| |
Main
Date: 19 Oct 2006 14:21:17
From:
Subject: tamper preferences?
|
I'm ready to invest in a real tamper and chuck the silly piece of
ill-fitting plastic that came with Silvia. Is there a consensus on
what's best? Flat or convex? Also, it seems to me that a short, stubby
one would be easier to control; i.e., to keep the plane parallel to the
basket. Any thoughts? Oh, and I want to spend as little as possible.
|
|
| |
Date: 21 Oct 2006 04:40:27
From: Phil P
Subject: Re: tamper preferences?
|
Moka Java wrote:
> Coffee for Connoisseurs wrote:
>
> > Nope. Michael Teahan (Espresso Part Source, www.espressoresource.com )
> > presented some photos as part of a session at SCAA Charlotte where they
> > tracked tamping pressure from zero to 300lbs. No difference, none, nada,
> > zilch. Proper distribution, as opposed to "proper" tamping, seems to be the
> > key.
> >
> >
>
> Sorry I missed that one. I've been using the levitating tamp since Dave
> Ross described it some years ago. Basically, it's a mid air level and
> polish with more emphasis on level than anything else. With the
> bottomless PF channeling is immediately obvious. The biggest variable
> is the coffee.
Talking of whom, David Ross doesn't seem to have posted here since
early September; I hope he hasn't gone for good?
|
| | |
Date: 21 Oct 2006 17:31:35
From: Bill (Adopt)
Subject: Re: tamper preferences?
|
In article <1161430827.098868.286020@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >,
Phil P <charneybarn@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Moka Java wrote:
> > Sorry I missed that one. I've been using the levitating tamp since Dave
> > Ross described it some years ago. Basically, it's a mid air level and
> > polish with more emphasis on level than anything else. With the
> > bottomless PF channeling is immediately obvious. The biggest variable
> > is the coffee.
> Talking of whom, David Ross doesn't seem to have posted here since
> early September; I hope he hasn't gone for good?
Earthquake in the Hawaiin chain, I think just off the
coast of 'Big' Island No reports of fatalities, but
some injuries and a fair bit of damage to parts of the
infrastructure have been reported here in GB...
Hopefully he won't have been hurt so perhaps he'll tell
us all that he's OK ..whenever he's able to do so.. ?:))
..or does anyone have direct contact..?
Bill ZFC
--
Adoption InterLink UK with -=- http://www.billsimpson.com/
Domain Host Orpheus Internet -=- http://www.orpheusinternet.co.uk/
|
| |
Date: 20 Oct 2006 04:43:41
From: ramboorider@gmail.com
Subject: Re: tamper preferences?
|
OK, another newbie question - how much pressure does it take to
'polish' the coffee after the tamp? Regardless of whether the tamp is 5
pounds or 70, seems like you need SOME pressure to polish the top of
the puck, no?
Since I was gonna buy my first 58mm tamper anyway for the incoming
Silvia, I figured I'd spend the extra $30 or so and get a click tamper.
If the tamp truely doesn't matter, I'll just go with the built in 30ish
to stay consistent. But I wasn't sure whether I needed to maintain the
same pressure for the polishing.
-Ray
On Oct 20, 6:58 am, Moka Java <rtwatc...@fishyahoo.com > wrote:
> Coffee for Connoisseurs wrote:
> > Nope. Michael Teahan (Espresso Part Source,www.espressoresource.com)
> > presented some photos as part of a session at SCAA Charlotte where they
> > tracked tamping pressure from zero to 300lbs. No difference, none, nada,
> > zilch. Proper distribution, as opposed to "proper" tamping, seems to be the
> > key.Sorry I missed that one. I've been using the levitating tamp since Dave
> Ross described it some years ago. Basically, it's a mid air level and
> polish with more emphasis on level than anything else. With the
> bottomless PF channeling is immediately obvious. The biggest variable
> is the coffee.
>
> R "and that's the way it should be" TF
|
| | |
Date: 20 Oct 2006 08:07:01
From: Moka Java
Subject: Re: tamper preferences?
|
ramboorider@gmail.com wrote:
> OK, another newbie question - how much pressure does it take to
> 'polish' the coffee after the tamp? Regardless of whether the tamp is 5
> pounds or 70, seems like you need SOME pressure to polish the top of
> the puck, no?
