Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jason Haeger on September 30, 2009 at 9:43am

The diameter and height will directly affect the required grind particle size, as well as the dynamics of the extraction.

I don't know why 58mm is the "magic formula". I do know that a coarser grind is required for smaller diameter baskets, which tends to change the extraction to the point of tasting considerably different. A smaller grind needs less dwell time. A coarser grind needs more dwell time.

That should give you enough "facts" to start hypothesizing.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brady on September 30, 2009 at 10:46am

The main reason I use a 58mm basket is that its the one that fits my machine :)

(sorry)

I think the discussion happened around the Astoria +4U... which used a much smaller diameter basket for the European market. Will look for it later.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bryan Wray on September 30, 2009 at 11:12am

Brady said:

The main reason I use a 58mm basket is that its the one that fits my machine :)

(sorry)

I think the discussion happened around the Astoria +4U... which used a much smaller diameter basket for the European market. Will look for it later.

Thanks for reminding me. You are correct, it was that thread. I'll also try tracking it down.

Jason,
The changing of dwell time and particle size is exactly why I brought this up. I've been reading through a lot of Modern Process Equipment's informational documents recently (because I actually, truly have nothing better to do right now) and I wondered why it is that we decided or found out or whatever, that the particle size at where it's at, with the dwell time where it's at is the golden rule.

Obviously solubles are going to start coming into play with this, or at least I imagine they are going to. I guess my question is, does the taste being considerably different mean the taste is considerably less desirable? If the shot got, lets say for example sake, sweeter moving from 53mm to 58mm (and adjusting grind variables accordingly), does it get even sweeter with larger baskets? Has any manufacturer tried using larger baskets at any point?

This is also coming about from some reading I've been doing on pressure profiling. I have a bunch of really, really crazy ideas floating around in my head right now that will probably end up going into a blog post in a couple days.

-bry

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason Haeger on September 30, 2009 at 4:45pm

I'm imagining that hole size has a whole lot to do with grind size. They used the smallest grind particle size that they could while still ending up with an espresso free of grounds in the cup.

Just a theory.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason Shipley on September 30, 2009 at 8:30pm

This is interesting, I wonder how much critical study manufactures put into this. Are there tasting notes floating around somewhere varying size from 50 to 70mm? Or was it just arbitrary did a parts supplier simply have tooling to make 58mm portafilter baskets so that's what they ordered.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alun Evans on October 1, 2009 at 1:31am

I know from talking to the tech guys at CMA that the 53 is preffered to the 58mm for espresso dominant markets (Italy and some Western and Eastern Euro markets). Apparently the depth of the basket (narrow and deeper) produces a better espresso shot. I would have thought that with this formula in mind... 53 should be standard everywhere. However... apparently some markets are better suited for the 58! I only used the 53 for the first time in Italy last year. I actually would concur with the techies assesment re the quality of espresso... it did produce a better shot quality. IMHO why they have different sizes is a question to ask the makers.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bryan Wray on October 1, 2009 at 6:03am

How was the shot better? This is kind of the avenue I was hoping this thread would go down.

-bry

Alun Evans said:

I know from talking to the tech guys at CMA that the 53 is preffered to the 58mm for espresso dominant markets (Italy and some Western and Eastern Euro markets). Apparently the depth of the basket (narrow and deeper) produces a better espresso shot. I would have thought that with this formula in mind... 53 should be standard everywhere. However... apparently some markets are better suited for the 58! I only used the 53 for the first time in Italy last year. I actually would concur with the techies assesment re the quality of espresso... it did produce a better shot quality. IMHO why they have different sizes is a question to ask the makers.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason Haeger on October 1, 2009 at 6:30am

I have to say, espresso was never invented to be an avenue for quality. It was invented for speed. Which sort of goes along with my theory about filter hole size. Wouldn't it make sense to get the particles as fine as possible for the least dwell time needed if it's all about speed?

I may be off, but the logic fits. Of course, it could just be coincidental.

I would also think that 58 vs. 53 would also depend on the coffee itself. Any truth to that Alun?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alun Evans on October 1, 2009 at 5:01pm

From Paolo our technician in Italy>
hi Alun ,

C.M.A. produce only the plus 4 you with 53mm filter.The reason of this size is that it havinfg a smaller diametre , with same grams of coffee the thikness of the " cake " is bigger . This effect hides the possible mistakes made by the barista ( wrong grinder regulation , bad action during the tamping etc) . speaking in number it means that every 10shots, you have more probability to make 10 good espresso with 53 mm compared with 58 mm filter .
But this filter is not good for a long coffee , because you burt it , this in the tradictional machines, in the plus 4 you , reducing the temperature of the water of coffee and the head group , you can extract a good long coffee also with this size of filter.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason Haeger on October 1, 2009 at 6:23pm

It sounds like the result is not inherently better, but rather, that it is more tolerant of user error. I suspect this is due to the larger grind particle size as their respective fluidity compared to a finer particle size. (that is, there is potential for re-distribution through the act of tamping with larger particles, whereas if the barista does not get an even distribution with finer particles, then uneven extraction is almost guaranteed.

Which leads me back to questioning why we don't just use capsules like Illy suggests. It virtually eliminates barista error. Is using a 53mm basket, therefore, about quality, or is it about consistency (in spite of, and not because of, the barista)?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alun Evans on October 1, 2009 at 6:50pm

Hey Jason, I think you are right in stating the 53mm gives the barista perhaps a margin of error- although my experience on using the 53mm was it took a bit of getting used to to get shots like I was used to pulling on the Astoria 58mm. The grind...hmmm I would say yeas slightly coarser in the 53 vs the 58 (but remember I am a roaster not a barista by trade!) I guess in the markets where espresso is consumed more often than milk EBD's then getting the very best consistency in a shot is really the goal of the smaller diameter, deeper portafilter and basket. Of course we would like to say the same is really required in milk based markets, but I think milk certainly would hide a number of faults in shot quality...right? Re pods... I think we agree their place is not in the hands of a skilled barista or even an average-below average barista in a cafe. My experience is even with a average shot (of Illy) it tastes far better than what I have tried from one of their pods. At Trieste 4 years back Illy had a huge setup serving Pod shots to a saavy trade crowd. It was like serving chateau cardboard caskwine to Hugh Johson (Aussie wine expert). It went down like a lead balloon. This time round the Pods were strangely not on show.

Jason Haeger said:

It sounds like the result is not inherently better, but rather, that it is more tolerant of user error. I suspect this is due to the larger grind particle size as their respective fluidity compared to a finer particle size. (that is, there is potential for re-distribution through the act of tamping with larger particles, whereas if the barista does not get an even distribution with finer particles, then uneven extraction is almost guaranteed.

Which leads me back to questioning why we don't just use capsules like Illy suggests. It virtually eliminates barista error. Is using a 53mm basket, therefore, about quality, or is it about consistency (in spite of, and not because of, the barista)?

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion