# Amazed at how small 1 fluid ounce is.



## m4lcs67 (Mar 16, 2014)

Since I really got back into this coffee malarkey recently I have been looking for the definitive answers to many questions and thank you to you all for helping me out.

I have been looking into the weights, sizes and amounts of liquid coffee over ground coffee, temp that the milk should be to make the best cappuccino etc. I have just bought a 100ml syringe (for a totally unrelated reason), but I thought just for my own benefit to see what one fluid ounce of liquid is and was amazed to realise how little it actually is (28.41ml). With that in mind I think I need to re-calculate things in my own head. I have previously been filling my cups to where I think they should be (in terms of actual volume), but I have just used my new syringe this morning and found out that I have been filling them to 90ml which roughly equates to 3 ounces. Oh well. Better keep persevering I guess.


----------



## jeebsy (May 5, 2013)

Forgot volume and go by weight. Crema is foam-like which skews things.

Use scales to measure what comes out. You want 1.6x the weight of coffee you put in.


----------



## ajh101 (Dec 21, 2013)

Get some scales. I had been aiming for a volume of 2oz in 25 seconds. Way over extracted it seems. Go for say, 17g in and 27g out. The resulting coffee is, to my tastebuds, so much better. A ratio of 1.6. Assuming that you actually like the taste, that is!


----------



## ajh101 (Dec 21, 2013)

Crossed posts. Well said jeebsy.


----------



## Mouse (Feb 28, 2014)

LOL - I did the same thing the other night.

My wife and I are just about to start another course of IVF so our house is overrun with syringes/needles - It's like a scene out of Trainspotting!!

I only had a 5ml syringe so I've got a definite case of syringe envy


----------



## DavecUK (Aug 6, 2013)

The UKBC and WBC used to say in their rules (many many years ago) that the volume of espresso had to be a certain amount (and this level included liquid and crema). I never used to take a lot of notice of these things, but it always seemed complete tosh to me, as the amount of crema vaires, depending on bean, roast and freshness. To talk of weight is a lot clearer and more exact and works if you have a small set of £4 jewellers scales under the cup. This way if you want 28ml or 28g, it's the best way to get it.

One critical thing though, always be prepared to stop the pour early if you get blonding...a little is fine a lot, your should be stopping. One thing I will say is this new fad for the super ristretto shot...I'm not sure how it all came about over the last 5 years. I suspect there has been 4 drivers (not all would apply in all cases).


The need to produce good looking shots by members of forums for photos/video

The hype from the commercial guys (as it makes you use more coffee)

Beans roasted so that the only way to make the shots look or taste OK is to extract them this way

Machines and/or grinders so poor that the only way to get a good looking/tasting shot is to extract them this way


Current WBC rules describe an espresso thusly: "Espresso is a 1 fl. oz. beverage (30mL+/- 5mL) made from ground coffee, poured from one side of a double portafilter in one continuous extraction.".

Now I realise I have been told there are no rules in what constitutes a good shot and a some WBC stuff is complete rubbish, but there is also some good stuff in there.I think this is the best definition of espresso they have had. Although my personal preference would be no more than 30 ml, no less than 25ml (or g if you prefer the same in g). I also think it forms a very good set of guidelines for what you should be aiming for. Now please don't get me wrong, there is a place for the Ristretto and many other shot variants (with the exception of the Lungo IMO). If you don't manage to nail the esspresso you can be loosing a lot every shot in terms of balance and taste. This is especially true of certain machine types.

The true esrpesso shot is an art, one that perhaps should be mastered, before moving on to other things as it's your base for all the other drinks. It helps fully understand and appreciate the coffee, in terms of time, temperature, texture and grind....and the effect all those things can have. Perhaps I am slow, but it's always taken me around a kg to even partially understand a particular coffee....because of course how it's roasted add other dimensions. It might be that with the same coffee 2 totally different grind, temp and time are used depending on how it was roasted.


----------



## coffeechap (Apr 5, 2012)

Dave your comment relating to the WBC rules sort of contradicts your preference over weight as following the principles of input and output extraction ratios (1.6 times input), it is very difficult to extract almost 60ml for a double shot of coffee (or at least in my experience anyway). I find that there are various merits to all forms of extractions.

A properly extracted coffee, pulled away short (Ristretto) has a different complexity to it than say a full shot or even a lungo, each of the types of extration produce a different flavour, that suits different tastes. Some great roasters may recommend that a coffee is pulled short and gloopy, as they have played with the different extractions and found that to be the most suitable, a lot of lever uses will pull double shots that are 45 ml or less due to group capacity limitations, these are still amazing shots of coffee (I am biaised as a lever lover however)

What I am trying to say is that Ultimately (as with most things in life) it all boils down to preference and some of the fun of coffee is playing with the different parametres to see what works and what doesnt.


