortunately, from my
point of view, I have also seen it used occasionally in commercial
establishments to the detriment of the product in the cup. I would
hope it's not necessary for me to enumerate the reasons why this
method is incredibly wrong in a high-volume environment. Can you say
"fill line"?
Anyway, I was at the newest coffee shop I consulted for on Friday, and
one of the cutest and most competent baristas I trained was using a
Mazzer SJ with a doser and was grinding for each drink. Some other
staff member told her this was OK.
Well, just for an exercise in futility, I started weighing the doses.
All double 58mm baskets. The weights varied from 9 to 23 grams. The
larger doses barely would fit in the group, and you know about the
smaller doses.
I had to do a whole new training, which I don't mind.
I have this doser set for as close to 7 grams as you'll ever see.
These guys go through about 80lbs of espresso/week. I don't want them
to guess or grind and pull the doser lever a dozen times until they
think the amount of coffee is right. If I am in an establishment that
uses this technique, I will refuse the drink.
And, frankly, I couldn't care whether it is a kitchen knife, a finger
or a doser lid (especially a finger), it's just wrong.
And you know what I find amusing? Invariably, these no-clue, grind to
order techniques have hoppers full of weeks old beans, and who knows
how old they were when they first got there. And the dosers are
usually filthy.
If they think they're doing the customer a favor by changing the
dosage with each shot, they're mistaken.
Ok, so this pisses me off.
Anyway,I'm off to change the world today. I'll let you know how it
goes....al
On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 04:07:38 GMT, Barry Jarrett
<barry@rileys-coffee.com > wrote:
>On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 23:07:20 +1200, "Rob van Loenhout"
><wontwork@dontbother.not> wrote:
>
> >Just curious Barry - would you expect better results with a finger than a
> >doser lid? For the record i use the slightly curved handle of a teaspoon.
> >Bottomless pf on the work machine, usually get a uniform extraction.
>
>the theory on using the dosing chamber lid to scrape off the grounds
>is that this creates a non-uniform distribution of grounds, with the
>coffee puck denser at the distal end of the sweep and less dense at
>the near end of the sweep.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Jul 2006 15:37:14
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 12:16:14 GMT, sprsso <acritzer@cfl.rr.com > wrote:
>Anyway, I was at the newest coffee shop I consulted for on Friday, and
>one of the cutest and most competent baristas I trained was using a
>Mazzer SJ with a doser and was grinding for each drink. Some other
>staff member told her this was OK.
>Well, just for an exercise in futility, I started weighing the doses.
>All double 58mm baskets. The weights varied from 9 to 23 grams. The
>larger doses barely would fit in the group, and you know about the
>smaller doses.
>I had to do a whole new training, which I don't mind.
>I have this doser set for as close to 7 grams as you'll ever see.
poor implementation does not negate the validity of a technique.
--barry "there is no 'fill line'"
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Jul 2006 15:46:10
From: sprsso
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
With all due respect, my brother, I have never seen this technique
work outside the home.
>
>poor implementation does not negate the validity of a technique.
It does when the poor implementation results in consistently bad
coffee. 99.5% of the time constitutes invalid technique.
>
>
>--barry "there is no 'fill line'"
I knew that. It's sad that you had to say it....al
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Jul 2006 15:57:18
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 15:46:10 GMT, sprsso <acritzer@cfl.rr.com > wrote:
>With all due respect, my brother, I have never seen this technique
>work outside the home.
>>
as much as i hate to say this, given my dislike of the notion that it
is somehow a coffee "mecca", you really need a trip to seattle where
you can see folks cranking out top notch drinks at a respectable rate,
using the doser flap and finger scrape.
hey, maybe we can put together an unofficial dosing contest at next
year's convention. contestants get 10 minutes to dose & tamp 20
doubleshot baskets, with the quantity of the coffee measured
afterwards and scored based on accuracy and consistency.
>>--barry "there is no 'fill line'"
>I knew that. It's sad that you had to say it....al
not directed at you, but just a reminder to others who might
misinterpret your "can you say 'fill line'?" comment.
--barry "accounts that can't dose get a swift"
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Jul 2006 16:40:17
From: sprsso
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
Used to live across the Sound from Seattle. Never had a good espresso
there either. Probably because I never ordered one. Pretty good
microbreweries, though.
If I thought I could train someone that would be around for more than
a couple of months to operate during peak hours that could use this
technique with a measurable level of success, I might think about it.
Not happening here. So far, the only doserless grinder I've put in
place has been a Mini, which was about as reliable as a Yugo.
I watched Phil Hand train using a Swift, and got to play around with
it for a while, but the place was out of business next time I looked.
You know me. I'm a traditionalist. It was ingrained into my psyche in
my first 7 years in this business.
Florida is not Seattle, nor do I ever expect it to be. Which is also
sad, as we have the largest concentration of national accounts in the
world.
Without going into detail, there is a methodology in training people
that have a limited capacity to learn, (limits entirely self-chosen),
where it is important to excite them and simplify operations. Make
them feel like rocket scientists, while removing key elements of
control. This is what I do best, besides fixing machines.
I also have certain expectations as regards my coffee in the cup, and
removing variables has worked well for me. Frankly, no one I have
trained in 14 years will enter a barista competition. Hell, I couldn't
even qualify.
But what I do increasingly well is get the best out of what's
available. That includes Disney imagineers, Olive Garden managers,
yada yada yada.
Now, as an independent, I have even more time to devote to my clients,
even though I live farther away.
I have more time to listen to customers, help develop recipes that are
fastly becoming cold blended drinks in the majority, and understand
what is working in my market without some corporate guy explaining to
me.
Here, dosers rule. I won't even try to change that. I have changed
tamping techniques, taught managers to adjust their ginders, and more
importantly what to look for in the cup.
Every day, I hear "this is the best coffee I've ever had".
I think I'll settle for that right now. Maybe next year, I'll get out
the scrapers, or teach them how to burn their fingers leveling a dose.
Heh....al
On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 15:57:18 GMT, Barry Jarrett
<barry@rileys-coffee.com > wrote:
>On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 15:46:10 GMT, sprsso <acritzer@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >With all due respect, my brother, I have never seen this technique
> >work outside the home.
> >>
>
>as much as i hate to say this, given my dislike of the notion that it
>is somehow a coffee "mecca", you really need a trip to seattle where
>you can see folks cranking out top notch drinks at a respectable rate,
>using the doser flap and finger scrape.
>
>hey, maybe we can put together an unofficial dosing contest at next
>year's convention. contestants get 10 minutes to dose & tamp 20
>doubleshot baskets, with the quantity of the coffee measured
>afterwards and scored based on accuracy and consistency.
>
>
> >>--barry "there is no 'fill line'"
> >I knew that. It's sad that you had to say it....al
>
>not directed at you, but just a reminder to others who might
>misinterpret your "can you say 'fill line'?" comment.
>
>--barry "accounts that can't dose get a swift"
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Jul 2006 19:28:51
From: Steve
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 15:57:18 GMT, Barry Jarrett
<barry@rileys-coffee.com > wrote:
>as much as i hate to say this, given my dislike of the notion that it
>is somehow a coffee "mecca", you really need a trip to seattle where
>you can see folks cranking out top notch drinks at a respectable rate,
>using the doser flap and finger scrape.
Or to Stumptown in Portland.
Just came back from a first time visit and was impressed.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Jul 2006 23:51:06
From: Andy Schecter
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
sprsso wrote:
> You know, I've been reading about this technique for years now, and had
> hoped it stayed at the home use level. Unfortunately, from my point of
> view, I have also seen it used occasionally in commercial establishments to
> the detriment of the product in the cup. I would hope it's not necessary
> for me to enumerate the reasons why this method is incredibly wrong in a
> high-volume environment....
> ...If I am in an establishment that uses this
> technique, I will refuse the drink.
If you're truly saying that the "overfill and strike off the excess technique"
(with variations) is incredibly wrong, then the US Barista Championship
finalists are incredibly wrong. And the World Barista Champions are incredibly
wrong. Not to mention all the baristas at nearly all the top cafes in the country.
Someone ought to tell them about the error in their ways.
Maybe I just am not understanding you, but if this really IS what you're
saying, then it definitely IS necessary for you to enumerate why this method
is wrong.
Thanks.
--
-Andy S.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/andy_s/sets/
http://tinyurl.com/eh0x
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Jul 2006 10:59:27
From: sprsso
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
Andy,
With all due respect, I don't have the time today to address this
issue. I am going to be too busy training people that make drinks all
day, every day.
I don't begrudge those that have the time to engage in barista
competitions, I teach people on the front lines every day. When you
get to this point, please let me know.
You and Barry and Greg know the respect I have for all of you, but if
you can truly say that you can go into the field and do what I do, and
put a premium product in the cup 640 times a day then we can talk
about striking and tamping, bottomless portafilters and the like.
Until then, please continue attending and judging who are the best at
this. For sure, please continue the advances you are making in home
espresso and cappucinno production. I have great respect fot the
advances you have achieved, and would not seek to detract from these
advances.
Again, with all due respect, when you want to bring this to the field,
and justify to me the and my trainees, and show me how this will help
their business and inventory control please bring it. As I said, none
of my trainess are interested in competing,nor am I (in fact I find
the whole pocess self-defea
ting) And yes, I have seen some.I have also watched "Cocktail" and
find that entertaining. When you get down to putting your $3.45 cup on
the counter, nothing matters but whats in the cup. And if you would
come back and buy it again.
I hate to sound so negative, but realism is what it is. Idealism is
also what it is. I have to deal with both.
Today I have to drive 3 hours to tell a roaster that his product is
not good enough to sell. Boy, I need a job. It just won't be this
one....al
On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 23:51:06 GMT, Andy Schecter
<schecter@remove.me.rochester.rr.com > wrote:
>sprsso wrote:
>> You know, I've been reading about this technique for years now, and had
>> hoped it stayed at the home use level. Unfortunately, from my point of
>> view, I have also seen it used occasionally in commercial establishments to
>> the detriment of the product in the cup. I would hope it's not necessary
>> for me to enumerate the reasons why this method is incredibly wrong in a
>> high-volume environment....
>> ...If I am in an establishment that uses this
>> technique, I will refuse the drink.
>
>
>If you're truly saying that the "overfill and strike off the excess technique"
>(with variations) is incredibly wrong, then the US Barista Championship
>finalists are incredibly wrong. And the World Barista Champions are incredibly
>wrong. Not to mention all the baristas at nearly all the top cafes in the country.
>
>Someone ought to tell them about the error in their ways.
>
>Maybe I just am not understanding you, but if this really IS what you're
>saying, then it definitely IS necessary for you to enumerate why this method
>is wrong.
>
>Thanks.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Jul 2006 08:31:31
From: J. Clarke
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
sprsso wrote:
> Andy,
> With all due respect, I don't have the time today to address this
> issue. I am going to be too busy training people that make drinks all
> day, every day.
My bullshit detector just wrapped the needle around the pin.
Anybody can make drinks all day, every day. The fact that you train people
to do it doesn't mean that your coffee is any good or that the coffee they
make is any good.
> I don't begrudge those that have the time to engage in barista
> competitions, I teach people on the front lines every day. When you
> get to this point, please let me know.
Which point? Teaching people "on the front lines" to make the same crappy
swill that we almost always find "on the front lines"? Or working "on the
front lines"? Or what?
The fact that you get paid to train people doesn't mean that you know
anything other than how to convince someone that you know how to train
people.
> You and Barry and Greg know the respect I have for all of you, but if
> you can truly say that you can go into the field and do what I do, and
> put a premium product in the cup 640 times a day then we can talk
> about striking and tamping, bottomless portafilters and the like.
First convince us that the "premium product" you put in the cup 640 times a
day bears more resemblance to "good coffee" than "premium cheese product"
bears to "good cheese". The fact that you refer to it as "product" makes
you sound like a marketdroid and that alone is horribly damaging to your
credibility.
> Until then, please continue attending and judging who are the best at
> this. For sure, please continue the advances you are making in home
> espresso and cappucinno production. I have great respect fot the
> advances you have achieved, and would not seek to detract from these
> advances.
And yet you state that something they are doing is "incredibly wrong" and
when you are asked to back up that statement instead of explaining what is
wrong with it instead write a long post telling us that you are too busy
teaching people how to do it right to be bothered with actually answering
the question.
Further, you call into question your credibility as a trainer, as surely
this question comes up regularly in your training sessions and surely you
have an answer, or do you just tell you students that they should believe
you because you are always right and you never lie?
> Again, with all due respect, when you want to bring this to the field,
> and justify to me the and my trainees, and show me how this will help
> their business and inventory control please bring it.
I'm sorry, but one is not required to justify a standard procedure when an
alternative is proposed, the one proposing the alternative is obligated to
show that the alternative is superior. If scraping the top of the
portafilter is not standard as those here seem to believe and to have
believed for many years with no real dissent then please do educate us as
to the established method and convince us that it is established. If in
fact, as seems to be the case, your method is the one that is novel then
please explain why it "helps their business and inventory control".
> As I said, none
> of my trainess are interested in competing,nor am I (in fact I find
> the whole pocess self-defea
> ting)
In other words you have no confidence that your 640 cups a day of "premium
product" are in fact coffee of a superior quality.
> And yes, I have seen some.I have also watched "Cocktail" and
> find that entertaining.
Which has exactly what to do with anything? Or are you saying that the
competitions are preplanned entertainments like pro wrestling and not
legitimate attempts to assess the coffee-making prowess of baristi?
> When you get down to putting your $3.45 cup on
> the counter, nothing matters but whats in the cup. And if you would
> come back and buy it again.
People come back and buy Starbucks swill time and time again. The fact that
people buy it doesn't make it good, if it did then a Big Mac would be the
epitome of haute cuisine.
The fact that you teach people to mass produce a brown liquid in a cup does
not mean a damned thing. A dyspeptic elephant can mass-produce a brown
liquid.
> I hate to sound so negative, but realism is what it is. Idealism is
> also what it is. I have to deal with both.
Realism? Realism is that you have not done a damned thing here except brag.
> Today I have to drive 3 hours to tell a roaster that his product is
> not good enough to sell.
Why do you have to drive three hours to tell someone that his roasted coffee
isn't a "premium product"? Why, is something wrong with your phone? I
thought you were so, so busy training people to make 640 cups of "premium
product" a day today. Now you're driving all over Hell's half acre to
avoid making a phone call? What's wrong with this picture?
> Boy, I need a job. It just won't be this
> one....al
I thought your job was to teach people on the front lines to make 640 cups
of "premium product" a day. Did you lie?
We have three different stories from you, on the one hand you're super busy
all day today training people to mass produce "premium product", on the
other you're spending half a day driving somewhere to tell someone that he
isn't getting an order, and on the gripping hand you are unemployed.
> On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 23:51:06 GMT, Andy Schecter
> <schecter@remove.me.rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>sprsso wrote:
>>> You know, I've been reading about this technique for years now, and had
>>> hoped it stayed at the home use level. Unfortunately, from my point of
>>> view, I have also seen it used occasionally in commercial establishments
>>> to the detriment of the product in the cup. I would hope it's not
>>> necessary for me to enumerate the reasons why this method is incredibly
>>> wrong in a high-volume environment....
>>> ...If I am in an establishment that uses this
>>> technique, I will refuse the drink.
>>
>>
>>If you're truly saying that the "overfill and strike off the excess
>>technique" (with variations) is incredibly wrong, then the US Barista
>>Championship finalists are incredibly wrong. And the World Barista
>>Champions are incredibly wrong. Not to mention all the baristas at nearly
>>all the top cafes in the country.