I have a big heavy convex stainless steel tamper. It weighs 18.75 oz.
or 537 gr. on my kitchen scale. After leveling with light pressure I
give a twist with just the weight of the tamper and the puck is
polished. So the answer is, not much.
R "no need for a spit shine" TF
|
| |
Date: 19 Oct 2006 17:48:41
From: Cordovero
Subject: Re: tamper preferences?
|
For what it's worth, I started with a convex tamper (I forget the name) that
was pretty expensive but applauded in the tamper roundup on coffeegeek.
Then I got a short reg barber flat. Then I picked up a tall reg barber
knockoff, also flat. I also had a cafe vivace aluminum ergo packer.
I wish I had skipped all of them and had gotten a click tamper instead. I
think those who think they can "tell" 30 pounds are self-deluded, and having
a scale around is really a messy pain.
But since I don't have the money for a click tamper yet, I end up using the
short flat reg barber. Definitely don't get a tall tamper. I also prefer
flat to convex.
C
<saltisland@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1161292877.747638.309680@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> I'm ready to invest in a real tamper and chuck the silly piece of
> ill-fitting plastic that came with Silvia. Is there a consensus on
> what's best? Flat or convex? Also, it seems to me that a short, stubby
> one would be easier to control; i.e., to keep the plane parallel to the
> basket. Any thoughts? Oh, and I want to spend as little as possible.
>
|
| | |
Date: 20 Oct 2006 01:06:56
From: I->Ian
Subject: Re: tamper preferences?
|
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 17:48:41 -0700, "Cordovero"
<cordoveroremovexxx@yahooxxx.com > wrote:
>I wish I had skipped all of them and had gotten a click tamper instead.
Tried a click tamper, found the noise most annoying and could not pull
any better, and in more cases worse, shots than with a garden variety
57mm stainless.
>I think those who think they can "tell" 30 pounds are self-deluded
Goes with saying if you're here <vbg >
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Oct 2006 18:32:26
From: Cordovero
Subject: Re: tamper preferences?
|
"I- >Ian" <someone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:sv7gj2hlijs31rqnsrijd4ehovlvg9ro6l@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 17:48:41 -0700, "Cordovero"
> <cordoveroremovexxx@yahooxxx.com> wrote:
>
>>I wish I had skipped all of them and had gotten a click tamper instead.
>
> Tried a click tamper, found the noise most annoying and could not pull
> any better, and in more cases worse, shots than with a garden variety
> 57mm stainless.
Good to know, Ian, thanks!
>
>
>>I think those who think they can "tell" 30 pounds are self-deluded
>
> Goes with saying if you're here <vbg>
<snare drum... bu-bu-bum >
Cordo "who has lousy tamping technique"
|
| | | | |
Date: 20 Oct 2006 02:25:56
From: Coffee for Connoisseurs
Subject: Re: tamper preferences?
|
FWIW tamp pressure makes NO difference.
--
Alan
alanfrew@coffeeco.com.au
www.coffeeco.com.au
|
| | | | | |
Date: 22 Oct 2006 00:07:27
From: Brian Colwell
Subject: Re: tamper preferences?
|
"Coffee for Connoisseurs" <alanfrew@coffeeco.com.au > wrote in message
news:UsWZg.50069$rP1.38659@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> FWIW tamp pressure makes NO difference.
>
>
> --
> Alan
>
> alanfrew@coffeeco.com.au
> www.coffeeco.com.au
When this subject was discussed several years ago, I also found tamping
pressure had little effect on shots from my Silvia...........this still
applies, I think the exception, may be to my other machine a La Pavoni ?
Perhaps someone, who has owned one longer than I, may have the answer.
Regards, BMC
|
| | | | | |
Date: 20 Oct 2006 15:56:37
From: Kruger Kid
Subject: Re: tamper preferences?
|
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 02:25:56 GMT, "Coffee for Connoisseurs"
<alanfrew@coffeeco.com.au > wrote:
>FWIW tamp pressure makes NO difference.
Consistently in tamp pressure is the key for me and my Gaggia Classic.
