Tamping Technique

[barry]

Any thoughts on the polish in the tamping technique?

sounds like pure BS to me.

[Chris Davidson]

I definitely belong with The Fold who have been doing it for years without questioning why in a while,

One thing I often reflect on when training is the idea that when tamping downward in a clockwise motion you are locking the individual coffee granules into an architecturally strong structure; one that will resist 135 PSI and force the pressurized water to push coffee lipids into the liquor and ultimately the demitasse. If you ever twist or tamp in the opposite (counter-clockwise direction), you are breaking this structure and rendering the cake of coffee permeable to pressure. I've always thought of the polish as being a final addition to the resistant strength to the surface of the cake; as though the rougher the surface - the more tiny opportunities the pressurized water has to force it's way through the coffee and DUHN Duhn duhn... PIT!

Anyone ever heard of the band Wolfmother? Is the name from the Tom Robbins book "Skinny Legs and All?" Wolfmother Wallpaper?

[Chris Davidson]

Oh yeah,

Re: The Folding of The Towels: you should see me on our bar at The Roastery. And don't even get me started on the towels we use to wipe down the cooling tray of The Roaster. Sheesh! Ask Shafer or Drew, they'll tell ya.

[Andy Schecter]

One thing I often reflect on when training is the idea that when tamping downward in a clockwise motion you are locking the individual coffee granules into an architecturally strong structure; one that will resist 135 PSI and force the pressurized water to push coffee lipids into the liquor and ultimately the demitasse. If you ever twist or tamp in the opposite (counter-clockwise direction), you are breaking this structure

You forgot the

[luca]

Any thoughts on the polish in the tamping technique?

Get a bottomless portafilter and pull like 20 shots; half polished, half not, then you tell me!

The most consistent results that I get are just by tamping exactly once, after distributing. In terms of the extraction, it doesn't seem to make much difference if I polish (with no pressure) or flip the pf around to dislodge loose grounds ... or just do nothing.

Cheers,

Luca

[PureArabica]

One thing I often reflect on when training is the idea that when tamping downward in a clockwise motion you are locking the individual coffee granules into an architecturally strong structure; one that will resist 135 PSI and force the pressurized water to push coffee lipids into the liquor and ultimately the demitasse. If you ever twist or tamp in the opposite (counter-clockwise direction), you are breaking this structure and rendering the cake of coffee permeable to pressure.

Thats the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time!!
So, if you're left handed you're out of luck?

[John Sanders]

To polish a puck is also very important for the ability of the whole puck to withstand a huge amount of pressure and temperature. As a single grain of coffee it has very much less of an ability to withstand the extreme temperatures of brewing especially with some of the machines temp curves today. with this happening it has a tendency to overextract as much little grains as you have floating on top. As a whole nicely polished puck tamped ever so nicely together it will join together to take the water on as a whole and not as a single grain. i find on darker roasts it sends it over the top of charcoal notes and into ashey if not nicely polished. as far as lighter roasts not as extreme but still happening. i also have seen no discussion on flow restrictiors and how they are totally involved with this discussion. ( eh unrestricted barry).
sanders

[Chris Davidson]

Nicky,

Maybe if you're left handed you tamp downwards in a counter-clockwise rotation? My point is, whatever direction you do twist as you tamp, it's important to keep that direction consistent. Don't twist the other way. Maybe it's only one man's opinion...

[PureArabica]

Nicky,
whatever direction you do twist as you tamp, it's important to keep that direction consistent.

If you said that first, I'd agreed with you. But, you didn't. Thanks for clearing that up... Luca(y)?
Nick

[Andy Schecter]

Hi John:

You covered a lot of stuff in your post, and I assume that, through experimentation, you've proved it all to your own satisfaction. For the sake of discussion, I wanted to intersperse some comments.

To polish a puck is also very important for the ability of the whole puck to withstand a huge amount of pressure and temperature. As a single grain of coffee it has very much less of an ability to withstand the extreme temperatures of brewing

In the "third wave" we're pretty obsessive about tamping and polishing. But there are hundreds of awfully good baristas (like Luigi Lupi, et al) who tamp little or not at all. They certainly don't polish.