>>
>>Someone ought to tell them about the error in their ways.
>>
>>Maybe I just am not understanding you, but if this really IS what you're
>>saying, then it definitely IS necessary for you to enumerate why this
>>method is wrong.
>>
>>Thanks.
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Jul 2006 16:11:53
From: sprsso
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
Again, this time with no due respect, perhaps you should google me. If
you feel like arguing with a recognized specialist in the field of
espresso who has been doing it in the field for almost 14 years, bring
it on. But you better know what you're talking about. Take your
bullshit meter out of your ass and bring your arguments.
I sell Supreme Bean coffee, about 600 lbs a week in season. I sell
Artista Gourmet syrups. I sell, install and service almost every
commercial piece of equipment available. I have forgotten more about
coffee than you will ever know.
My clients sell the best product on the planet. Their customers tell
them so, an d I make it so.
I welcome your challenge. But you can't back it up. Why don't you ask
Barry, Andy, and Greg if I know anything.
If I knew where you lived, I'd be flying there and checking out the
coffee there. Chances are that I've been there before and fixed
problems you couldn't comprehend on your best day.
I have met Barry, Andy and Greg. We agree to disagree on some things,
and have helped each other learn about others.
You, on the other hand have taught us or anyone else nothing. You
might check who your you're fucking with before you press send.
You want to talk coffee, bring it on
.I just reread some of your post, and it is obvious that I'm wasting
my time replying to an amateur whose major argument is that because
some people scrape the coffee off the top of their portafilter at
home, it should become an accepted process at the commercial level.
Mr. Clarke.
My clients serve quality coffee, greatly appreciated by those who
purchase it, and for you to insinuate that it is crappy (jeez, what a
great use of the English language) is ludicrous.
I would gladly go head to head with you at any level of coffee
production, personally or on this group.
There are reasons grinder manufacturers build dosers mounted on the
front of their machines. Consistency.
Perhaps you missed my earlier post where I measured weight between 9
and 23 grams when the "fill and scrape" or the grind to order
processes were used. Neither are optimal.
If in fact you are producing a drink a minute for the same customers
every day you would want it to be as consistent as possible. Fill and
scrape make this impossible..
Crap. What a waste. I have to leave to do a training. By the way, what
is it you you do improve coffee?
On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 08:31:31 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid > wrote:
>sprsso wrote:
>
>> Andy,
>> With all due respect, I don't have the time today to address this
>> issue. I am going to be too busy training people that make drinks all
>> day, every day.
>
>My bullshit detector just wrapped the needle around the pin.
>
>Anybody can make drinks all day, every day. The fact that you train people
>to do it doesn't mean that your coffee is any good or that the coffee they
>make is any good.
>
>> I don't begrudge those that have the time to engage in barista
>> competitions, I teach people on the front lines every day. When you
>> get to this point, please let me know.
>
>Which point? Teaching people "on the front lines" to make the same crappy
>swill that we almost always find "on the front lines"? Or working "on the
>front lines"? Or what?
>
>The fact that you get paid to train people doesn't mean that you know
>anything other than how to convince someone that you know how to train
>people.
>
>> You and Barry and Greg know the respect I have for all of you, but if
>> you can truly say that you can go into the field and do what I do, and
>> put a premium product in the cup 640 times a day then we can talk
>> about striking and tamping, bottomless portafilters and the like.
>
>First convince us that the "premium product" you put in the cup 640 times a
>day bears more resemblance to "good coffee" than "premium cheese product"
>bears to "good cheese". The fact that you refer to it as "product" makes
>you sound like a marketdroid and that alone is horribly damaging to your
>credibility.
>
>> Until then, please continue attending and judging who are the best at
>> this. For sure, please continue the advances you are making in home
>> espresso and cappucinno production. I have great respect fot the
>> advances you have achieved, and would not seek to detract from these
>> advances.
>
>And yet you state that something they are doing is "incredibly wrong" and
>when you are asked to back up that statement instead of explaining what is
>wrong with it instead write a long post telling us that you are too busy
>teaching people how to do it right to be bothered with actually answering
>the question.
>
>Further, you call into question your credibility as a trainer, as surely
>this question comes up regularly in your training sessions and surely you
>have an answer, or do you just tell you students that they should believe
>you because you are always right and you never lie?
>
>> Again, with all due respect, when you want to bring this to the field,
>> and justify to me the and my trainees, and show me how this will help
>> their business and inventory control please bring it.
>
>I'm sorry, but one is not required to justify a standard procedure when an
>alternative is proposed, the one proposing the alternative is obligated to
>show that the alternative is superior. If scraping the top of the
>portafilter is not standard as those here seem to believe and to have
>believed for many years with no real dissent then please do educate us as
>to the established method and convince us that it is established. If in
>fact, as seems to be the case, your method is the one that is novel then
>please explain why it "helps their business and inventory control".
>
>> As I said, none
>> of my trainess are interested in competing,nor am I (in fact I find
>> the whole pocess self-defea
>> ting)
>
>In other words you have no confidence that your 640 cups a day of "premium
>product" are in fact coffee of a superior quality.
>
>> And yes, I have seen some.I have also watched "Cocktail" and
>> find that entertaining.
>
>Which has exactly what to do with anything? Or are you saying that the
>competitions are preplanned entertainments like pro wrestling and not
>legitimate attempts to assess the coffee-making prowess of baristi?
>
>> When you get down to putting your $3.45 cup on
>> the counter, nothing matters but whats in the cup. And if you would
>> come back and buy it again.
>
>People come back and buy Starbucks swill time and time again. The fact that
>people buy it doesn't make it good, if it did then a Big Mac would be the
>epitome of haute cuisine.
>
>The fact that you teach people to mass produce a brown liquid in a cup does
>not mean a damned thing. A dyspeptic elephant can mass-produce a brown
>liquid.
>
>> I hate to sound so negative, but realism is what it is. Idealism is
>> also what it is. I have to deal with both.
>
>Realism? Realism is that you have not done a damned thing here except brag.
>
>> Today I have to drive 3 hours to tell a roaster that his product is
>> not good enough to sell.
>
>Why do you have to drive three hours to tell someone that his roasted coffee
>isn't a "premium product"? Why, is something wrong with your phone? I
>thought you were so, so busy training people to make 640 cups of "premium
>product" a day today. Now you're driving all over Hell's half acre to
>avoid making a phone call? What's wrong with this picture?
>
>> Boy, I need a job. It just won't be this
>> one....al
>
>I thought your job was to teach people on the front lines to make 640 cups
>of "premium product" a day. Did you lie?
>
>We have three different stories from you, on the one hand you're super busy
>all day today training people to mass produce "premium product", on the
>other you're spending half a day driving somewhere to tell someone that he
>isn't getting an order, and on the gripping hand you are unemployed.
>
>> On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 23:51:06 GMT, Andy Schecter
>> <schecter@remove.me.rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>sprsso wrote:
>>>> You know, I've been reading about this technique for years now, and had
>>>> hoped it stayed at the home use level. Unfortunately, from my point of
>>>> view, I have also seen it used occasionally in commercial establishments
>>>> to the detriment of the product in the cup. I would hope it's not
>>>> necessary for me to enumerate the reasons why this method is incredibly
>>>> wrong in a high-volume environment....
>>>> ...If I am in an establishment that uses this
>>>> technique, I will refuse the drink.
>>>
>>>
>>>If you're truly saying that the "overfill and strike off the excess
>>>technique" (with variations) is incredibly wrong, then the US Barista
>>>Championship finalists are incredibly wrong. And the World Barista
>>>Champions are incredibly wrong. Not to mention all the baristas at nearly
>>>all the top cafes in the country.
>>>
>>>Someone ought to tell them about the error in their ways.
>>>
>>>Maybe I just am not understanding you, but if this really IS what you're
>>>saying, then it definitely IS necessary for you to enumerate why this
>>>method is wrong.
>>>
>>>Thanks.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Jul 2006 17:29:17
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 08:31:31 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid > wrote:
>I'm sorry, but one is not required to justify a standard procedure when an
>alternative is proposed, the one proposing the alternative is obligated to
>show that the alternative is superior. If scraping the top of the
>portafilter is not standard as those here seem to believe and to have
>believed for many years with no real dissent then please do educate us as
>to the established method and convince us that it is established. If in
>fact, as seems to be the case, your method is the one that is novel then
>please explain why it "helps their business and inventory control".
...al does have valid points regarding the "fill & swipe" versus "one
click, two clicks". in a high velocity environment, where the coffee
in the doser runs no chance of going stale before it's used, and where
there is a moderately high staff turnover rate (ie, no one is going to
become a coffee 'specialist' before finding something else to do with
their lives), then using the grinder/doser to dose the coffee is a
practical way to get drinks of a consistently high <enough? > quality.
if "one click, two clicks" lets ...al's customers achieve their
production rate and cup standard more efficiently than "fill & swipe",
then who are we to say it shouldn't be so? all sorts of problems
arise out of quantity production. making a roast beef and potato
dinner for four is one thing; making it for four hundred is quite
another. one has to think differently with large volumes in order to
get similar end results with smaller volumes. in a cafe which serves
only 200 drinks a day, the "one click, two clicks" method is a sure
way to serve an inferior drink. at 600+ drinks a day, "grind to
order" is a quick way to burn up a grinder due to overheating; one
almost *must* grind a quantity of coffee at a time simply to give the
grinder motor/capacitor a chance to cool off before the next grind.
i'll still take issue with ...al's denegration of "fill & swipe" as a
poor method of dosing, and again suggest that poor implementation of a
method does not invalidate that method. just because his customers
couldn't dose consistently doesn't mean it can't be done, nor does it
mean it can't be done quickly. similarly, i won't poo-poo the "one
click, two click" method when used in a high volume situation; it may,
indeed, be the most efficient and consistent method for achieving a
quality product *in that situation*. ...al says he would walk out of
any coffeehouse which used "fill & swipe", and conversely, i've found
myself regretting espresso made at places which use "one click, two
clicks". i think we can both say we've had poor experiences at places
which use just about any method of dosing, which seems to me that
there are issues beyond dosing method which need to be dealt with.
--barry
>
>We have three different stories from you, on the one hand you're super busy
>all day today training people to mass produce "premium product", on the
>other you're spending half a day driving somewhere to tell someone that he
>isn't getting an order, and on the gripping hand you are unemployed.
>
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Jul 2006 19:34:26
From: sprsso
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
Whoa...
When has the fill and swipe tecnique supplanted using a doser as a
standard procedure? I'm not the one required to defend what you refer
to as an alternative technique. I am talking about a standard
procedure that is most likely older than you are, and endorsed by
every espresso machine manufacturer on the planet, and I have the
manuals to prove it.
Look, nothing is wrong with fill and swipe in a home environment, and
probably OK in a commercial environment if Barry or Bernie is doing
it, but here, in Florida, using a doser and knowing how to adjust your
grinder appropriate to the humidity level is about all you can expect.
I can't say that grinding per serving can't be done, it just can't be
done well by unknowing employees. I can't afford to have my coffee
produced incorrectly.
If Barry or others here wanted to produce espresso this way for 16
hours or so every day, I would be fine with that.
I'm not teaching that technique, because I have no faith in its
relaibility.
I want 7 grams in each serving. I want each drink to be the best it
can be. And I visit each client every week to ensure this.
On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 17:29:17 GMT, Barry Jarrett
<barry@rileys-coffee.com > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >We have three different stories from you, on the one hand you're super busy
> >all day today training people to mass produce "premium product", on the
> >other you're spending half a day driving somewhere to tell someone that he
> >isn't getting an order, and on the gripping hand you are unemployed.
> >
Not that you deserve an answer, but here it is. I am not unemployed,
but self-employed, as a distributor and consultant for 3 of the best
products on the planet. And I don't care if the term products makes me
sound like a salesman. I am not. I am a technician.
I drive 3 hours to look someone in the face to tell him I don't have
enough confidence in the finished product to represent it in the
field. The salary and benefits are hard to refuse, and I've known the
owner since he was 19. He appreciates my honesty.I don't speak to my
friends about career decisions over the phone.
I spent about three hours here, two hours on the phone, and all
appointments and training have been rescheduled to coincide with my
mother's release from the hospital.
For what it's worth, the coffee I sell is a premium product, one that
I consider the best. It is not mass produced. It is hand-crafted and
much training is required to make the person producing it understand
what they're doing.
I have been inside more espresso machines than you're likely to see
watching your favorite reruns of Friends
I have helped and consulted with people here since I learned how to
get on the internet. For free.
And, given the opportunity, I would drive to your town and teach you
and the local purveyors how to do it right.
We don't need to fight about this. I hate fighting with an unarmed
opponent....al
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Jul 2006 09:44:32
From: Brent
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
Hi Al,
Think you nailed the issue down there:
"Look, nothing is wrong with fill and swipe in a home environment, and
probably OK in a commercial environment if Barry or Bernie is doing it, but
here, in Florida, using a doser and knowing how to adjust your grinder
appropriate to the humidity level is about all you can expect.
I can't say that grinding per serving can't be done, it just can't be done
well by unknowing employees. I can't afford to have my coffee produced
incorrectly."
What everyone is striving for is consistency. And the environment and staff
and turnover have a baring on the quality you are aiming for.
In your case, 600 + drinks a day means presumably a fairly steady flow of
customers, so the doser can be set to deliver 7 grams, and the steady stream
of customers means that the ground coffee isn't hannging around to long.
That makes using the doser set up correctly a no brainer - I am with you on
that one.
How about when the traffic is slower? to keep the doser with enough coffee
means the ground coffee is pretty much guaranteed to go stale between
serves. That benefits no one. Hence the dose and sweep technique has merit,
as the coffee can be fresh ground each time, and it doesn't matter if a
second drink is about to be made if the grinds go in the doser. If theres a
delay, sweep them into the bin - we are hopefully talking a few grams.
Those are the two extremes I guess busy / steady versus quiet / bursty
volumes.
At each end, a skilled Barista will be monitoring the amount of coffee
going into the basket, adjusting as required to get that extra bit out of
each shot. I have watched skilled baristas change the volume of the shot in
prefernce to adjusting the grind because the rush didn't give them that
luxury. Rush over, adjust grind, adjust doseage - no problems, but they were
sweeping into the doser the whole time to maintain the quality in the cup.
For my clients - I get them to dose, swipe, tamp pull shots, but some would
be lucky to do 600 coffee's in a month...
Horses for courses, and as long as we are all striving for that exceptional
result in the cup, does it really matter if we are achieving it in different
ways?
Brent
>
> Whoa...
> When has the fill and swipe tecnique supplanted using a doser as a
> standard procedure? I'm not the one required to defend what you refer
> to as an alternative technique. I am talking about a standard
> procedure that is most likely older than you are, and endorsed by
> every espresso machine manufacturer on the planet, and I have the
> manuals to prove it.
> Look, nothing is wrong with fill and swipe in a home environment, and
> probably OK in a commercial environment if Barry or Bernie is doing
> it, but here, in Florida, using a doser and knowing how to adjust your
> grinder appropriate to the humidity level is about all you can expect.
> I can't say that grinding per serving can't be done, it just can't be
> done well by unknowing employees. I can't afford to have my coffee
> produced incorrectly.
> If Barry or others here wanted to produce espresso this way for 16
> hours or so every day, I would be fine with that.
> I'm not teaching that technique, because I have no faith in its
> relaibility.
> I want 7 grams in each serving. I want each drink to be the best it
> can be. And I visit each client every week to ensure this.