Kruger
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 21 Oct 2006 10:35:57
From: Danny
Subject: Re: tamper preferences?
|
Kruger Kid wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 02:25:56 GMT, "Coffee for Connoisseurs"
> <alanfrew@coffeeco.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>>FWIW tamp pressure makes NO difference.
>
>
> Consistently in tamp pressure is the key for me and my Gaggia Classic.
>
> Kruger
>
My site below shows different tamp pressure outcomes - nothing much to
report - even *no* tamp at all.
--
Regards, Danny
http://www.gaggia-espresso.com (a purely hobby site)
http://www.malabargold.co.uk (UK/EU ordering for Malabar Gold blend)
|
| | | | | |
Date: 19 Oct 2006 19:33:30
From: Cordovero
Subject: Re: tamper preferences?
|
Doesn't it make a difference to the pour? That is, you have to keep it
constant?
C
"Coffee for Connoisseurs" <alanfrew@coffeeco.com.au > wrote in message
news:UsWZg.50069$rP1.38659@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> FWIW tamp pressure makes NO difference.
>
>
> --
> Alan
>
> alanfrew@coffeeco.com.au
> www.coffeeco.com.au
>
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 20 Oct 2006 03:01:24
From: Coffee for Connoisseurs
Subject: Re: tamper preferences?
|
Nope. Michael Teahan (Espresso Part Source, www.espressoresource.com )
presented some photos as part of a session at SCAA Charlotte where they
tracked tamping pressure from zero to 300lbs. No difference, none, nada,
zilch. Proper distribution, as opposed to "proper" tamping, seems to be the
key.
--
Alan
alanfrew@coffeeco.com.au
www.coffeeco.com.au
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Oct 2006 15:40:40
From: Harry Moos
Subject: Re: tamper preferences?
|
I have been doing the 30-pound tamp, but I just finished a shot that I
levelled and polished without the heavy tamp. It cut maybe 2-3 seconds off
the pour time, the crema was just as dark, and the taste wasn't affected one
way or the other. Who would have thought it! No more bent ears on the
portafilter!
"Coffee for Connoisseurs" <alanfrew@coffeeco.com.au > wrote in message
news:8_WZg.50083$rP1.9552@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Nope. Michael Teahan (Espresso Part Source, www.espressoresource.com )
> presented some photos as part of a session at SCAA Charlotte where they
> tracked tamping pressure from zero to 300lbs. No difference, none, nada,
> zilch. Proper distribution, as opposed to "proper" tamping, seems to be
> the key.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Oct 2006 22:26:00
From: Espressopithecus (Java Man)
Subject: Re: tamper preferences?
|
In article <2_adnXky-6fcqaTYnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@news.ruraltel.net >,
harrym@ruraltel.net says...
> I have been doing the 30-pound tamp, but I just finished a shot that I
> levelled and polished without the heavy tamp. It cut maybe 2-3 seconds off
> the pour time, the crema was just as dark, and the taste wasn't affected one
> way or the other. Who would have thought it! No more bent ears on the
> portafilter!
>
Why would tamping to 30 lb bend the ears on your PF?
Rick
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Oct 2006 17:33:52
From: Harry Moos
Subject: Re: tamper preferences?
|
Sheer exaggeration. I don't know if portafilters have ears -- I was
referring loosely to the spouts. My only excuse is that I was in shock over
the loss of another element of the Golden Rule. What next?
"Espressopithecus (Java Man)" <rickk@letterectomyTELUS.net > wrote in message
news:MPG.1fa2eccc40c29ce1989861@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
> In article <2_adnXky-6fcqaTYnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@news.ruraltel.net>,
> harrym@ruraltel.net says...
>> I have been doing the 30-pound tamp, but I just finished a shot that I
>> levelled and polished without the heavy tamp. It cut maybe 2-3 seconds
>> off
>> the pour time, the crema was just as dark, and the taste wasn't affected
>> one
>> way or the other. Who would have thought it! No more bent ears on the
>> portafilter!
>>
> Why would tamping to 30 lb bend the ears on your PF?