Ignorant suckers, they never made it past the "second wave."

especially with some of the machines temp curves today.

What is notable about today's temp curves?

with this happening it has a tendency to overextract as much little grains as you have floating on top. As a whole nicely polished puck tamped ever so nicely together it will join together to take the water on as a whole and not as a single grain.

This is strange, because even if those little grains on top get severely overextracted, it's hard to believe anyone could taste them. That's because the dust on top represents a minuscule fraction of the total coffee used (maybe 0.1g out of 18g, less thatn 0.6%). Even if that 0.6% is overextracted, I don't believe the difference is tastable (like pissing into a hurricane, etc).

i find on darker roasts it sends it over the top of charcoal notes and into ashey if not nicely polished. as far as lighter roasts not as extreme but still happening.

I happen to have some Starbucks beans on hand, I have to try that. Perhaps the lack of polish allows fissures to develop that result in gross overextraction.

i also have seen no discussion on flow restrictors and how they are totally involved with this discussion.

I'll throw in a word, the flow restrictors provide a more gentle wetting of the puck during the first few seconds, helping to maintain the pucks's physical integrity. This is good. After those first critical few seconds, the restrictors have little or no effect. IMO.

[Mark Prince]

Yet everybody does it. I just don't know how it got to be part of the essential routine?

Late entry into this thread.

Not *everyone* does a polish spin...

Mark <-----

PS... I stopped doing it some time ago simply because I could not notice any difference between polished and unpolished (but pressed flat with a staub-style tamp), and for some reason, the polish always seemed a foreign action to me. I work on a wide variety of machines, and never saw any improvement on any of them with the polish.

But one thing I've started doing again, which will be much to the colonel's chagrin - blowing the stray grounds off parts of the portafilter LOL!

[nick]

In the "third wave" we're pretty obsessive about tamping and polishing.

Oh, so we're IN the wave now? Okay, fine. "In the wave" it is.

I happen to have some Starbucks beans on hand, I have to try that.

THIRD WAVE MEMBERSHIP CARD REVOKED!!! Pope Trish Paul III, excommunicates you.

Seriously though,
I'd been doing some experiments on my own a few months ago about this. I actually did a polish, then, with my finger tip, lightly rubbed-up the top of the puck, sort of 'scoring' the top of the puck. I wanted to see if, all other things being equal, it would make a difference. I detected none.
I think that the water's initial contact with the puck is random enough that certain technique-elements are ultimately rendered inconsequential. After all, a lot of us are dosing-up to the point where any polishing is silly: you're gonna mash that nicely-polished puck up against the screen anyway!

Speaking of tamping, and don't mean to thread-jack, but I've been thinking about other aspects of tamping for a while, that I might as well throw out there (the mods/admins might split this thread up anyway, as they so ruthlessly are apt to do):

My initial training with Schomer was, if I remember correctly: 20 lbs, twist, 20 lbs, twist, tap, 40 lbs, light polish, done. Lately, my technique is: ease the tamper onto the coffee with a very light tamp to establish level, then slight regrip and tamp about 40-50 lbs, then polish-twist three times.

How much pressure you apply, how, when, etc., in my estimation, will have ramifications on the resulting 3-dimensional density-matrix that results. Tamp-technique A might result in a more densely-packed bottom-of-the-basket than Tamp-technique B.

I mean, what is tamping really? First, it (hopefully) packs the coffee enough that the water will extract through the puck in as even a 'plane' as possible. But what's the ideal such matrix? The water is gonna come at a pressure beyond what we're really capable of applying, so what else is happening? If 20 lbs is enough to create an even flow of water (reducing/eliminating channeling), then is it better or worse to tamp at 40 lbs? Is there anything wrong with tamping at 80 lbs (other than fucking up your arm/wrist/hand?)? How does the coffee you're using, or perhaps more specifically, the moisture content within, effect how your tamp effects the coffee?