>
> On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 17:29:17 GMT, Barry Jarrett
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >We have three different stories from you, on the one hand you're super
>> >busy
>> >all day today training people to mass produce "premium product", on the
>> >other you're spending half a day driving somewhere to tell someone that
>> >he
>> >isn't getting an order, and on the gripping hand you are unemployed.
>> >
> Not that you deserve an answer, but here it is. I am not unemployed,
> but self-employed, as a distributor and consultant for 3 of the best
> products on the planet. And I don't care if the term products makes me
> sound like a salesman. I am not. I am a technician.
> I drive 3 hours to look someone in the face to tell him I don't have
> enough confidence in the finished product to represent it in the
> field. The salary and benefits are hard to refuse, and I've known the
> owner since he was 19. He appreciates my honesty.I don't speak to my
> friends about career decisions over the phone.
> I spent about three hours here, two hours on the phone, and all
> appointments and training have been rescheduled to coincide with my
> mother's release from the hospital.
> For what it's worth, the coffee I sell is a premium product, one that
> I consider the best. It is not mass produced. It is hand-crafted and
> much training is required to make the person producing it understand
> what they're doing.
> I have been inside more espresso machines than you're likely to see
> watching your favorite reruns of Friends
> I have helped and consulted with people here since I learned how to
> get on the internet. For free.
> And, given the opportunity, I would drive to your town and teach you
> and the local purveyors how to do it right.
> We don't need to fight about this. I hate fighting with an unarmed
> opponent....al
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Jul 2006 20:19:02
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 19:34:26 GMT, sprsso <acritzer@cfl.rr.com > wrote:
>I can't say that grinding per serving can't be done, it just can't be
>done well by unknowing employees.
but neither can "one click, two clicks".... i've been to too many
shops which pull the handle once for a single and twice for a double,
without checking or caring how much coffee actually made it into the
basket.
somewhere in the process, the pbtc has to take responsibility for the
drink or it'll suck mightily, whether that responsibility amounts to
watching how much coffee falls into the basket when clicking the doser
handle once, or watching how much coffee falls into the basket while
grinding per serving.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Jul 2006 21:01:34
From: sprsso
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
I agree about the responsiblity level. Unfortunately, I have yet to
see anyone grind per pour with any success. I can get 13.7 to 14.1
grams to come out of a doser on a repeatable level. Most shots are
doubles. And they don't have to pull the handle so many times.
I hate replacing dosing mechanisms and spring placements. Maybe after
you've done a few dozen of these, you'll come around to my way of
thinking. Heh....al
On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 20:19:02 GMT, Barry Jarrett
<barry@rileys-coffee.com > wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 19:34:26 GMT, sprsso <acritzer@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >I can't say that grinding per serving can't be done, it just can't be
> >done well by unknowing employees.
>
>but neither can "one click, two clicks".... i've been to too many
>shops which pull the handle once for a single and twice for a double,
>without checking or caring how much coffee actually made it into the
>basket.
>
>somewhere in the process, the pbtc has to take responsibility for the
>drink or it'll suck mightily, whether that responsibility amounts to
>watching how much coffee falls into the basket when clicking the doser
>handle once, or watching how much coffee falls into the basket while
>grinding per serving.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Jul 2006 19:54:02
From: Marshall
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 19:34:26 GMT, sprsso <acritzer@cfl.rr.com > wrote:
>
>Whoa...
>When has the fill and swipe tecnique supplanted using a doser as a
>standard procedure? I'm not the one required to defend what you refer
>to as an alternative technique. I am talking about a standard
>procedure that is most likely older than you are, and endorsed by
>every espresso machine manufacturer on the planet, and I have the
>manuals to prove it.
>Look, nothing is wrong with fill and swipe in a home environment, and
>probably OK in a commercial environment if Barry or Bernie is doing
>it, but here, in Florida, using a doser and knowing how to adjust your
>grinder appropriate to the humidity level is about all you can expect.
>I can't say that grinding per serving can't be done, it just can't be
>done well by unknowing employees. I can't afford to have my coffee
>produced incorrectly.
>If Barry or others here wanted to produce espresso this way for 16
>hours or so every day, I would be fine with that.
>I'm not teaching that technique, because I have no faith in its
>relaibility.
>I want 7 grams in each serving. I want each drink to be the best it
>can be. And I visit each client every week to ensure this.
>
There is a category of shops between the owner-barista and
constant-turnover PBTC shops. These are shops that treat espresso like
religion, have relatively low turnover and require a period of
apprenticeship and extensive training in the shop before the employees
are turned loose on the espresso machine. Many of them claim
allegiance to the "third wave" espresso flag.
I have been to about a dozen such shops, and I think just about all of
them grind to order and do the clickety-click dosing method. These
were shops in Seattle, Chicago, Southern California and New York.
Their espressos were of the highest order. Their customers may have to
wait in line a bit longer; but they are willing to do so for the
quality of the drink. I have not heard of any such shops in Florida,
but I'm sure some will open in the not-too-distant future, if they
haven't already.
Marshall
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Jul 2006 00:07:49
From: Rob van Loenhout
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
"sprsso" <acritzer@cfl.rr.com > wrote in message
news:4gjqa2l4df9ci184mfiqsjlquulotngdvo@4ax.com...
>
> Whoa...
> When has the fill and swipe tecnique supplanted using a doser as a
> standard procedure?
From my observations the fill & strike method seems to have become the new
industry standard. I can't remember the last time I saw someone use the
doser as it was intended. I however don't spend the amount of time you do in
Cafes.
It would be interesting to do a poll based on the cafe's a.c folk frequent
and which method they use. I would honestly expect the fill & strike method
to be more common (not in Italy though based on comments here).
Having said that next time i do the coffee cart thing and have a que i will
give the double click method a go ( assuming i have tuned the grinder to
suit).
Rob vL
NZ
I'm not the one required to defend what you refer
> to as an alternative technique. I am talking about a standard
> procedure that is most likely older than you are, and endorsed by
> every espresso machine manufacturer on the planet, and I have the
> manuals to prove it.
> Look, nothing is wrong with fill and swipe in a home environment, and
> probably OK in a commercial environment if Barry or Bernie is doing
> it, but here, in Florida, using a doser and knowing how to adjust your
> grinder appropriate to the humidity level is about all you can expect.
> I can't say that grinding per serving can't be done, it just can't be
> done well by unknowing employees. I can't afford to have my coffee
> produced incorrectly.
> If Barry or others here wanted to produce espresso this way for 16
> hours or so every day, I would be fine with that.
> I'm not teaching that technique, because I have no faith in its
> relaibility.
> I want 7 grams in each serving. I want each drink to be the best it
> can be. And I visit each client every week to ensure this.
>
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Jul 2006 11:22:46
From: Brent
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
Actually in a lot of the cafes, the grind, fill, strike means they are
grinding to order more or less, which is a good start...
Brent
>> Whoa...
>> When has the fill and swipe tecnique supplanted using a doser as a
>> standard procedure?
>
> From my observations the fill & strike method seems to have become the new
> industry standard. I can't remember the last time I saw someone use the
> doser as it was intended. I however don't spend the amount of time you do
> in
> Cafes.
> It would be interesting to do a poll based on the cafe's a.c folk frequent
> and which method they use. I would honestly expect the fill & strike
> method
> to be more common (not in Italy though based on comments here).
> Having said that next time i do the coffee cart thing and have a que i
> will
> give the double click method a go ( assuming i have tuned the grinder to
> suit).
>
> Rob vL
> NZ
>
>
>
> I'm not the one required to defend what you refer
>> to as an alternative technique. I am talking about a standard
>> procedure that is most likely older than you are, and endorsed by
>> every espresso machine manufacturer on the planet, and I have the
>> manuals to prove it.
>> Look, nothing is wrong with fill and swipe in a home environment, and
>> probably OK in a commercial environment if Barry or Bernie is doing
>> it, but here, in Florida, using a doser and knowing how to adjust your
>> grinder appropriate to the humidity level is about all you can expect.
>> I can't say that grinding per serving can't be done, it just can't be
>> done well by unknowing employees. I can't afford to have my coffee
>> produced incorrectly.
>> If Barry or others here wanted to produce espresso this way for 16
>> hours or so every day, I would be fine with that.
>> I'm not teaching that technique, because I have no faith in its
>> relaibility.
>> I want 7 grams in each serving. I want each drink to be the best it
>> can be. And I visit each client every week to ensure this.
>>
>
>
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Jul 2006 17:45:36
From: Marshall
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 17:29:17 GMT, Barry Jarrett
<barry@rileys-coffee.com > wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 08:31:31 -0400, "J. Clarke"
><jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote:
>
> >I'm sorry, but one is not required to justify a standard procedure when an
> >alternative is proposed, the one proposing the alternative is obligated to
> >show that the alternative is superior. If scraping the top of the
> >portafilter is not standard as those here seem to believe and to have
> >believed for many years with no real dissent then please do educate us as
> >to the established method and convince us that it is established. If in
> >fact, as seems to be the case, your method is the one that is novel then
> >please explain why it "helps their business and inventory control".
>
>...al does have valid points regarding the "fill & swipe" versus "one
>click, two clicks". in a high velocity environment, where the coffee
>in the doser runs no chance of going stale before it's used, and where
>there is a moderately high staff turnover rate (ie, no one is going to
>become a coffee 'specialist' before finding something else to do with
>their lives), then using the grinder/doser to dose the coffee is a
>practical way to get drinks of a consistently high <enough?> quality.
>if "one click, two clicks" lets ...al's customers achieve their
>production rate and cup standard more efficiently than "fill & swipe"
This unnecessarily nasty thread hasn't even touched on the issue of
the mounds of clickety-click coffee that wind up getting swept onto
the counter or knockbox. Is it economically wasteful? Is it
disrespectful of the farmer and roaster's efforts?
Marshall "clickety-clicks at home"
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Jul 2006 20:09:32
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 17:45:36 GMT, Marshall
<mrfuss@ihatespamearthlink.net > wrote:
>the counter or knockbox. Is it economically wasteful? Is it
>disrespectful of the farmer and roaster's efforts?
swift. :)
as for disrespectful of the farmer and roaster... well, gee, if it
means the customer will buy more coffee....
--barry "waste all you want, i'll roast more"
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Jul 2006 20:58:07
From: Marshall
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 20:09:32 GMT, Barry Jarrett
<barry@rileys-coffee.com > wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 17:45:36 GMT, Marshall
><mrfuss@ihatespamearthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >the counter or knockbox. Is it economically wasteful? Is it
> >disrespectful of the farmer and roaster's efforts?
>
>
>swift. :)
>
>as for disrespectful of the farmer and roaster... well, gee, if it
>means the customer will buy more coffee....
>
>--barry "waste all you want, i'll roast more"
I was thinking of the barista on one of the professional boards who
complained about the slag-heap sized mound lying under a grinder in a
Barista Mag photo.
Marshall
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Jul 2006 09:46:56
From: Brent
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
>>
>> >the counter or knockbox. Is it economically wasteful? Is it
>> >disrespectful of the farmer and roaster's efforts?
>>
>>
>>swift. :)
>>
>>as for disrespectful of the farmer and roaster... well, gee, if it
>>means the customer will buy more coffee....
>>
>>--barry "waste all you want, i'll roast more"
>
> I was thinking of the barista on one of the professional boards who
> complained about the slag-heap sized mound lying under a grinder in a
> Barista Mag photo.
>
> Marshall
But wasn't the result that the said photo was taken toward the end of a
shift?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Jul 2006 09:10:09
From: Omniryx@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
Barry Jarrett wrote:
> no, it leads to the question, "WHY are there numbers?"
That might have two answers, depending on whether you are being
philosophical or practical. If practical then I've already provided a
bipartite answer: monkey curiosity and a general desire for
consistency. If philosophical (a much more interesting approach), I
would say that I'm perfectly happy to adopt a suppositional
epistemology and drop the scientific method from the world of coffee
altogether. Throw out all the thermocouples and scales, maybe even
coffee measures, and we'll get started. If it looks right, we'll do it
and if it tastes right we'll know we did it right.
It simply bemuses me that people who are so O/C about their espresso
that they measure the temperature in the PF with a precision device
especially constructed for the purpose are so willing to assume that
whop, whop, whop, whop on the doser handle and sweeeeeep with the
finger invariably yields a consistent dose by weight.
Will
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Jul 2006 13:43:52
From: Ken Fox
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
<Omniryx@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1152288609.054957.267190@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Barry Jarrett wrote:
>> no, it leads to the question, "WHY are there numbers?"
>
> That might have two answers, depending on whether you are being
> philosophical or practical. If practical then I've already provided a
> bipartite answer: monkey curiosity and a general desire for
> consistency. If philosophical (a much more interesting approach), I
> would say that I'm perfectly happy to adopt a suppositional
> epistemology and drop the scientific method from the world of coffee
> altogether. Throw out all the thermocouples and scales, maybe even
> coffee measures, and we'll get started. If it looks right, we'll do it
> and if it tastes right we'll know we did it right.
>
> It simply bemuses me that people who are so O/C about their espresso
> that they measure the temperature in the PF with a precision device
> especially constructed for the purpose are so willing to assume that
> whop, whop, whop, whop on the doser handle and sweeeeeep with the
> finger invariably yields a consistent dose by weight.
>
>
> Will
>
I'm sure a lot of people HAVE weighed the coffee in their PF baskets; I
have. I know from this weighing that my double baskets, which I used to put
16g into, now get 18g. Every time I've tested it, I've been within half a
gram of that, because I dose visually and consistently. Being within half a
gram isn't hard, but getting closer would require more day to day experience
than I get. The most recent time I weighed a PF basket was . . . . . about
5 days ago.
Thwacking the doser while loading the PF leads to more accurate and
consistent dosing, because the basket is consistently filled without empty
spots. If you have a bottomless PF, it is even easier because you can move
it around on the doser fork in order to fill the PF throughout. I have
found for myself that with my own equipment, dosing with repetitive doser
handle thwacks, using a finger sweep, and leaving a mound on top, I get
consistently fewer channeled and otherwised sink-bound shots than with other
methods I've tried. I also think the typical shots taste better. Whether
this will work for you is unknowable until you try it.
Like most barista techniques, very little is critical as long as you are
consistent. Other dosing and distribution techniques could conceivably work
just as well for some people on some equipment. All that matters is the
results and if one is happy with what one uses, there is no need to change.
As to why one would test temperature and not weigh doses, I know of no way
to evaluate temperature accurately than with thermometry; sure, you can rely
on your taste but they you are using a subjective test to evaluate something
that can easily be measured objectively. Because many are able to
consistently dose their PFs visually, I see no reason for regular coffee
weighings other than to reassure ones self that one is being consistent.
It IS difficult for one barista to exactly imitate the technique of another
and in a multiperson worker environment, standardization on some sort of
technique would be essential unless each barista has his own grinder.
ken
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Jul 2006 08:26:11
From: Doug Cadmus
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
Barry Jarrett wrote:
> On 7 Jul 2006 05:31:29 -0700, "Omniryx@gmail.com" <Omniryx@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >curiosity. I teach, among other things, research methods and
> >philosophy of science. That background leads me to ask questions like
> >"Where are the numbers?"
> >
>
> no, it leads to the question, "WHY are there numbers?"
>
> ;)
Actually, it leads me to the question, "WHY isn't there a tare scale
wired-up to the portafilter prongs of every dosing espresso grinder in
coffee land?"
-deCadmus
"Inquiring minds, and all that..."