>
> Rick
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Oct 2006 19:38:07
From: North Sullivan
Subject: Re: tamper preferences?
|
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 17:33:52 -0500, "Harry Moos" <harrym@ruraltel.net >
wrote:
>Sheer exaggeration. I don't know if portafilters have ears -- I was
>referring loosely to the spouts. My only excuse is that I was in shock over
>the loss of another element of the Golden Rule. What next?
Tamping hard is not a golden rule, although many who tamp hard make
excellent espresso. During my trip to Italy, the people behind the
bar tamped lightly or not at all. In my shop, the grinder is set for
the weakest person to tamp normally. It's a matter of practicality
for the morning rush.
It may be that a hard tamp is better when judging by the very best
espresso; I'm not sure. But there's no question that very good
espresso can be made with a light or "no tamp." If you google
alt.coffee archives, you will find many interesting threads on "no
tamp" or "light tamp."
North Sullivan
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Oct 2006 23:49:45
From: Espressopithecus (Java Man)
Subject: Re: tamper preferences?
|
In article <i7edndt_Zv1V06TYnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@news.ruraltel.net >,
harrym@ruraltel.net says...
> Sheer exaggeration. I don't know if portafilters have ears -- I was
> referring loosely to the spouts.
OK, I see your point. I thought you were referring to the lugs on the
PF that engage in the brewhead.
Rick
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Oct 2006 23:03:58
From: I->Ian
Subject: Re: tamper preferences?
|
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 17:33:52 -0500, "Harry Moos" <harrym@ruraltel.net >
wrote:
>My only excuse is that I was in shock over
>the loss of another element of the Golden Rule. What next?
Instant coffee makes great espresso.
No muss, no fuss.
I'm sending the ICU team STAT
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Oct 2006 20:43:29
From: Robert Harmon
Subject: Re: tamper preferences?
|
And another convert is heard from! Let the grind control the flow & not rely
on muscle (between the ears).
--
Robert (I can be pushy, but not against a portafilter!) Harmon
http://tinyurl.com/pou2y
http://tinyurl.com/psfob
http://tinyurl.com/fkd6r
"Harry Moos" <harrym@ruraltel.net > wrote in message
news:2_adnXky-6fcqaTYnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@news.ruraltel.net...
>I have been doing the 30-pound tamp, but I just finished a shot that I
>levelled and polished without the heavy tamp. It cut maybe 2-3 seconds off
>the pour time, the crema was just as dark, and the taste wasn't affected
>one way or the other. Who would have thought it! No more bent ears on the
>portafilter!
>
> "Coffee for Connoisseurs" <alanfrew@coffeeco.com.au> wrote in message
> news:8_WZg.50083$rP1.9552@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> Nope. Michael Teahan (Espresso Part Source, www.espressoresource.com )
>> presented some photos as part of a session at SCAA Charlotte where they
>> tracked tamping pressure from zero to 300lbs. No difference, none, nada,
>> zilch. Proper distribution, as opposed to "proper" tamping, seems to be
>> the key.
>
>
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Oct 2006 11:11:25
From: Andy Schecter
Subject: Re: tamper preferences?
|
Coffee for Connoisseurs wrote:
> Nope. Michael Teahan (Espresso Part Source, www.espressoresource.com )
> presented some photos as part of a session at SCAA Charlotte where they
> tracked tamping pressure from zero to 300lbs. No difference, none, nada,
> zilch. Proper distribution, as opposed to "proper" tamping, seems to be the
> key.
Hi Alan:
That has been my experience, too. Various people posted their thoughts on this
in a "Tamp vs shot timing" thread a while back:
http://tinyurl.com/yzmm3u
--
-Andy S.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/andy_s/sets/
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Oct 2006 06:58:54
From: Moka Java
Subject: Re: tamper preferences?
|
Coffee for Connoisseurs wrote:
> Nope. Michael Teahan (Espresso Part Source, www.espressoresource.com )
> presented some photos as part of a session at SCAA Charlotte where they
> tracked tamping pressure from zero to 300lbs. No difference, none, nada,
> zilch. Proper distribution, as opposed to "proper" tamping, seems to be the
> key.
>
>
Sorry I missed that one. I've been using the levitating tamp since Dave
Ross described it some years ago. Basically, it's a mid air level and
polish with more emphasis on level than anything else. With the
bottomless PF channeling is immediately obvious. The biggest variable
is the coffee.