Something that I've heard about many times before that I'll experiment with more tomorrow, is that tamping as lightly as possible, while (hopefully) still staving-off channeling, might be ideal. Maybe if we tamp too hard, the difference between the density of the upper-most part of the resulting puck and the lower-most part creates a less-ideal environment. *shrug*

Lots of questions. Any thoughts?

[Richard Hartnell]

Well played, Nick. I sense a dream team of Scace, Schomer, and Schecter to develop some kind of space-age X-ray portafilter.

[John Sanders]

But one thing I've started doing again, which will be much to the colonel's chagrin - blowing the stray grounds off parts of the portafilter LOL! [/quote]



BLOW ME GEEK

[trish]

Pope Trish Paul III, excommunicates you.

wtf?

[trish]

My initial training with Schomer was, if I remember correctly: 20 lbs, twist, 20 lbs, twist, tap, 40 lbs, light polish, done. Lately, my technique is: ease the tamper onto the coffee with a very light tamp to establish level, then slight regrip and tamp about 40-50 lbs, then polish-twist three times.

...a friend of mine who works for Shomer recently got an email from him complaining about this barista's tendency to spin the tamper too much on the polish.....awesome.

[Andy Schecter]

I happen to have some Starbucks beans on hand, I have to try that.

THIRD WAVE MEMBERSHIP CARD REVOKED!!!

I know, it's kind of strange to have Starbucks coffee around when there are so many better alternatives. I picked it up because of a thread on Coffeegeek with a ridiculous title: "Starbucks - Best espresso ever roasted - confirmed"
http://www.coffeegeek.com/forums/espresso/blends/232764

At first I assumed the guy was simply a troll (and a pretty crude one at that). But there was more to it than that. He seemed disarmingly honest. And he simply asked people to try it for themselves. So I bought some (pretty cheap at $5.20/half pound).

I expected horrible burnt charcoal flavors. But that didn't happen. Actually, I didn't get a whole lot of flavor at all -- but with a bit of experimentation, the result was better than expected. I got a surprisingly neutral profile with a tiny bit of sweetness, some malt flavors, and an occasional hint of almond and fruit.

This result simply wasn't in the same universe as a great espresso blend, (like the Hines-roasted Elysian blend that I tried a couple weeks ago). But I was pretty shocked how un-horrible it was. And in milk, it was pretty decent; less ashy and less sour than many high-end espresso blends that I've had recently. Surprised the hell out of me, really.

In that same coffeegeek thread, there was a damn good take on the subject by an unusually well-informed Starbucks barista. Check out his post for an interesting take on Mermaid culture:
http://www.coffeegeek.com/forums/espres ... 558#238558

After all, a lot of us are dosing-up to the point where any polishing is silly: you're gonna mash that nicely-polished puck up against the screen anyway!

When you're updosing in a major way, I guess the point of tamping is simply to get more coffee in there. Any concern about polishing the surface is, as you say, wasted when you force it up against the screen.

Something that I've heard about many times before that I'll experiment with more tomorrow, is that tamping as lightly as possible, while (hopefully) still staving-off channeling, might be ideal. Maybe if we tamp too hard, the difference between the density of the upper-most part of the resulting puck and the lower-most part creates a less-ideal environment. *shrug*

Lots of questions. Any thoughts?

I believe that part of the difficulty that we have in talking about this stuff is that the preinfusion parameters vary so much from machine to machine. A technique that makes a big difference on your machine may be irrelevant on my machine, IF the parameters are different in those first few critical seconds. It's good to see that the new LM machines come with small gicleurs!

[Jimmy Oneschuk]

I took the liberty of quoting that starbucks barista:

As barista at a major hospital in the Seattle area, I personally pull around 1,000 shots of Starbucks Espresso Roast per week on a two-group Nuova Simonelli Maxi as part of the, "We Proudly Brew," foodservice/wholesale program. Though I would much rather work with over a dozen other roasters, I enjoy excellent salary/benefits as well as the opportunity to make drinks for many wonderful regulars. My responsibility is to make the best coffee possible for each and every one of my customers out of those big silver bags of oily beans.