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Jul 2006 23:01:18
From: Andy Schecter
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
Doug Cadmus wrote:
> "WHY isn't there a tare scale wired-up to the portafilter prongs
> of every dosing espresso grinder in coffee land?"
I dunno. Perhaps because when you do a "tap, tap" on the prongs to settle the
grinds, the scale would get knocked out of calibration? :-0
--
-Andy S.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/andy_s/sets/
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Jul 2006 11:53:26
From: Randy R
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
Doug Cadmus wrote:
> Barry Jarrett wrote:
> > On 7 Jul 2006 05:31:29 -0700, "Omniryx@gmail.com" <Omniryx@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >curiosity. I teach, among other things, research methods and
> > >philosophy of science. That background leads me to ask questions like
> > >"Where are the numbers?"
> > >
> >
> > no, it leads to the question, "WHY are there numbers?"
> >
> > ;)
>
> Actually, it leads me to the question, "WHY isn't there a tare scale
> wired-up to the portafilter prongs of every dosing espresso grinder in
> coffee land?"
>
I wish I had that on my drip coffee grinder.
For espresso, it's easier to hook up a digital timer (not that I have
done this yet.) I know a number of coffee shops have done this
actually, but I don't know how well these grinders work in a very busy
shop.
Randy R
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Jul 2006 22:30:40
From: Doug Cadmus
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
Andy Schecter wrote:
> Doug Cadmus wrote:
> > "WHY isn't there a tare scale wired-up to the portafilter prongs
> > of every dosing espresso grinder in coffee land?"
>
> I dunno. Perhaps because when you do a "tap, tap" on the prongs to settle the
> grinds, the scale would get knocked out of calibration? :-0
>
> --
>
>
> -Andy S.
So, make a better scale!
Better yet, go old-school. Make it a dead-simple balance scale
permanently tuned to 14 grams or whatnot.
Gosh... you techie folks always wanting a digital thingie.
-deCadmus
www.bloggle.com
Made in Vermont
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Jul 2006 09:23:59
From: Omniryx@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
This may be declassee to ask but would you contact me by private email,
sprsso? Not about fishing, alas. My email addy is in the header.
Thanks
Will
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Jul 2006 09:20:51
From: Omniryx@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
I'm only a half-hour drive from you; let's go fishing!
Will (Who will bring a nice thermal bottle full of fresh Sumatra)
sprsso wrote:
> But most likely we would end up at the beach catching Pomano and
> Whiting and endeavoring to keep Maddie from floating downstream.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Jul 2006 05:31:29
From: Omniryx@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
Ken Fox wrote:
>Why this would require anymore scientific
> proof then how you have personalized your technique for making an omelette
> or a hamburger, I don't know.
Yikes, when I was a student at the Culinary Institute of America, lo
these many years ago, we spent DAYS perfecting omelette technique. Of
course, the vast majority of Americans have no more idea what an
omelette is than what good coffee is.
But as to why, Ken, I suppose the real answer is just plain monkey
curiosity. I teach, among other things, research methods and
philosophy of science. That background leads me to ask questions like
"Where are the numbers?"
As to why one might not simply accept assurances that "all the top
notch people do it that way," perhaps it is because there was a time
when the very finest minds on the earth were absolutely certain that
the earth was flat. Empiricism, brother, empiricism. :)
Will
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Jul 2006 15:38:09
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
On 7 Jul 2006 05:31:29 -0700, "Omniryx@gmail.com" <Omniryx@gmail.com >
wrote:
>curiosity. I teach, among other things, research methods and
>philosophy of science. That background leads me to ask questions like
>"Where are the numbers?"
>
no, it leads to the question, "WHY are there numbers?"
;)
--barry "philsci '87"
(now all we need is for greg to come up with a testing protocol)
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Jul 2006 11:13:33
From: Omniryx@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
I agree that the data are of little worth until placed into
perspective. I wasn't interested in a comparison of accuracy between
the finger thing and the doser thing but rather the absolute accuracy,
by weight, of the coffee loaded by the finger thing.
It isn't a question of great moment, just something interesting to
ponder, especially once I realized how much the idea of objective
measurement of dosing bothered some folks.
Thanks for the comments.
Will
gscace wrote:
> The data isn't interesting unless you can make comparisons with data
> from some other control. You'll have to do the finger swipe thwack
> thwack thing and get some statistically significant number of
> weighings, and you'll have to do the doser thing and make a similar
> number of weighings. I'd get the data, but the process will be quite
> time consuming, and I"m firmly entrenched in one scheme and don't find
> its validation to be that useful since my shot times reproduce to
> within a couple of seconds and taste is almost boringly consistent.
>
> -Greg
>
>
>
>
> Omniryx@gmail.com wrote:
> > Ken Fox wrote:
> > >Why this would require anymore scientific
> > > proof then how you have personalized your technique for making an omelette
> > > or a hamburger, I don't know.
> >
> > Yikes, when I was a student at the Culinary Institute of America, lo
> > these many years ago, we spent DAYS perfecting omelette technique. Of
> > course, the vast majority of Americans have no more idea what an
> > omelette is than what good coffee is.
> >
> > But as to why, Ken, I suppose the real answer is just plain monkey
> > curiosity. I teach, among other things, research methods and
> > philosophy of science. That background leads me to ask questions like
> > "Where are the numbers?"
> >
> > As to why one might not simply accept assurances that "all the top
> > notch people do it that way," perhaps it is because there was a time
> > when the very finest minds on the earth were absolutely certain that
> > the earth was flat. Empiricism, brother, empiricism. :)
> >
> > Will
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Jul 2006 20:28:31
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
On 7 Jul 2006 11:13:33 -0700, "Omniryx@gmail.com" <Omniryx@gmail.com >
wrote:
>especially once I realized how much the idea of objective
>measurement of dosing bothered some folks.
>
i really don't know where you derived this.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Jul 2006 13:48:57
From: Ken Fox
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
The other thing to realize is that the very most important variable in
making espresso, in trying to achieve consistent time/volume extraction
parameters, is the amount of coffee one puts in the PF. This trumps all
other variables including grind and tamping. Therefore, if one THINKS he is
being consistent in dosing but isn't, that is going to be incredibly obvious
as his shots vary widely in terms of the volume produced in a given period
of time, or the inverse, the time it takes to produce a certain volume. I
use a kitchen timer when I make shots, 90 plus percent of the time,
something I recommend to everyone who wants to be consistent in their
shotmaking. With a timer, errors in dose will be incredibly obvious.
ken
<Omniryx@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1152296013.580261.118710@s53g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>I agree that the data are of little worth until placed into
> perspective. I wasn't interested in a comparison of accuracy between
> the finger thing and the doser thing but rather the absolute accuracy,
> by weight, of the coffee loaded by the finger thing.
>
> It isn't a question of great moment, just something interesting to
> ponder, especially once I realized how much the idea of objective
> measurement of dosing bothered some folks.
>
> Thanks for the comments.
>
> Will
>
> gscace wrote:
>> The data isn't interesting unless you can make comparisons with data
>> from some other control. You'll have to do the finger swipe thwack
>> thwack thing and get some statistically significant number of
>> weighings, and you'll have to do the doser thing and make a similar
>> number of weighings. I'd get the data, but the process will be quite
>> time consuming, and I"m firmly entrenched in one scheme and don't find
>> its validation to be that useful since my shot times reproduce to
>> within a couple of seconds and taste is almost boringly consistent.
>>
>> -Greg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Omniryx@gmail.com wrote:
>> > Ken Fox wrote:
>> > >Why this would require anymore scientific
>> > > proof then how you have personalized your technique for making an
>> > > omelette
>> > > or a hamburger, I don't know.
>> >
>> > Yikes, when I was a student at the Culinary Institute of America, lo
>> > these many years ago, we spent DAYS perfecting omelette technique. Of
>> > course, the vast majority of Americans have no more idea what an
>> > omelette is than what good coffee is.
>> >
>> > But as to why, Ken, I suppose the real answer is just plain monkey
>> > curiosity. I teach, among other things, research methods and
>> > philosophy of science. That background leads me to ask questions like
>> > "Where are the numbers?"
>> >
>> > As to why one might not simply accept assurances that "all the top
>> > notch people do it that way," perhaps it is because there was a time
>> > when the very finest minds on the earth were absolutely certain that
>> > the earth was flat. Empiricism, brother, empiricism. :)
>> >
>> > Will
>
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Jul 2006 10:28:44
From: gscace
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
The data isn't interesting unless you can make comparisons with data
from some other control. You'll have to do the finger swipe thwack
thwack thing and get some statistically significant number of
weighings, and you'll have to do the doser thing and make a similar
number of weighings. I'd get the data, but the process will be quite
time consuming, and I"m firmly entrenched in one scheme and don't find
its validation to be that useful since my shot times reproduce to
within a couple of seconds and taste is almost boringly consistent.
-Greg
Omniryx@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Fox wrote:
> >Why this would require anymore scientific
> > proof then how you have personalized your technique for making an omelette
> > or a hamburger, I don't know.
>
> Yikes, when I was a student at the Culinary Institute of America, lo
> these many years ago, we spent DAYS perfecting omelette technique. Of
> course, the vast majority of Americans have no more idea what an
> omelette is than what good coffee is.
>
> But as to why, Ken, I suppose the real answer is just plain monkey
> curiosity. I teach, among other things, research methods and
> philosophy of science. That background leads me to ask questions like
> "Where are the numbers?"
>
> As to why one might not simply accept assurances that "all the top
> notch people do it that way," perhaps it is because there was a time
> when the very finest minds on the earth were absolutely certain that
> the earth was flat. Empiricism, brother, empiricism. :)
>
> Will
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Jul 2006 14:59:08
From: J. Clarke
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
gscace wrote:
> The data isn't interesting unless you can make comparisons with data
> from some other control. You'll have to do the finger swipe thwack
> thwack thing and get some statistically significant number of
> weighings, and you'll have to do the doser thing and make a similar
> number of weighings.
The difficulty with this approach is that weight is not the end goal, it is
a means to that goal. Simply testing repeated weighings will tell you how
useful the method is for that purpose but it won't tell you if maintaining
that degree of precision has any noticeable effect on taste. Seems to me
that the first thing to do is figure out what constitutes an allowable
tolerance.
> I'd get the data, but the process will be quite
> time consuming, and I"m firmly entrenched in one scheme and don't find
> its validation to be that useful since my shot times reproduce to
> within a couple of seconds and taste is almost boringly consistent.
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Jul 2006 23:26:25
From: Rob van Loenhout
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
"Barry Jarrett" <barry@rileys-coffee.com > wrote in message
news:8lema2l729m3pvbkfjhlet1ffr1speltm0@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 23:07:20 +1200, "Rob van Loenhout"
> <wontwork@dontbother.not> wrote:
>
> >Just curious Barry - would you expect better results with a finger than
a
> >doser lid? For the record i use the slightly curved handle of a
teaspoon.
> >Bottomless pf on the work machine, usually get a uniform extraction.
>
> the theory on using the dosing chamber lid to scrape off the grounds
> is that this creates a non-uniform distribution of grounds, with the
> coffee puck denser at the distal end of the sweep and less dense at
> the near end of the sweep.
If i'm going to get a blow out in the puck it will be at the 1 to 2 o'c
position in the puck surface (the handle being 6o'c). Seems to be usually in
the same positon regardless of how i sweep. I get the least # of blown pucks
if i coarse the grind, overdose, tamp light and allow the dispersion screen
to finsh the tamp. Usually get he most crema laden even extractions this
way.
Rob vL
NZ
|
| | | | | |
Date: 04 Jul 2006 17:49:17
From: Brent
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
why yes I do...
And it usually isn't to bad.
:)
>
> >As a point, I use the doser cover to level the grounds - it's straighter
> >and
> >more consistant than a finger, and is normally easily found, on the
> >doser!
>
> do you have a bottomless portafilter to check the uniformity of your
> extraction?
>
|
| | | | | |
Date: 06 Jul 2006 16:18:23
From: Omniryx@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
I don't think you have, Barry. But, if you have, humor me, do it
again. Objective data, please, not tales of objective data or of how
every champion barista in the galaxy does it.
I have the highest possible respect for good baristi and I stand in awe
of world class baristi. They are craftspersons in the truest sense of
the word. I have no beef with you, Barry, and I certainly have no beef
with anyone who chooses to overfill and sweep. Please stop being
defensive when there is nothing to defend.
I asked a simple question and, your riposte to the contrary, it has not
been answered.
Do we have any data or not? If so, where is it, who has it, what does
it reveal?
Will
Barry Jarrett wrote:
> On 6 Jul 2006 12:31:52 -0700, "Omniryx@gmail.com" <Omniryx@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >What I am asking about (am I not writing English here?) is whether
> >anyone has applied my friend Ohaus to the "overfill and scrape" method.
> > In other words, who here has
> >overfilled-scraped-weighed...overfilled-scraped-weighed...overfilled-scraped-weighed
> >and confirmed objectively that doing so delivers the same weight of
> >coffee every time. Say within the +/- .5g that we've agreed upon.
> >
> >No one seems to want to answer that question, which suggests to me what
> >the answer might be.
>
>
> i thought i'd answered that question. i've have done just that, on
> several occasions.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 06 Jul 2006 16:13:41
From: Omniryx@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
I don't think you have, Barry. But, if you have, humor me, do it
again. Objective data, please, not tales of objective data or of how
every champion barista in the galaxy does it.
I have the highest possible respect for good baristi and I stand in awe
of world class baristi. They are craftspersons in the truest sense of
the word. I have no beef with you, Barry, and I certainly have no beef
with anyone who chooses to overfill and sweep. Please stop being
defensive when there is nothing to defend.
I asked a simple question and, your riposte to the contrary, it has not
been answered.
Do we have any data or not? If so, where is it, who has it, what does
it reveal?
Will
Barry Jarrett wrote:
> On 6 Jul 2006 12:31:52 -0700, "Omniryx@gmail.com" <Omniryx@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >What I am asking about (am I not writing English here?) is whether
> >anyone has applied my friend Ohaus to the "overfill and scrape" method.
> > In other words, who here has
> >overfilled-scraped-weighed...overfilled-scraped-weighed...overfilled-scraped-weighed
> >and confirmed objectively that doing so delivers the same weight of
> >coffee every time. Say within the +/- .5g that we've agreed upon.
> >
> >No one seems to want to answer that question, which suggests to me what
> >the answer might be.
>
>
> i thought i'd answered that question. i've have done just that, on
> several occasions.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 07 Jul 2006 02:02:38
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
On 6 Jul 2006 16:13:41 -0700, "Omniryx@gmail.com" <Omniryx@gmail.com >
wrote:
>Do we have any data or not? If so, where is it, who has it, what does
>it reveal?
yes. somewhere on my computer or in my notes or on the web; i have
some; it reveals that fill & swipe gives very good results.
--barry "answered as asked"
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Jul 2006 21:29:58
From: Ken Fox
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
"Barry Jarrett" <barry@rileys-coffee.com > wrote in message
news:u2gra2h8rqlb4jjgqg7fkugsp72v9sg6t7@4ax.com...
> On 6 Jul 2006 16:13:41 -0700, "Omniryx@gmail.com" <Omniryx@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Do we have any data or not? If so, where is it, who has it, what does
> >it reveal?
>
>
> yes. somewhere on my computer or in my notes or on the web; i have
> some; it reveals that fill & swipe gives very good results.