R "and that's the way it should be" TF
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Oct 2006 00:20:31
From: notbob
Subject: Re: tamper preferences?
|
On 2006-10-20, Coffee for Connoisseurs <alanfrew@coffeeco.com.au > wrote:
> Nope. Michael Teahan (Espresso Part Source, www.espressoresource.com )
> presented some photos as part of a session at SCAA Charlotte where they
> tracked tamping pressure from zero to 300lbs. No difference, none, nada,
> zilch. Proper distribution, as opposed to "proper" tamping, seems to be the
> key.
I can't really argue this one. I've seen Chris Cara tamp with a long
handled La Pavoni plastic measuring spoon (flat bottom) and get a
great crema laden shot out of his ancient lever machine. I've put
that same spoon on the scale and at one lb the handle looks like Robin
Hood's bow at full draw and is not too far from snapping like a twig.
He was probably closer to under an ounce. I was stunned, to say the
least, and have never been able to get a good shot with such a light
tamp. But I certainly can't deny it appears possible. That shot was
for me and it was a great shot.
For my SL90 with a perfect fit afterket tamper, I just lean my fat
ass into it and that's my tamp. I figure it's around 30-35lbs, having
measured my tamp-till-I-cramp pressure. It works great, giving me
gorgeous pcf every time. If I don't tamp my usual, the rat tails go
white way too soon and I'm not a happy camper. If there's a way I can
still get perfect pcf with less tamp pressure, I'm all ears.
nb
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Oct 2006 04:48:33
From: Marshall
Subject: Re: tamper preferences?
|
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 03:01:24 GMT, "Coffee for Connoisseurs"
<alanfrew@coffeeco.com.au > wrote:
>Nope. Michael Teahan (Espresso Part Source, www.espressoresource.com )
>presented some photos as part of a session at SCAA Charlotte where they
>tracked tamping pressure from zero to 300lbs. No difference, none, nada,
>zilch. Proper distribution, as opposed to "proper" tamping, seems to be the
>key.
Actually, Cordovero and Teahan are practically neighbors now. I
suggest Cordovero take a ride up the 405 and introduce himself to
Michael and Angelo. They're great to talk to, and he'll never lack for
machine parts.
shall
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Oct 2006 22:15:43
From: Cordovero
Subject: Re: tamper preferences?
|
I'm really shy about bothering knowledgable people like y'all, but maybe I
could go over and get some cleancaf or something.
Truth is, I think my whole espresso technique is bad. I really need some
help.
By the way, I had my first celebrity sighting tonight. I was picking up
some food at Whole Foods over in Sherman Oaks off of 405 and I kept running
into Randy from American Idol.
Later, Dogpound!
C
"shall" <mrfuss@ihatespamearthlink.net > wrote in message
news:j4lgj21q49neuk2u1ftgh440m17g07um66@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 03:01:24 GMT, "Coffee for Connoisseurs"
> <alanfrew@coffeeco.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Nope. Michael Teahan (Espresso Part Source, www.espressoresource.com )
>>presented some photos as part of a session at SCAA Charlotte where they
>>tracked tamping pressure from zero to 300lbs. No difference, none, nada,
>>zilch. Proper distribution, as opposed to "proper" tamping, seems to be
>>the
>>key.
>
> Actually, Cordovero and Teahan are practically neighbors now. I
> suggest Cordovero take a ride up the 405 and introduce himself to
> Michael and Angelo. They're great to talk to, and he'll never lack for
> machine parts.
>
> shall
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Oct 2006 16:57:41
From: I->Ian
Subject: Re: tamper preferences?
|
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 22:15:43 -0700, "Cordovero"
<cordoveroremovexxx@yahooxxx.com > wrote:
>Randy from American Idol
Proud to say that haven't a clue who you're talking about...
"Television: A medium - so called because it is neither rare nor well
done." Ernie Kovacs
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Oct 2006 12:21:57
From: Cordovero
Subject: Re: tamper preferences?
|
"I- >Ian" <someone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:hovhj29d8et0rtn88rjtvrakritq3d3o3n@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 22:15:43 -0700, "Cordovero"
> <cordoveroremovexxx@yahooxxx.com> wrote:
>
>>Randy from American Idol
>
> Proud to say that haven't a clue who you're talking about...