Properly extracted, Starbucks Espresso can be reasonably pleasant, though it is nowhere in the league of Paladino, Hairbender, Vita, Dolce, Streamline, etc. I like it best at ~3/4 ounce shots at 25-28 seconds, dosed just under the line. For the most part, I get a nice deep crema and straight, honey-like pour.

The taste is simple at first, concentrated ash turning to leather and prune with light nut and soft spice that finishes somewhere toward bland chocolate with a well-pitched acidity rising through to linger. For me, the trick is balance and sequence: to elicit a round mouthfeel of dense syrup that has the ability to be soft and caressing while carrying the strong undertones of all those earthy/smoky hallmarks. I want as much delicate nuance as I can get in the finish, pushing all the lemon and whatever fruit and flower I can find to the very end. I prefer a distinct taste/aftertaste experience where you have full immediate upfront impact of what you'd expect and then trails and echoes of pleasant surprises arriving in a bloom-like denouement. I want the ending to taste like an opening, if that makes any sense to anyone. [...]

[Chester Huan]

This may sound really silly, but has anyone tried tamping with a convex tamper initially, then swtiching to a flat based tamper, and tamping down again? This of course after evenly distributing the grinds before hand.
It seems that it might create a better seal around the edges, but at the same time create a denser area around the sides? I don't have a naked portafilter to check for channeling, and i can't discern any taste differences, but my spent pucks are much more intact than simply tamping with just one type of tamper.
Thanks

[Jason Haeger]

This may sound really silly, but has anyone tried tamping with a convex tamper initially, then swtiching to a flat based tamper, and tamping down again? This of course after evenly distributing the grinds before hand.
It seems that it might create a better seal around the edges, but at the same time create a denser area around the sides? I don't have a naked portafilter to check for channeling, and i can't discern any taste differences, but my spent pucks are much more intact than simply tamping with just one type of tamper.
Thanks

Sounds like uneven density of the puck, which means a less even extraction.

I'm fairly convinced that a flat-tamper is the way to go. Any error one finds in it is purely a flaw in technique.

At least, that's my opinion.

[Matthew Kolehmainen]

Wouldn't it also be the case that a curved tamper will lead to a denser puck in the middle? Or am I missing something huge here?

Matthew

[jakethecoffeelover]

Wouldn't it also be the case that a curved tamper will lead to a denser puck in the middle? Or am I missing something huge here?

Matthew

Not by very much, as these tampers mostly just push the coffee to the sides.

[Jimmy Oneschuk]

Here we go again...

convex tampers are intended to be used on convex showerscreens, so the distance between the showerscreen and coffeebed is the same - or if it gets squished, at least it's being squished uniformly.

And yes, a curved tamper does lead to a denser centre - if you're leveling flat... however, I find curving your index finger during the final level to create a divot corrects this tendency.

And for the tamp twice technique - I've tried that too, and you can actually use it to fit more ground coffee into a given basket. Try it!

[Chester Huan]

But tamping twice with two different types of tampers? Once with the convex tamper to push the grounds to the side of the basket, then follow with a flat tamper to push the sides into itself in the middle, and still creating a flat bed of coffee for even extraction. Im just wondering if this creates a better seal around the sides of the basket, but still have the flat bed of coffee with the flat tamper.

[Robert Goble]

Here we go again...

convex tampers are intended to be used on convex showerscreens, so the distance between the showerscreen and coffeebed is the same - or if it gets squished, at least it's being squished uniformly.

That's the theory anyway right? How do we know outside of what the intent was or is, that this accomplishes that end?

And yes, a curved tamper does lead to a denser centre - if you're leveling flat... however, I find curving your index finger during the final level to create a divot corrects this tendency.

how do you measure or verify this with any accuracy (the phenomenon and the correction)? And to what degree of difference are we talking - enough to be material?

And for the tamp twice technique - I've tried that too, and you can actually use it to fit more ground coffee into a given basket. Try it!

This seems easily quantifiable and makes sense too.

I don't have anywhere near the experience of any of you guys with this kind of thing, and I'd defer to your knowledge any day -- but I am curious as to how some of this stuff is known.