>
>
> --barry "answered as asked"
I was going to respond to this earlier but held my response for Barry. The
best cafes I have been to all do this. Does that prove anything? Probably
not. Could one do an experiment to test this? Having done blind tasting
experiments I can see the difficulty because you would at the very least
require two separate grinders due to the dosing difference, in order to make
the comparison shots come out resembling each other to the point where they
could not be picked out on sight alone; otherwise, you'd have one shot shot
and one incredibly long shot, as the quantity dosed into the PF overwhelms
all other variables when it comes to time-dose parameters. Is such an
experiment worth doing? NO, in my opinion, because whatever results one
obtained would be true for one's own taste on one's own equipment but
probably not generalizable.
After seeing how these high end baristas at these high end places work, and
after reading a bunch of threads encouraging this approach, I tried it for
myself. At first, I simply overdosed the basket but didn't use the doser
handle rapid fire style to fill the basket; later I added that part. A
pinkie or other finger sweep has been part of my technique for years,
however.
In the end I changed my technique to the rapid fire doser handle/overfill/
finger sweep with a mound on top technique because I got the best shots I'd
ever made using it. Does this mean that you can take my observation and
apply it to your own equipment? I haven't a clue, and this is where you
come in. Try it, if you find you get better shots with it then use it, if
you don't, then don't use it. Why this would require anymore scientific
proof then how you have personalized your technique for making an omelette
or a hamburger, I don't know.
ken
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Jul 2006 11:12:08
From: sprsso
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
I would like to see that. I am hard to convince, and in the opposite
corner. I personally don't think this flies.
Show me something. Like pictures of Maddie or something. else that
makes sense. this does not.Seriously, Karen and I would prefer
pictures than a continuation of this discussion. If you or any of the
other respected members of the group would like to come out here and
show me how to make espresso, please do.
Hey! How about some pictures of Maddie filling and scraping a
portfilter? No. Never mind. I love you guys to death, but I think you
are completely off base by advising the general public to employ this
method.
This is business suicide here. Barry and June, come see us and I will
show you around one of the largest coffee markets in the US.
But most likely we would end up at the beach catching Pomano and
Whiting and endeavoring to keep Maddie from floating downstream.
And only worrying about the coffee in our cup....al
On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 02:02:38 GMT, Barry Jarrett
<barry@rileys-coffee.com > wrote:
>On 6 Jul 2006 16:13:41 -0700, "Omniryx@gmail.com" <Omniryx@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
> >Do we have any data or not? If so, where is it, who has it, what does
> >it reveal?
>
>
>yes. somewhere on my computer or in my notes or on the web; i have
>some; it reveals that fill & swipe gives very good results.
>
>
>--barry "answered as asked"
|
| | | | |
Date: 07 Jul 2006 10:35:23
From: gscace
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
My solution here is to time my grind. It takes about 6 seconds to
grind 20gm with a Robur. Timing the grind really cuts down on waste.
I then dispense this into my portafilter, but I don't do the maniacal
thwacking thing because in my experience the coffee dispenses off
center. I'm a very gentle doserer.
-Greg
Marshall wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 20:09:32 GMT, Barry Jarrett
> <barry@rileys-coffee.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 17:45:36 GMT, Marshall
> ><mrfuss@ihatespamearthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > >the counter or knockbox. Is it economically wasteful? Is it
> > >disrespectful of the farmer and roaster's efforts?
> >
> >
> >swift. :)
> >
> >as for disrespectful of the farmer and roaster... well, gee, if it
> >means the customer will buy more coffee....
> >
> >--barry "waste all you want, i'll roast more"
>
> I was thinking of the barista on one of the professional boards who
> complained about the slag-heap sized mound lying under a grinder in a
> Barista Mag photo.
>
> Marshall
|
| | | | | |
Date: 07 Jul 2006 18:24:54
From: Marshall
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
On 7 Jul 2006 10:35:23 -0700, "gscace" <gregory.scace@nist.gov > wrote:
>My solution here is to time my grind. It takes about 6 seconds to
>grind 20gm with a Robur. Timing the grind really cuts down on waste.
>
>
>I then dispense this into my portafilter, but I don't do the maniacal
>thwacking thing because in my experience the coffee dispenses off
>center. I'm a very gentle doserer.
>
>
>-Greg
I do the same, 12-14 seconds on a Mini, depending on the grind.
Marshall
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Jul 2006 12:31:52
From: Omniryx@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
Barry Jarrett wrote:
> get cosy with a grinder/doser and a gram scale, then start dosing. i
> can routinely hit within .5g without a lot of practice, and when i'm
> really tuned up, i can hit within .1g.
Rocky and Ohaus live side by side on my coffee bar, Barry, and we have
been cozy on many long evenings. I think I said at the beginning that
I have learned, by eye, to scoop 15g of coffee into Rocky with
repeatable accuracy of +/- .5g.
What I am asking about (am I not writing English here?) is whether
anyone has applied my friend Ohaus to the "overfill and scrape" method.
In other words, who here has
overfilled-scraped-weighed...overfilled-scraped-weighed...overfilled-scraped-weighed
and confirmed objectively that doing so delivers the same weight of
coffee every time. Say within the +/- .5g that we've agreed upon.
No one seems to want to answer that question, which suggests to me what
the answer might be.
Will
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Jul 2006 20:06:39
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
On 6 Jul 2006 12:31:52 -0700, "Omniryx@gmail.com" <Omniryx@gmail.com >
wrote:
>What I am asking about (am I not writing English here?) is whether
>anyone has applied my friend Ohaus to the "overfill and scrape" method.
> In other words, who here has
>overfilled-scraped-weighed...overfilled-scraped-weighed...overfilled-scraped-weighed
>and confirmed objectively that doing so delivers the same weight of
>coffee every time. Say within the +/- .5g that we've agreed upon.
>
>No one seems to want to answer that question, which suggests to me what
>the answer might be.
i thought i'd answered that question. i've have done just that, on
several occasions.
|
| | | | |
Date: 07 Jul 2006 23:13:04
From: Rob van Loenhout
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
<Omniryx@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1152214312.833019.304790@s53g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>
> Barry Jarrett wrote:
> > get cosy with a grinder/doser and a gram scale, then start dosing. i
> > can routinely hit within .5g without a lot of practice, and when i'm
> > really tuned up, i can hit within .1g.
>
> Rocky and Ohaus live side by side on my coffee bar, Barry, and we have
> been cozy on many long evenings. I think I said at the beginning that
> I have learned, by eye, to scoop 15g of coffee into Rocky with
> repeatable accuracy of +/- .5g.
>
> What I am asking about (am I not writing English here?) is whether
> anyone has applied my friend Ohaus to the "overfill and scrape" method.
> In other words, who here has
>
overfilled-scraped-weighed...overfilled-scraped-weighed...overfilled-scraped
-weighed
> and confirmed objectively that doing so delivers the same weight of
> coffee every time. Say within the +/- .5g that we've agreed upon.
>
> No one seems to want to answer that question, which suggests to me what
> the answer might be.
>
> Will
>
Without weighing it is possible to know if you are being consistent with
your dose based on how much of the tamper sticks out above the basket. No i
don't measure with a ruler but i have a good eye for measurement and
typically the tamper sticks out about 3mm above the basket. The proof
ultimately is in the shot, how it pours the shot timing and how it tastes.
If you are only grinding 15 grams in an empty hopper then there is another
possible variable, do a google on empty hopper, some discussion no
conclussions.
Rob vL
NZ
|
| | | | | |
Date: 10 Jul 2006 11:20:16
From: Brent
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
> No i don't measure with a ruler but i have a good eye for measurement and
> typically the tamper sticks out about 3mm above the basket.
says who? oh yeah, you are paid to have a good eye... ooops :)
Brent
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 13 Jul 2006 22:58:37
From: Rob van Loenhout
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
"Brent" <me@privacy.net > wrote in message
news:4hdgcbF1omus0U1@individual.net...
> > No i don't measure with a ruler but i have a good eye for measurement
and
> > typically the tamper sticks out about 3mm above the basket.
>
> says who? oh yeah, you are paid to have a good eye... ooops :)
>
> Brent
>
>
I have started grinding finer and dosing less, so it is down to about 1.5 mm
now. ;-)
Rob
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Jul 2006 05:39:27
From: Omniryx@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
Rob van Loenhout wrote:
> Without weighing it is possible to know if you are being consistent with
> your dose based on how much of the tamper sticks out above the basket. No i
> don't measure with a ruler but i have a good eye for measurement and
> typically the tamper sticks out about 3mm above the basket. The proof
> ultimately is in the shot, how it pours the shot timing and how it tastes.
Actually, that isn't quite true, Rob, unless you can assure that the
humidity is precisely the same (because on a moist day grinds will
weigh more per unit volume than on a dry day) and the beans were
precisely the same (because varieties of beans fracture differently in
the grinder) and the tamp pressure was precisely the same and your eye
is precisely able to estimate 3mm.
Now, I absolutely agree with your last sentence. Absolutely. But if
we believe that consistency is the key to lots of good shots then
anything we can do to improve consistency, within reason, is all to the
good.
Mr. Ohaus and I will spend some time in the next few days overfilling,
striking, and weighing. Then I'll report my findings and y'all can
tell me that I struck wrong....or something. :)
Will
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 Jul 2006 08:52:10
From: Rob van Loenhout
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
<Omniryx@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1152275967.032560.184600@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Rob van Loenhout wrote:
> > Without weighing it is possible to know if you are being consistent with
> > your dose based on how much of the tamper sticks out above the basket.
No i
> > don't measure with a ruler but i have a good eye for measurement and
> > typically the tamper sticks out about 3mm above the basket. The proof
> > ultimately is in the shot, how it pours the shot timing and how it
tastes.
>
> Actually, that isn't quite true, Rob, unless you can assure that the
> humidity is precisely the same (because on a moist day grinds will
> weigh more per unit volume than on a dry day) and the beans were
> precisely the same (because varieties of beans fracture differently in
> the grinder) and the tamp pressure was precisely the same and your eye
> is precisely able to estimate 3mm.
Can you assure me that your eyeball can estimate exactly 15grams regardless
of humidity. I don't think i mentioned weight but a consistent dose which
could be 15.2 grams one day (give or a 1/4 gram) could be 15.5 (give or
take) the next day.
And this differers from using the doser which estimates 7 grams by measuring
a given volume?
I can't tell the difference between 2.8 mm and 3mm but I can tell 3 from 2
or 3 from 4. Actually if it was 2.5mm i would have my suspisions, but the
speed of the pour is what matters.
If your method gives consistent results then it isn't wrong.
Rob vL
NZ
>
> Now, I absolutely agree with your last sentence. Absolutely. But if
> we believe that consistency is the key to lots of good shots then
> anything we can do to improve consistency, within reason, is all to the
> good.
>
> Mr. Ohaus and I will spend some time in the next few days overfilling,
> striking, and weighing. Then I'll report my findings and y'all can
> tell me that I struck wrong....or something. :)
>
> Will
How do you weigh 15grams with the eyeball method?
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Jul 2006 05:38:32
From: Omniryx@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
Rob van Loenhout wrote:
> Can you assure me that your eyeball can estimate exactly 15grams regardless
> of humidity. I don't think i mentioned weight but a consistent dose which
> could be 15.2 grams one day (give or a 1/4 gram) could be 15.5 (give or
> take) the next day.
Yes, I can consistently scoop 15g of beans +/- .5g by eye. C'mon by
and I'll demo. I doubt that it is any more difficult than
differentiating 2.5mm from 3mm when you don't have the two side by
side. As the taxi driver said to the passenger seeking to get to
Carnegie Hall, "Practice, practice, practice."
> And this differers from using the doser which estimates 7 grams by measuring
> a given volume?
This I do not know, not having tried it. I would guess that the volume
of ground coffee might vary a bit on the basis of humidity but that is
pure speculation.
Bear in mind that I am not advocating any method over any other method.
I appreciate (truly) the long discourse from Ken, above, and useful
comments made by others about taste and experience and so on but they
are all off the point.
I just found myself interested in the question of whether
overfill-and-strike yielded consistent doses by weight.
That's all. Not what the best baristas do. Not what yields the best
taste. Not what is most practical in the commercial environment.
Just...if...it...yields...consistent...doses...by...weight.
Anything else read into my remarks comes from you and not from me.
> How do you weigh 15grams with the eyeball method?
Scoop...weigh...scoop...weigh...scoop...weigh. Early on in my coffee
odyssey I got onto the notion that having a consistent amount of coffee
in the PF was important. It seemed to me in those days that a scale
was the best way--at least for the duffer I was at the time--to
accomplish this. So after sorting out that 15g of Black Cat yielded
the taste that I sought in a 60ml shot, I systematically taught myself
to scoop 15g by eye. It ain't hard.
Now, some of you may delight to tell me that I spent my time on the
wrong thing or that weight-consistent dosing is not the way to get the
best cup. And you may very well be right. Remember that I am the one
who NEVER claims expertise as an espresso maker. Well, I guess I do
claim expertise at scooping 15g by eye, but...
Whether or not it is a waste of time...or the wrong method...or not
what the big boys do...is not--for the purposes of this thread--the
point. Not to me, anyway.
Thanks again for all the commentary.
Will
|
| | | | |
Date: 10 Jul 2006 11:21:31
From: Brent
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
Rob's day job is measurment based, I sort of take it as read that when he
talks measurment he is on the right track...
> Rob van Loenhout wrote:
>> Can you assure me that your eyeball can estimate exactly 15grams
>> regardless
>> of humidity. I don't think i mentioned weight but a consistent dose which
>> could be 15.2 grams one day (give or a 1/4 gram) could be 15.5 (give or
>> take) the next day.
>
> Yes, I can consistently scoop 15g of beans +/- .5g by eye. C'mon by
> and I'll demo. I doubt that it is any more difficult than
> differentiating 2.5mm from 3mm when you don't have the two side by
> side. As the taxi driver said to the passenger seeking to get to
> Carnegie Hall, "Practice, practice, practice."
>
>> And this differers from using the doser which estimates 7 grams by
>> measuring
>> a given volume?
>
> This I do not know, not having tried it. I would guess that the volume
> of ground coffee might vary a bit on the basis of humidity but that is
> pure speculation.
>
> Bear in mind that I am not advocating any method over any other method.
> I appreciate (truly) the long discourse from Ken, above, and useful
> comments made by others about taste and experience and so on but they
> are all off the point.
>
> I just found myself interested in the question of whether
> overfill-and-strike yielded consistent doses by weight.
>
> That's all. Not what the best baristas do. Not what yields the best
> taste. Not what is most practical in the commercial environment.
>
> Just...if...it...yields...consistent...doses...by...weight.
>
> Anything else read into my remarks comes from you and not from me.
>
>> How do you weigh 15grams with the eyeball method?
>
> Scoop...weigh...scoop...weigh...scoop...weigh. Early on in my coffee
> odyssey I got onto the notion that having a consistent amount of coffee
> in the PF was important. It seemed to me in those days that a scale
> was the best way--at least for the duffer I was at the time--to
> accomplish this. So after sorting out that 15g of Black Cat yielded
> the taste that I sought in a 60ml shot, I systematically taught myself
> to scoop 15g by eye. It ain't hard.
>
> Now, some of you may delight to tell me that I spent my time on the
> wrong thing or that weight-consistent dosing is not the way to get the
> best cup. And you may very well be right. Remember that I am the one
> who NEVER claims expertise as an espresso maker. Well, I guess I do
> claim expertise at scooping 15g by eye, but...
>
> Whether or not it is a waste of time...or the wrong method...or not
> what the big boys do...is not--for the purposes of this thread--the
> point. Not to me, anyway.
>
> Thanks again for all the commentary.