Sorry, Dude, I'm not impressed!
C
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Oct 2006 04:39:47
From: Steve
Subject: Re: tamper preferences?
|
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 03:01:24 GMT, "Coffee for Connoisseurs"
<alanfrew@coffeeco.com.au > wrote:
>Nope. Michael Teahan (Espresso Part Source, www.espressoresource.com )
>presented some photos as part of a session at SCAA Charlotte where they
>tracked tamping pressure from zero to 300lbs. No difference, none, nada,
>zilch. Proper distribution, as opposed to "proper" tamping, seems to be the
>key.
Do you mean zero literally, Alan?
So simply pressing the puck and a polish should be all that is needed?
I ask because the lack of a "real" tamp would be another variable
taken out of the equation, I see that as a good thing.
|
| |
Date: 19 Oct 2006 21:57:25
From: I->Ian
Subject: Re: tamper preferences?
|
On 19 Oct 2006 14:21:17 -0700, saltisland@hotmail.com wrote:
>Any thoughts?
http://www.home-barista.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1912
|
| |
Date: 19 Oct 2006 14:30:15
From: jggall01
Subject: Re: tamper preferences?
|
saltisland@hotmail.com wrote:
> I'm ready to invest in a real tamper and chuck the silly piece of
> ill-fitting plastic that came with Silvia. Is there a consensus on
> what's best? Flat or convex? Also, it seems to me that a short, stubby
> one would be easier to control; i.e., to keep the plane parallel to the
> basket. Any thoughts? Oh, and I want to spend as little as possible.
I paid the ridiculous cost of a Reg Barber and......worth every penny!
Not claiming its the best, but it works and is a pleasure to see and
use.
Jim
|
| | |
Date: 19 Oct 2006 21:45:42
From: Alan
Subject: Re: tamper preferences?
|
"jggall01" wrote
>
> saltisland@hotmail.com wrote:
>> I'm ready to invest in a real tamper and chuck the silly piece of
>> ill-fitting plastic that came with Silvia. Is there a consensus on
>> what's best? Flat or convex? Also, it seems to me that a short, stubby
>> one would be easier to control; i.e., to keep the plane parallel to the
>> basket. Any thoughts? Oh, and I want to spend as little as possible.
>
> I paid the ridiculous cost of a Reg Barber and......worth every penny!
> Not claiming its the best, but it works and is a pleasure to see and
> use.
>
> Jim
I've found a short, stubby plastic pill bottle that fits perfectly into my
Europiccola basket. It may not be a pleasure to see, but it works . . .
worth every penny!
;-)
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Oct 2006 17:59:00
From: Craig Andrews
Subject: Re: tamper preferences?
|
"Alan" <in_flagrante@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:amSZg.1165$T_1.136@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "jggall01" wrote
>>
>> saltisland@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> I'm ready to invest in a real tamper and chuck the silly piece of
>>> ill-fitting plastic that came with Silvia. Is there a consensus on
>>> what's best? Flat or convex? Also, it seems to me that a short,
>>> stubby
>>> one would be easier to control; i.e., to keep the plane parallel to
>>> the
>>> basket. Any thoughts? Oh, and I want to spend as little as possible.
>>
>> I paid the ridiculous cost of a Reg Barber and......worth every
>> penny!
>> Not claiming its the best, but it works and is a pleasure to see and
>> use.
>>
>> Jim
>
> I've found a short, stubby plastic pill bottle that fits perfectly
> into my Europiccola basket. It may not be a pleasure to see, but it
> works . . . worth every penny!
> ;-)
>
Since day one, no sweat pulling perfect shots with the stock rancilio
plastic POS tamper, worth every penny! {;-D I got a knock-off
http://www.1st-line.net/cgi-bin/category.cgi?item=ARSSFC58MM&type=store
1st-line Reg Barber type of style from a Coffeegeek on the CG Buy & Sell
forum, worth every penny!
YMMV & to each their own. {:-)
Craig.
|
|