>
> Will
>
|
| |
Date: 23 Jun 2006 18:54:06
From: I->Ian
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
On 23 Jun 2006 07:58:43 -0700, mtallichet@gmail.com wrote:
>I recently started managing a coffee shop in Montana. The previous
>manager had trained employees to wipe grinds back into the doser when
>they run their finger over the top of the basket to level the coffee.
>This bugs me and I find myself reminding employees not to do it
>constantly. Can someone out there tell me if this is an OK practice or
>am I right to be appalled?
>-Michel
Coffee as a local industry went into the crapper because standards
were continually lowered by the big companies and no one said "No
way!"
If you are appalled, then it is appalling. Hold your ground and damn
whatever anyone else says!
|
| |
Date: 25 Jun 2006 11:08:31
From:
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
Based on everyones responses (thanks all), it seems the best compromise
is to allow it during the morning rush but not in the afternoon when it
slows down. We do grind per shot so odds are the recycled grounds make
it out pretty quick. I will let my baristas know that they need to dry
their hands well (the moisture issue could also cause the grinders burs
to rust I think). The cost issue is larger than it would be for most
coffee shops. I work directly with a local roaster who roasts espresso
specifically to my standards. The benefit is really good delicate
flavor and freshness. The downside is higher cost per pound. I think
it's worth it.
On a separate issue- I'm looking to replace my Sylvia. I want more
steam pressure and a heat exchanger. Easy right? I can probably only
afford to spend a grand and that's pushing it. Any suggestions?
Thanks for the advice. If you ever want an exceptional cup of coffee in
the most beautiful place in the US try the Hungry Moose in Big Sky,
Montana.
-Michel
|
| | |
Date: 26 Jun 2006 15:41:32
From: Danny
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
mtallichet@gmail.com wrote:
> Based on everyones responses (thanks all), it seems the best compromise
> is to allow it during the morning rush but not in the afternoon when it
> slows down. We do grind per shot so odds are the recycled grounds make
> it out pretty quick. I will let my baristas know that they need to dry
> their hands well (the moisture issue could also cause the grinders burs
> to rust I think). The cost issue is larger than it would be for most
> coffee shops. I work directly with a local roaster who roasts espresso
> specifically to my standards. The benefit is really good delicate
> flavor and freshness. The downside is higher cost per pound. I think
> it's worth it.
>
> On a separate issue- I'm looking to replace my Sylvia. I want more
> steam pressure and a heat exchanger. Easy right? I can probably only
> afford to spend a grand and that's pushing it. Any suggestions?
>
> Thanks for the advice. If you ever want an exceptional cup of coffee in
> the most beautiful place in the US try the Hungry Moose in Big Sky,
> Montana.
>
> -Michel
>
We do it. Because we grind mainly to order the doser isn't usually
able to do so accurately so we are overdosing. We sometimes level off
into the doser (but not often since it's an awkward doser shape). We
do this only when we are busy and know we will use the coffee within
minutes. Once the grind etc is correct and the weather isn't
changeable we use the auto feature of the Cimbali, which grinds 6
doses in advance, until we quieten down. This allows accurate dosing
into the pf.
--
Regards, Danny
http://www.gaggia-espresso.com (a purely hobby site)
http://www.malabargold.co.uk (UK/EU ordering for Malabar Gold blend)
|
| | |
Date: 26 Jun 2006 19:03:04
From: Paul Vojta
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
In article <1151258911.179654.278920@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
<mtallichet@gmail.com > wrote:
>
>I will let my baristas know that they need to dry
>their hands well (the moisture issue could also cause the grinders burs
>to rust I think).
Actually, since you're recycling the grounds by putting them back in the
doser and not the hopper, this shouldn't affect the burrs. Of course,
having them dry their hands well so that grounds don't stick to them would
be a good idea.
--Paul Vojta, vojta@math.berkeley.edu
|
| | |
Date: 03 Jul 2006 17:47:50
From: D. Ross
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Jul 2006 23:12:14
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
In article <44a94f35.224084316@localhost >,
ross@math.hawaii.NOSPAM.edu (D. Ross) wrote:
>
|
| |
Date: 05 Jul 2006 06:31:42
From: Omniryx@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
sprsso wrote a longish piece about dosing by weight.
As a non-expert and endlessly curious learner, I've never been quite
comfortable with "overdose, level off, tamp" and infinite variations
that involve considerable uncertainty about the amount of coffee that
actually ends up in the PF. As both Robert and I are fond of
observing, too many variables.
After a bit of fiddling, I've taught myself to measure 15Gm +/- 0.5Gm
for a double by the eyeball method. It helps that I use only one blend
(Black Cat) and consume it within a week of roasting so that variations
based on bean variety, roast, humidity, etc. are minimized.
Anyway, I grind my 15Gm and tamp all of it into the PF. No leveling, no
scraping, no overdosing. I don't bother to tap while filling the PF.
I do press the grinds gently into the base of the PF but not by any
particularly method or maneuver; just poke-poke-poke with my fingertip.
So long as I fiddle with the grind a tiny bit based on the weather, I
get pretty consistent results. I don't claim to have a super-palate
but folks a lot more knowledgeable than I have been reasonably
complimentary.
But....I hear you folks talking about overdosing and leveling and
scraping with this and that, using the N-S-E-W maneuver, the Hinklehoff
tamp, the Major Hoople technique, et cetera. Am I naive, just putting
a consistent quantity--by weight--into the PF and going with it?
Will
|
| | |
Date: 05 Jul 2006 15:37:44
From: sprsso
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
Actually, if you find a technique that consistently produces a good
product by visual estimation,it inherently indicates an advanced level
of comprehension and is often exhibited here by the posters.
That having been said, when I sell an $8,000.00 espresso machine and
$1500.00 worth of grinders, spend a whole day installing and
adjusting, and a second day training intensively for 6 or more
employees and owners, debunking the video myths and selling them
outstanding coffee, I don't expect to find everything changed up on my
next visit. Just because an ex_Sbux employee thinks it should be done
differently.
I had to retrain the entire staff over again, and they were very
receptive, and the disagreeable employee was fired.
I don't claim to know everything about espresso production, but I've
learned a lot about what works in a commercial environment and have
been able to translate that into some pretty good cups on my own
table. Most people that read and write here end up in the same place.
If, for some fashionable reason, people want to grind, wear out their
doser handle, scrape off excess coffee with a plastic picnic knife,
and the tamp to the "fill line", that's fine. If you have the desired
result in the cup, there you go.
But if you're doing it in a coffee house that essentially makes a cup
every minute, then you're going to do it with someone else's coffee,
not mine.
Rant off. At home, do what works. At work, do what hits home....al
On 5 Jul 2006 06:31:42 -0700, "Omniryx@gmail.com" <Omniryx@gmail.com >
wrote:
>sprsso wrote a longish piece about dosing by weight.
>
>As a non-expert and endlessly curious learner, I've never been quite
>comfortable with "overdose, level off, tamp" and infinite variations
>that involve considerable uncertainty about the amount of coffee that
>actually ends up in the PF. As both Robert and I are fond of
>observing, too many variables.
>
>After a bit of fiddling, I've taught myself to measure 15Gm +/- 0.5Gm
>for a double by the eyeball method. It helps that I use only one blend
>(Black Cat) and consume it within a week of roasting so that variations
>based on bean variety, roast, humidity, etc. are minimized.
>
>Anyway, I grind my 15Gm and tamp all of it into the PF. No leveling, no
>scraping, no overdosing. I don't bother to tap while filling the PF.
>I do press the grinds gently into the base of the PF but not by any
>particularly method or maneuver; just poke-poke-poke with my fingertip.
> So long as I fiddle with the grind a tiny bit based on the weather, I
>get pretty consistent results. I don't claim to have a super-palate
>but folks a lot more knowledgeable than I have been reasonably
>complimentary.
>
>But....I hear you folks talking about overdosing and leveling and
>scraping with this and that, using the N-S-E-W maneuver, the Hinklehoff
>tamp, the Major Hoople technique, et cetera. Am I naive, just putting
>a consistent quantity--by weight--into the PF and going with it?
>
>Will
|
| |
Date: 05 Jul 2006 17:35:43
From:
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
Barry Jarrett wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 23:07:20 +1200, "Rob van Loenhout"
> <wontwork@dontbother.not> wrote:
>
> >Just curious Barry - would you expect better results with a finger than a
> >doser lid? For the record i use the slightly curved handle of a teaspoon.
> >Bottomless pf on the work machine, usually get a uniform extraction.
>
> the theory on using the dosing chamber lid to scrape off the grounds
> is that this creates a non-uniform distribution of grounds, with the
> coffee puck denser at the distal end of the sweep and less dense at
> the near end of the sweep.
Yeah, so I've heard and seen for myself. The solution that I use is do
use a teaspoon handle and sweep across the top in several directions,
working from center out. It's fast and very consistent. For me it's
easier than doing the crooked finger thing, and my pours start
symmetrically. Maybe it's a case of where the pros deviate from the
home guys. I pull 4-5 shots a day compared to the hundreds I imagine
pros pull in a busy shop.
-Greg
|
| |
Date: 06 Jul 2006 09:55:51
From: Omniryx@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
Sheesh! I scarcely dare raise my head in this thread for fear that
I'll be mowed down by the crossfire.
I think most of us would agree that you gentlemen are not presenting an
edifying example of reasoned discourse. But I digress.
I want to come back to my question (and, yes, sprsso, I realize that
you have given an answer; would like to hear what others have to say).
What has been done in the way of verification that the overfill and
scrape method repeatedly yields a consistent dose by weight? I don't
challenge that it might and I most certainly do not consider my own
experience normative. I just wonder--research methodologist that I
am--if objective data exist.
Greg? Anyone?
Will
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jul 2006 17:45:49
From: sprsso
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
Will,
I don't know how to make this more plain. I have no problem with the
distribution method you use at home. And I really can't control what
people do after I sell them stuff.
What people buy from me, beyond the equipment and the products is a
level of support that creates excellence in the cup.
My reference to product is simply a term. Those who know me recognize
that I am not a good salesperson, but my passion for quality tranlates
into sales.
If you overfill whatever portafilter you use (and they all vary by
manufacturer) and either waste or save the scrapings for any length of
time, you are doing a disservice to yourself.
My recomendation for you or anyone else is to find the volume level
that will produce the best result in the cup.
If you find that filling the portafilter to the top and leveling it
off is the best for your cup, then do it.
I cannot recommend this for my clients.
I will tell you this in direct response to your question. No
quantitative answers to weight or volume consistency have been
dtermined by anyone here. And any determinations would have to be on a
machine by machine basis, portafilter size, single or double, humidity
level, grind size, coffee freshness and many other factors.
Those who have time to figure out what works best for them deserve
huge credit.
And those of us who have to work with multiple locations, different
machines and grinders have to find a happy medium in a state that will
have bright, sunny days with shuttle launches (like yesterday) and
hurricanes the next week have different approaches to excellence.
Do what works for you. If I can answer any questions or be helpful in
any way please ask....al
On 6 Jul 2006 09:55:51 -0700, "Omniryx@gmail.com" <Omniryx@gmail.com >
wrote:
>Sheesh! I scarcely dare raise my head in this thread for fear that
>I'll be mowed down by the crossfire.
>
>I think most of us would agree that you gentlemen are not presenting an
>edifying example of reasoned discourse. But I digress.
>
>I want to come back to my question (and, yes, sprsso, I realize that
>you have given an answer; would like to hear what others have to say).
>What has been done in the way of verification that the overfill and
>scrape method repeatedly yields a consistent dose by weight? I don't
>challenge that it might and I most certainly do not consider my own
>experience normative. I just wonder--research methodologist that I
>am--if objective data exist.
>
>Greg? Anyone?
>
>Will
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jul 2006 11:37:03
From: Ken Fox
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
<Omniryx@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1152204951.287988.64440@m38g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Sheesh! I scarcely dare raise my head in this thread for fear that
> I'll be mowed down by the crossfire.
>
> I think most of us would agree that you gentlemen are not presenting an
> edifying example of reasoned discourse. But I digress.
>
> I want to come back to my question (and, yes, sprsso, I realize that
> you have given an answer; would like to hear what others have to say).
> What has been done in the way of verification that the overfill and
> scrape method repeatedly yields a consistent dose by weight? I don't
> challenge that it might and I most certainly do not consider my own
> experience normative. I just wonder--research methodologist that I
> am--if objective data exist.
>
> Greg? Anyone?
>
> Will
>
I don't think there is "a method" that will give the best possible results
with each and every coffee on each and every combination of espresso machine
and grinder. Overloading a basket is not going to give consistently good
results on every piece of equipment. I can say that when I started to do
this on my Cimbali D1 Junior rotary machine, I got frequent channelling
obvious with a bottomless PF that resulted in many sink shots; the keepers,
however, appeared "better" to my taste. Subsequently, when at the behest of
Michael Teahan I installed a delay timer in this machine, giving
preinfusion, the channelling problem more or less went away, and I was left
with consistently "better" shots to my taste.
There are known online baristas such as Chris Tacy, formerly of Stumptown in
Portland OR, who has posted that updosing works on some coffees and
downdosing on others. Personally speaking I find this level of complexity
unlikely to be supportable on true blind tasting, but I doubt such tasting
tests will ever be done. In any event, I did not have the channelling
problem with updosing on my older vibe machine which does not have the
instantaneous pressure ramp up of an unmodified unpreinfusing rotary
machine; this offers a pretty easy and seemingly correct explanation for the
channelling problem I observed on the unmodified rotary; too fast of a
pressure ramp up can disrupt the distribution of an overly stuffed basket,
whereas a slow ramp up allows the grounds to expand symmetrically. At least
it seems like it might make sense. Dan Kehn, owner of home-barista.com, in
his testing of the Cimbali rotary machine has commented that overloading the
basket produces channelling, so it is not just my observation.
Anyway, getting back to the original question, I think each person has to
test different scenarios on their own equipment to find what works best FOR
THEM, for their own taste.
As to weighing coffee, I have done that in response to a request on a
coffeegeek thread. What I have found on my equipment with my technique is
that loading 18g of ground coffee in my double basket PFs produces a 1.25oz
double shot in about 30 seconds which weighs about 18g on my accurate gram
scale (in the 1.25fluid oz=37.5ml, approximately).
ken
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jul 2006 17:36:16
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
On 6 Jul 2006 09:55:51 -0700, "Omniryx@gmail.com" <Omniryx@gmail.com >
wrote:
>What has been done in the way of verification that the overfill and
>scrape method repeatedly yields a consistent dose by weight? I don't
>challenge that it might and I most certainly do not consider my own
>experience normative. I just wonder--research methodologist that I
>am--if objective data exist.
get cosy with a grinder/doser and a gram scale, then start dosing. i
can routinely hit within .5g without a lot of practice, and when i'm
really tuned up, i can hit within .1g.
as with any physical technique, this requires practice and patience
and attention. as ...al notes, that is sometimes more than can be
expected from PBTCs.
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Jul 2006 05:19:25
From: Omniryx@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
This is a joke, right?
Barry Jarrett wrote:
> On 7 Jul 2006 11:13:33 -0700, "Omniryx@gmail.com" <Omniryx@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >especially once I realized how much the idea of objective
> >measurement of dosing bothered some folks.
> >
>
> i really don't know where you derived this.
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 Jul 2006 15:23:14
From: Andy Schecter
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
Omniryx@gmail.com wrote:
> This is a joke, right?
Will:
Just because:
(1) you're too lazy to google for this data yourself, and
(2) your haughty attitude demotivates people like myself from googling
it for you...
...don't think it hasn't been posted, discussed, charted, and graphed
previously.
Have a nice day! :-)
-Andy S
|
| | | | | |
Date: 08 Jul 2006 09:51:30
From: Ken Fox
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
"Andy Schecter" <schecter@remove.me.rochester.rr.com > wrote in message
news:C5Qrg.14366$O35.4896@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> Omniryx@gmail.com wrote:
>> This is a joke, right?
>
> Will:
>
> Just because:
>
> (1) you're too lazy to google for this data yourself, and
> (2) your haughty attitude demotivates people like myself from googling it
> for you...
>
> ...don't think it hasn't been posted, discussed, charted, and graphed
> previously.
>
>
> Have a nice day! :-)
>
>
> -Andy S
either that, or he needs to consult his "partner" about it. As he has
pointed out about a hundred times during his brief stay on a.c., he is a he.
And, don't make the mistake of thinking he's naive, because he's a
psychiatrist for the federal government.
ken
;-)
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 08 Jul 2006 09:59:06
From: Ken Fox
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
I apologize to Will for posting this. It was intended as a private email
forward and I screwed up, posting it here by mistake.
Ducking for cover.
ken
"Ken Fox" <morceaudemerdeThisMerdeGoes@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:4ha2jrF1qf4u7U1@individual.net...
> "Andy Schecter" <schecter@remove.me.rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:C5Qrg.14366$O35.4896@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>> Omniryx@gmail.com wrote:
>>> This is a joke, right?
>>
>> Will:
>>
>> Just because:
>>
>> (1) you're too lazy to google for this data yourself, and
>> (2) your haughty attitude demotivates people like myself from googling it
>> for you...
>>
>> ...don't think it hasn't been posted, discussed, charted, and graphed
>> previously.
>>
>>
>> Have a nice day! :-)
>>
>>
>> -Andy S
>
> either that, or he needs to consult his "partner" about it. As he has
> pointed out about a hundred times during his brief stay on a.c., he is a
> he.
>
> And, don't make the mistake of thinking he's naive, because he's a
> psychiatrist for the federal government.
>
> ken
> ;-)
>
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Jul 2006 13:33:12
From: Omniryx@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
I appreciate your apology, Ken, and my partner does, too. And, yes, he
is a male. I had assumed, perhaps wrongly, that this would not be an
issue here. Still, if the fact that I am a gay man bothers others on
this list, I will go away. In a venue like this, it is easier to
withdraw from homophobia than to fight it.
I do work for the federal government and you may be sure that they know
of my sexuality. It is not an issue in the workplace and I hope it
will not be an issue here.
And what the heck does this have to do with coffee?
Anyway, thanks again for acknowledging your error, Ken. I know how
easy it is to mispost something.
Will
Ken Fox wrote:
> I apologize to Will for posting this. It was intended as a private email
> forward and I screwed up, posting it here by mistake.
> Ducking for cover.
>
> ken
>
> "Ken Fox" <morceaudemerdeThisMerdeGoes@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4ha2jrF1qf4u7U1@individual.net...
> > "Andy Schecter" <schecter@remove.me.rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:C5Qrg.14366$O35.4896@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> >> Omniryx@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> This is a joke, right?
> >>
> >> Will:
> >>
> >> Just because:
> >>
> >> (1) you're too lazy to google for this data yourself, and
> >> (2) your haughty attitude demotivates people like myself from googling it
> >> for you...
> >>
> >> ...don't think it hasn't been posted, discussed, charted, and graphed
> >> previously.
> >>
> >>
> >> Have a nice day! :-)
> >>
> >>
> >> -Andy S
> >
> > either that, or he needs to consult his "partner" about it. As he has
> > pointed out about a hundred times during his brief stay on a.c., he is a
> > he.
> >
> > And, don't make the mistake of thinking he's naive, because he's a
> > psychiatrist for the federal government.
> >
> > ken
> > ;-)
> >
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 Jul 2006 14:45:38
From: Ken Fox
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
Will,
I don't think anyone here gives a hoot about your sexual orientation, other
than one fellow who is given to making fire and brimstones pronouncements
until told to back off:-) The point I was making in the private email that
I accidentally posted to the whole world was that this is a coffee forum and
for the most part people aren't interested in the details of peoples
relationships. This would include someone who, by example, might post about
his girlfriend (i.e. mistress) when it's known that he's married to someone
else.
Some gay people I have met have thought it was very important that I know
they are gay, i.e. they shove my nose in it when I really couldn't care
less. If I know somebody well then of course I'm going to know about their
personal lives to some extent, but in a forum like this where most of us
don't really know each other, I find that kind of repeated posting a bit out
of place.
Just me.
ken
(who has no GF, but does have a dog, and has not tried beastiality yet)
|
| | | | | |
Date: 08 Jul 2006 17:07:04
From: Craig Andrews
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
>
> Just me.
>
> ken
> (who has no GF, but does have a dog, and has not tried beastiality
> yet)
>
So you're thinking about it??, or ya wouldn't of said it!!? LOL!!
Craig.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 08 Jul 2006 15:26:41
From: Ken Fox
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
"Craig Andrews" <alt.coffee@deletethis.rogers.com > wrote in message
news:4hal3rF1qar7dU1@individual.net...
> >
>> Just me.
>>
>> ken
>> (who has no GF, but does have a dog, and has not tried beastiality yet)
>>
>
> So you're thinking about it??, or ya wouldn't of said it!!? LOL!!
> Craig.
We haven't gone beyond first base, yet
ken
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Jul 2006 18:47:00
From: Craig Andrews
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
"Ken Fox" <morceaudemerdeThisMerdeGoes@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:4ham89F1pr1k7U1@individual.net...
> "Craig Andrews" <alt.coffee@deletethis.rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:4hal3rF1qar7dU1@individual.net...
>> >
>>> Just me.
>>>
>>> ken
>>> (who has no GF, but does have a dog, and has not tried beastiality
>>> yet)
>>>
>>
>> So you're thinking about it??, or ya wouldn't of said it!!? LOL!!
>> Craig.
>
> We haven't gone beyond first base, yet
>
> ken
>
ROTFLMAO!! {;-D
Craig.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Jul 2006 21:41:31
From: Ken Fox
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
"Craig Andrews" <alt.coffee@deletethis.rogers.com > wrote in message
news:4haqv8F1qq9aeU1@individual.net...
>
> "Ken Fox" <morceaudemerdeThisMerdeGoes@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4ham89F1pr1k7U1@individual.net...
>> "Craig Andrews" <alt.coffee@deletethis.rogers.com> wrote in message
>> news:4hal3rF1qar7dU1@individual.net...
>>> >
>>>> Just me.
>>>>
>>>> ken
>>>> (who has no GF, but does have a dog, and has not tried beastiality yet)
>>>>
>>>
>>> So you're thinking about it??, or ya wouldn't of said it!!? LOL!!
>>> Craig.
>>
>> We haven't gone beyond first base, yet
>>
>> ken
>>
>
> ROTFLMAO!! {;-D
> Craig.
I've always got my pillow for backup
http://www.spilsbury.com/wcsstore/Spilsbury/images/products/items/21042.jpg
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Jul 2006 23:46:30
From: Craig Andrews
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
"Ken Fox" <morceaudemerdeThisMerdeGoes@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:4hbc72F1qtld7U1@individual.net...
> "Craig Andrews" <alt.coffee@deletethis.rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:4haqv8F1qq9aeU1@individual.net...
>>
>> "Ken Fox" <morceaudemerdeThisMerdeGoes@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4ham89F1pr1k7U1@individual.net...
>>> "Craig Andrews" <alt.coffee@deletethis.rogers.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4hal3rF1qar7dU1@individual.net...
>>>> >
>>>>> Just me.
>>>>>
>>>>> ken
>>>>> (who has no GF, but does have a dog, and has not tried beastiality
>>>>> yet)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So you're thinking about it??, or ya wouldn't of said it!!? LOL!!
>>>> Craig.
>>>
>>> We haven't gone beyond first base, yet
>>>
>>> ken
>>>
>>
>> ROTFLMAO!! {;-D
>> Craig.
>
> I've always got my pillow for backup
>
> http://www.spilsbury.com/wcsstore/Spilsbury/images/products/items/21042.jpg
>
{:-D {:-D
Craig.
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Jul 2006 13:30:02
From: Omniryx@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
Andy Schecter wrote:
> (1) you're too lazy to google for this data yourself, and
> (2) your haughty attitude demotivates people like myself from googling
> it for you...
>
> ...don't think it hasn't been posted, discussed, charted, and graphed
> previously.
Andy, there's no need to be ugly. The "joke" remark was not directed
toward you. I probably should not have posted it at all.
I'm not googling, as a matter of fact. I'm having a couple of friends
help me and we are gathering some data. I'll share it when it is done.
Pity you don't know me, Andy. You'd be the very first to agree that
there is nothing haughty about me.
Will
|
| |
Date: 06 Jul 2006 08:25:41
From: gscace
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
Al:
I wonder if the difference is that most folks who work in coffee shops,
and who may be the recipient of your training program, aren't there
because of their intrinsic love of coffee. I may question and examine
the metering consistency of volumetric dosers. The pbtc is not likely
to be so inclined and is using it purely as a tool, without paying it
no never mind.
But I'm interested in knowing what you perceive is wrong with the
techniques that have been developed here and elsewhere as workarounds
for partially filled doser chambers when shots are ground to order. To
me it seems that there could be many ways to skin a cat, providing that
the required parameters have been met.
Forthose of us who argue for extreme freshness of the grinds, grinds
remaining in the grinds chamber is problematic because it is staling
while waiting to be dosed. If one is concerned with this issue, then
the doser becomes a dispensing tool, and not a metering tool. So
different techniques need to be used in order to achieve the
requirements of consistent coffee metering. Seems to me that any
number of paths may work just fine, so long as the proper result is
achieved. It just requires thought and practice. In the teaching
environment in which you are working, perhaps thinking is not a
required skill, and by rote volumetric dosing most easily produces a
consistent result that is in line with the intention of the coffee
supplier / roaster. I can easily imagine such a situation, but most
folks here, and arguably folks who become coffee artists, will be
thinking a lot about what they are doing, and investigating
alternatives, particularly when alternatives may produce better results
for them.
Is this the central issue? Are there other reasons that preclude the
use of alternatives to volumetric dosing. What is it specifically that
leads to decreased cup quality?
-Greg
sprsso wrote:
> You know, I've been reading about this technique for years now, and
> had hoped it stayed at the home use level. Unfortunately, from my
> point of view, I have also seen it used occasionally in commercial
> establishments to the detriment of the product in the cup. I would
> hope it's not necessary for me to enumerate the reasons why this
> method is incredibly wrong in a high-volume environment. Can you say
> "fill line"?
> Anyway, I was at the newest coffee shop I consulted for on Friday, and
> one of the cutest and most competent baristas I trained was using a
> Mazzer SJ with a doser and was grinding for each drink. Some other
> staff member told her this was OK.
> Well, just for an exercise in futility, I started weighing the doses.
> All double 58mm baskets. The weights varied from 9 to 23 grams. The
> larger doses barely would fit in the group, and you know about the
> smaller doses.
> I had to do a whole new training, which I don't mind.
> I have this doser set for as close to 7 grams as you'll ever see.
> These guys go through about 80lbs of espresso/week. I don't want them
> to guess or grind and pull the doser lever a dozen times until they
> think the amount of coffee is right. If I am in an establishment that
> uses this technique, I will refuse the drink.
> And, frankly, I couldn't care whether it is a kitchen knife, a finger
> or a doser lid (especially a finger), it's just wrong.
> And you know what I find amusing? Invariably, these no-clue, grind to
> order techniques have hoppers full of weeks old beans, and who knows
> how old they were when they first got there. And the dosers are
> usually filthy.
> If they think they're doing the customer a favor by changing the
> dosage with each shot, they're mistaken.
> Ok, so this pisses me off.
> Anyway,I'm off to change the world today. I'll let you know how it
> goes....al
>
>
>
> On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 04:07:38 GMT, Barry Jarrett
> <barry@rileys-coffee.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 23:07:20 +1200, "Rob van Loenhout"
> ><wontwork@dontbother.not> wrote:
> >
> > >Just curious Barry - would you expect better results with a finger than a
> > >doser lid? For the record i use the slightly curved handle of a teaspoon.
> > >Bottomless pf on the work machine, usually get a uniform extraction.
> >
> >the theory on using the dosing chamber lid to scrape off the grounds
> >is that this creates a non-uniform distribution of grounds, with the
> >coffee puck denser at the distal end of the sweep and less dense at
> >the near end of the sweep.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jul 2006 20:49:25
From: sprsso
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
Greg,
Sorry, but your post just showed up. Agent has been erratic lately.
In answer to your post, let me say this. If you train properly, you
can get about 1 in 4 to truly take an interest in what's going into
the cup. If the pay's good enough, 2-3 will stay. And they will work
around the kid's schedules, soccer practice, etc.
What I strive for is a basic understanding of what they put in the
cup.
Here's what I teach., as heretical as it may seem. ,No more beans in
the hopper than you will use in 48 hours. No more ground coffee in the
doser than you will use in an hour, but the dosing chambers must be
covered.
I just try to be realistic as to what will best suit the needs of the
customer and their customers.
My territory is very large. On any given day, there will be several
different weather systems operating and impacting my coffee.
One of the things that the illy guys taught me (and I learned the hard
way} is that the coffee has to stabilize with the environment. I can't
count on the people I train to recognize everything that is involved
with this.
I have no negative perception of some of the great things that have
come out of this group, some by you, some by Andy and others that are
destined to change the future of espresso production. I wish I could
teach all the people behind the counter to grind per pour, but that is
not realistic or practical here.
For you guys that are not in the field selling, installing, training,
treating water, explaining stuff to electricians a nd plumbers,
counter maunfacturers and air condtionong people, I realize that it
seems like a sellout.
When I consult or sit down with a client for 4-5 hours to try to
understand what they want, it is imperative that I listen to them. I
can nudge them in certain directions, but what they want is what they
get, unless it is completely unworkable.
One thing I'm not going to recommend at this point is that they grind
to order. Please consider that this is Florida. It's hot. The espresso
that goes in an icecapp or ice latte will not stand out for its
freshness. All I'm saying through this whole discussion is this is not
practical here.
Anyone that would like to come spend time here and see what I deal
with, feel free. Especially Maddie. But then I wouldn't see Karen for
a week. But at least I'd get a hoot watching you trying to dose per
shot....al
On 6 Jul 2006 08:25:41 -0700, "gscace" <gregory.scace@nist.gov > wrote:
>Al:
>
>I wonder if the difference is that most folks who work in coffee shops,
>and who may be the recipient of your training program, aren't there
>because of their intrinsic love of coffee. I may question and examine
>the metering consistency of volumetric dosers. The pbtc is not likely
>to be so inclined and is using it purely as a tool, without paying it
>no never mind.
>
>But I'm interested in knowing what you perceive is wrong with the
>techniques that have been developed here and elsewhere as workarounds
>for partially filled doser chambers when shots are ground to order. To
>me it seems that there could be many ways to skin a cat, providing that
>the required parameters have been met.
>
>Forthose of us who argue for extreme freshness of the grinds, grinds
>remaining in the grinds chamber is problematic because it is staling
>while waiting to be dosed. If one is concerned with this issue, then
>the doser becomes a dispensing tool, and not a metering tool. So
>different techniques need to be used in order to achieve the
>requirements of consistent coffee metering. Seems to me that any
>number of paths may work just fine, so long as the proper result is
>achieved. It just requires thought and practice. In the teaching
>environment in which you are working, perhaps thinking is not a
>required skill, and by rote volumetric dosing most easily produces a
>consistent result that is in line with the intention of the coffee
>supplier / roaster. I can easily imagine such a situation, but most
>folks here, and arguably folks who become coffee artists, will be
>thinking a lot about what they are doing, and investigating
>alternatives, particularly when alternatives may produce better results
>for them.
>
>Is this the central issue? Are there other reasons that preclude the
>use of alternatives to volumetric dosing. What is it specifically that
>leads to decreased cup quality?
>
>-Greg
>
>
>sprsso wrote:
>> You know, I've been reading about this technique for years now, and
>> had hoped it stayed at the home use level. Unfortunately, from my
>> point of view, I have also seen it used occasionally in commercial
>> establishments to the detriment of the product in the cup. I would
>> hope it's not necessary for me to enumerate the reasons why this
>> method is incredibly wrong in a high-volume environment. Can you say
>> "fill line"?
>> Anyway, I was at the newest coffee shop I consulted for on Friday, and
>> one of the cutest and most competent baristas I trained was using a
>> Mazzer SJ with a doser and was grinding for each drink. Some other
>> staff member told her this was OK.
>> Well, just for an exercise in futility, I started weighing the doses.
>> All double 58mm baskets. The weights varied from 9 to 23 grams. The
>> larger doses barely would fit in the group, and you know about the
>> smaller doses.
>> I had to do a whole new training, which I don't mind.
>> I have this doser set for as close to 7 grams as you'll ever see.
>> These guys go through about 80lbs of espresso/week. I don't want them
>> to guess or grind and pull the doser lever a dozen times until they
>> think the amount of coffee is right. If I am in an establishment that
>> uses this technique, I will refuse the drink.
>> And, frankly, I couldn't care whether it is a kitchen knife, a finger
>> or a doser lid (especially a finger), it's just wrong.
>> And you know what I find amusing? Invariably, these no-clue, grind to
>> order techniques have hoppers full of weeks old beans, and who knows
>> how old they were when they first got there. And the dosers are
>> usually filthy.
>> If they think they're doing the customer a favor by changing the
>> dosage with each shot, they're mistaken.
>> Ok, so this pisses me off.
>> Anyway,I'm off to change the world today. I'll let you know how it
>> goes....al
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 04:07:38 GMT, Barry Jarrett
>> <barry@rileys-coffee.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 23:07:20 +1200, "Rob van Loenhout"
>> ><wontwork@dontbother.not> wrote:
>> >
>> > >Just curious Barry - would you expect better results with a finger than a
>> > >doser lid? For the record i use the slightly curved handle of a teaspoon.
>> > >Bottomless pf on the work machine, usually get a uniform extraction.
>> >
>> >the theory on using the dosing chamber lid to scrape off the grounds
>> >is that this creates a non-uniform distribution of grounds, with the
>> >coffee puck denser at the distal end of the sweep and less dense at
>> >the near end of the sweep.
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Jul 2006 22:19:08
From: Coffee for Connoisseurs
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
Can I interject here? Have to say I've NEVER seen "fill & swipe" used
professionally in Italy; it's always "click, click, tamp up using the
attachment on the grinder".
--
Alan
alanfrew@coffeeco.com.au
www.coffeeco.com.au
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Jul 2006 16:21:36
From: Ken Fox
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
"Coffee for Connoisseurs" <alanfrew@coffeeco.com.au > wrote in message
news:w%frg.624$tE5.622@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Can I interject here? Have to say I've NEVER seen "fill & swipe" used
> professionally in Italy; it's always "click, click, tamp up using the
> attachment on the grinder".
>
>
> --
> Alan
>
> alanfrew@coffeeco.com.au
> www.coffeeco.com.au
>
>
>
I haven't either but the few cafes that use this technique, all located in
N. America to my knowledge, don't make espresso like it is made in Italy.
They use more coffee in the PF, and espresso blends that are completely
different than one finds in Italy, blends such as Black Cat and Hairbender
and a multitude of ones in Seattle. Personally speaking, I find Espresso as
made in Italy to be "correct," in the true condescending usage of that term
in the French language. I find the espresso as made in these few N.
American cafes, much of the time, to be spectacular.
All a matter of taste.
ken
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Jul 2006 09:49:56
From: Brent
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
>
> Greg,
> Sorry, but your post just showed up. Agent has been erratic lately.
> In answer to your post, let me say this. If you train properly, you
> can get about 1 in 4 to truly take an interest in what's going into
> the cup. If the pay's good enough, 2-3 will stay. And they will work
> around the kid's schedules, soccer practice, etc.
> What I strive for is a basic understanding of what they put in the
> cup.
> Here's what I teach., as heretical as it may seem. ,No more beans in
> the hopper than you will use in 48 hours. No more ground coffee in the
> doser than you will use in an hour, but the dosing chambers must be
> covered.
> I just try to be realistic as to what will best suit the needs of the
> customer and their customers.
> My territory is very large. On any given day, there will be several
> different weather systems operating and impacting my coffee.
> One of the things that the illy guys taught me (and I learned the hard
> way} is that the coffee has to stabilize with the environment. I can't
> count on the people I train to recognize everything that is involved
> with this.
> I have no negative perception of some of the great things that have
> come out of this group, some by you, some by Andy and others that are
> destined to change the future of espresso production. I wish I could
> teach all the people behind the counter to grind per pour, but that is
> not realistic or practical here.
> For you guys that are not in the field selling, installing, training,
> treating water, explaining stuff to electricians a nd plumbers,
> counter maunfacturers and air condtionong people, I realize that it
> seems like a sellout.
> When I consult or sit down with a client for 4-5 hours to try to
> understand what they want, it is imperative that I listen to them. I
> can nudge them in certain directions, but what they want is what they
> get, unless it is completely unworkable.
> One thing I'm not going to recommend at this point is that they grind
> to order. Please consider that this is Florida. It's hot. The espresso
> that goes in an icecapp or ice latte will not stand out for its
> freshness. All I'm saying through this whole discussion is this is not
> practical here.
But if the place was concentraing on espresso, then your take would be
different, oh but then they would probably (hopefully) know what they were
doing...
oh yeah, like I said horses for course...
Brent
|
| |
Date: 06 Jul 2006 05:23:32
From: Omniryx@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
Andy, do you know if anyone has ever tried comparing weights of coffee
in the PF from one does to the next using the "overfill and strike off"
technique? Perhaps people can do that technique in a way that yields
very consistent doses by weight but I cannot. Guess that explains why
I'm a university professor and not a barista....no manual skills. :)
Will
Andy Schecter wrote:
> sprsso wrote:
> > You know, I've been reading about this technique for years now, and had
> > hoped it stayed at the home use level. Unfortunately, from my point of
> > view, I have also seen it used occasionally in commercial establishments to
> > the detriment of the product in the cup. I would hope it's not necessary
> > for me to enumerate the reasons why this method is incredibly wrong in a
> > high-volume environment....
> > ...If I am in an establishment that uses this
> > technique, I will refuse the drink.
>
>
> If you're truly saying that the "overfill and strike off the excess technique"
> (with variations) is incredibly wrong, then the US Barista Championship
> finalists are incredibly wrong. And the World Barista Champions are incredibly
> wrong. Not to mention all the baristas at nearly all the top cafes in the country.
>
> Someone ought to tell them about the error in their ways.
>
> Maybe I just am not understanding you, but if this really IS what you're
> saying, then it definitely IS necessary for you to enumerate why this method
> is wrong.
>
> Thanks.
> --
>
>
> -Andy S.
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/andy_s/sets/
> http://tinyurl.com/eh0x
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jul 2006 22:18:06
From: Andy Schecter
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
Omniryx@gmail.com wrote:
> Andy, do you know if anyone has ever tried comparing weights of coffee
> in the PF from one does to the next using the "overfill and strike off"
> technique? Perhaps people can do that technique in a way that yields
> very consistent doses by weight but I cannot.
Sure, many people have done this and posted about it. Barry, Ted Simpson and
Chris Tacy are the ones that come immediately to mind.
Usually the good pro baristas can dose at plus or minus 0.2 - 0.3 grams using
overfill and strike. I get plus or minus 0.3 grams on a good day; but I have
more bad days than good ones. :-)
--
-Andy S.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/andy_s/sets/
http://tinyurl.com/eh0x
|
| |
Date: 07 Jul 2006 10:20:21
From: gscace
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
Al:
Thanks for the reply and clarifications. Seems reasonable enough.
-Greg
sprsso wrote:
> Greg,
> Sorry, but your post just showed up. Agent has been erratic lately.
> In answer to your post, let me say this. If you train properly, you
> can get about 1 in 4 to truly take an interest in what's going into
> the cup. If the pay's good enough, 2-3 will stay. And they will work
> around the kid's schedules, soccer practice, etc.
> What I strive for is a basic understanding of what they put in the
> cup.
> Here's what I teach., as heretical as it may seem. ,No more beans in
> the hopper than you will use in 48 hours. No more ground coffee in the
> doser than you will use in an hour, but the dosing chambers must be
> covered.
> I just try to be realistic as to what will best suit the needs of the
> customer and their customers.
> My territory is very large. On any given day, there will be several
> different weather systems operating and impacting my coffee.
> One of the things that the illy guys taught me (and I learned the hard
> way} is that the coffee has to stabilize with the environment. I can't
> count on the people I train to recognize everything that is involved
> with this.
> I have no negative perception of some of the great things that have
> come out of this group, some by you, some by Andy and others that are
> destined to change the future of espresso production. I wish I could
> teach all the people behind the counter to grind per pour, but that is
> not realistic or practical here.
> For you guys that are not in the field selling, installing, training,
> treating water, explaining stuff to electricians a nd plumbers,
> counter maunfacturers and air condtionong people, I realize that it
> seems like a sellout.
> When I consult or sit down with a client for 4-5 hours to try to
> understand what they want, it is imperative that I listen to them. I
> can nudge them in certain directions, but what they want is what they
> get, unless it is completely unworkable.
> One thing I'm not going to recommend at this point is that they grind
> to order. Please consider that this is Florida. It's hot. The espresso
> that goes in an icecapp or ice latte will not stand out for its
> freshness. All I'm saying through this whole discussion is this is not
> practical here.
> Anyone that would like to come spend time here and see what I deal
> with, feel free. Especially Maddie. But then I wouldn't see Karen for
> a week. But at least I'd get a hoot watching you trying to dose per
> shot....al
>
>
>
> On 6 Jul 2006 08:25:41 -0700, "gscace" <gregory.scace@nist.gov> wrote:
>
> >Al:
> >
> >I wonder if the difference is that most folks who work in coffee shops,
> >and who may be the recipient of your training program, aren't there
> >because of their intrinsic love of coffee. I may question and examine
> >the metering consistency of volumetric dosers. The pbtc is not likely
> >to be so inclined and is using it purely as a tool, without paying it
> >no never mind.
> >
> >But I'm interested in knowing what you perceive is wrong with the
> >techniques that have been developed here and elsewhere as workarounds
> >for partially filled doser chambers when shots are ground to order. To
> >me it seems that there could be many ways to skin a cat, providing that
> >the required parameters have been met.
> >
> >Forthose of us who argue for extreme freshness of the grinds, grinds
> >remaining in the grinds chamber is problematic because it is staling
> >while waiting to be dosed. If one is concerned with this issue, then
> >the doser becomes a dispensing tool, and not a metering tool. So
> >different techniques need to be used in order to achieve the
> >requirements of consistent coffee metering. Seems to me that any
> >number of paths may work just fine, so long as the proper result is
> >achieved. It just requires thought and practice. In the teaching
> >environment in which you are working, perhaps thinking is not a
> >required skill, and by rote volumetric dosing most easily produces a
> >consistent result that is in line with the intention of the coffee
> >supplier / roaster. I can easily imagine such a situation, but most
> >folks here, and arguably folks who become coffee artists, will be
> >thinking a lot about what they are doing, and investigating
> >alternatives, particularly when alternatives may produce better results
> >for them.
> >
> >Is this the central issue? Are there other reasons that preclude the
> >use of alternatives to volumetric dosing. What is it specifically that
> >leads to decreased cup quality?
> >
> >-Greg
> >
> >
> >sprsso wrote:
> >> You know, I've been reading about this technique for years now, and
> >> had hoped it stayed at the home use level. Unfortunately, from my
> >> point of view, I have also seen it used occasionally in commercial
> >> establishments to the detriment of the product in the cup. I would
> >> hope it's not necessary for me to enumerate the reasons why this
> >> method is incredibly wrong in a high-volume environment. Can you say
> >> "fill line"?
> >> Anyway, I was at the newest coffee shop I consulted for on Friday, and
> >> one of the cutest and most competent baristas I trained was using a
> >> Mazzer SJ with a doser and was grinding for each drink. Some other
> >> staff member told her this was OK.
> >> Well, just for an exercise in futility, I started weighing the doses.
> >> All double 58mm baskets. The weights varied from 9 to 23 grams. The
> >> larger doses barely would fit in the group, and you know about the
> >> smaller doses.
> >> I had to do a whole new training, which I don't mind.
> >> I have this doser set for as close to 7 grams as you'll ever see.
> >> These guys go through about 80lbs of espresso/week. I don't want them
> >> to guess or grind and pull the doser lever a dozen times until they
> >> think the amount of coffee is right. If I am in an establishment that
> >> uses this technique, I will refuse the drink.
> >> And, frankly, I couldn't care whether it is a kitchen knife, a finger
> >> or a doser lid (especially a finger), it's just wrong.
> >> And you know what I find amusing? Invariably, these no-clue, grind to
> >> order techniques have hoppers full of weeks old beans, and who knows
> >> how old they were when they first got there. And the dosers are
> >> usually filthy.
> >> If they think they're doing the customer a favor by changing the
> >> dosage with each shot, they're mistaken.
> >> Ok, so this pisses me off.
> >> Anyway,I'm off to change the world today. I'll let you know how it
> >> goes....al
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 04:07:38 GMT, Barry Jarrett
> >> <barry@rileys-coffee.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 23:07:20 +1200, "Rob van Loenhout"
> >> ><wontwork@dontbother.not> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >Just curious Barry - would you expect better results with a finger than a
> >> > >doser lid? For the record i use the slightly curved handle of a teaspoon.
> >> > >Bottomless pf on the work machine, usually get a uniform extraction.
> >> >
> >> >the theory on using the dosing chamber lid to scrape off the grounds
> >> >is that this creates a non-uniform distribution of grounds, with the
> >> >coffee puck denser at the distal end of the sweep and less dense at
> >> >the near end of the sweep.
|
| |
Date: 16 Jul 2006 17:53:19
From: 1st-line Equipment
Subject: Re: Spare grinds back into the doser?
|
Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> In article <44a94f35.224084316@localhost>,
> ross@math.hawaii.NOSPAM.edu (D. Ross) wrote:
>
> > - David R.
> > --
> > Less information than you ever thought possible:
> > http://www.demitasse.net
>
> Responding late as I wasn't reading this one.
>
> Bezzera BZ02S is $695 at Amazon and Vanelis
Hi all,
Sorry, I am also coming in late on this, as well. Please note that our
machine is different of that found on Amazon.com and Vanelis. We have
asked Bezzera to improve our BZ02S with a boiler pressure gauge.
Normally, this model does not have the pressure gauge. At the time of
this writing, 1st-line is the only company in the USA to have the
boiler pressure gauge added.
Sincerely,
Jim
1st-line Equipment
http://www.1st-line.com
|
|