----------



## DavecUK (Aug 6, 2013)

coffeechap said:


> Dave your comment relating to the WBC rules sort of contradicts your preference over weight as following the principles of input and output extraction ratios (1.6 times input), it is very difficult to extract almost 60ml for a double shot of coffee (or at least in my experience anyway). I find that there are various merits to all forms of extractions.


No my comments over the WBC rules are just that and your completely misinterpreting me. I mention scales, I mention volume 1g 1ml all the same thing, people can use scales if they have a small espresso cup and don't know what the volume looks like. I also said in my post that there is a place for all forms of extractions....with the exception of the Lungo, which I dislike Intensely.

I commented on this post, because I saw the Ristretto shot being expressed as the norm with the ratios being give of weight of coffee to volume of liquid extracted as standard advice within this thread.....and many others. New users who may never try an Espresso it at it's proper volume or weight, and drinking extreme ristrettos thinking these are normal espressos.



> Use scales to measure what comes out. You want 1.6x the weight of coffee you put in.


It this type comment I think is so misleading to new users....but feel free to disagree and to continue to misinterpret what I post if you want.


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

1 ml of espresso does not weigh 1 gram


----------



## DavecUK (Aug 6, 2013)

garydyke1 said:


> 1 ml of espresso does not weigh 1 gram


FFS I didn't say it did!


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

''I mention volume 1g 1ml all the same thing, people can use scales if they have a small espresso cup and don't know what the volume looks like''


----------



## coffeechap (Apr 5, 2012)

Which was my point dave, i am not critising here just clarifying (as your points were contradictory and might cause further confusion), the consensus within the coffee world is that a sensible brew ratio for espresso is 1.6 times the output so for example 20 grams in 32 grams out (shot weight), which wont be 32 ml.


----------



## DavecUK (Aug 6, 2013)

garydyke1 said:


> ''I mention volume 1g 1ml all the same thing, people can use scales if they have a small espresso cup and don't know what the volume looks like''


All the same thing as far as getting the output volume you want on a reasonable consistent basis. You can go by Volume or you can go by weight. they are two slightly different measures of course, but for all practical purposes, it doesn't matter. you will also stop the shot depending on the state of the pour at the time. I am not stupid and do understand that espresso weighs the same as water and that a given starting volume of water when heated, will weigh more assuming no more liquid added or lost from the system, it's a matter of simple physics.

*Why don't you tell me what the weight difference is between 25ml of water and 25ml of espresso (as I and the WBC define espresso), or anyone else for that matter*. Just to get you started though, it will be an awful lot less than 1g!


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

I dont think volume is a good measure for output, better to always go by weight for dialling in.

Didnt suggest that you were stupid, just that for other reading they might get the wrong impression.

''Why don't you tell me what the weight difference is between 25ml of water and 25ml of espresso''

Shall I include crema, or not?


----------



## Charliej (Feb 25, 2012)

Yes but a portion of the shot will be crema which can occupy a lot of volume in relation to its weight, a shot weighing 28g can be up to 1.5 oz in volume bean dependent obviously.


----------



## Charliej (Feb 25, 2012)

Bugger didnt mean to add the quote I hate tappatalk sometimes


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

There are too many variables - crema depth & TDS included


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

I see a lot of interpretation/discussion regarding what is/isn't a "correct/sensible/ideal" brew ratio for espresso...in reality, unless you are aiming for a specific concentration (%TDS - which most people do, to hit a preferred region) it's pretty arbitrary.

Lighter beans might fare better from a higher concentration, to bring up the flavour intensity (hence you often see ratios from 60% to 70% for light/medium SO), if your beans are suitably roasted & you can get a suitable fine grind, you may be looking more for 70-75%, higher than that can make a decent level of extraction difficult...but plenty of folk seem to have a taste for underextracted "ristretto", what they like is what they like, if they're happy that's what counts. Lighter roast/less soluble coffee/coarser grind may see you around 50%? From definitions by Illy/Sivetz you could even be looking more around 20-40% for more intense, darker roasts, at 'Normale' concentrations.

For most of espresso's history definitions seem to have been based on volume, with no clear distinction between units of ml/g/oz/fl oz. Back to the OP and using weight is more specific, repeatable & less open to ambiguity (due to crema). Your roaster would be the first port of call as to a typical ratio.


----------



## m4lcs67 (Mar 16, 2014)

Blimey. Wish I hadn't asked now;-)


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

m4lcs67 said:


> Blimey. Wish I hadn't asked now;-)


Ha ha, that's the nature of internet forum threads, they develop a life of their own...there's rarely "one" answer to any question







...erm, except when there is just one answer...


----------



## coffeechap (Apr 5, 2012)

there is never only one answer! at least not here


----------



## DavecUK (Aug 6, 2013)

Charliej said:


> Yes but a portion of the shot will be crema which can occupy a lot of volume in relation to its weight, a shot weighing 28g can be up to 1.5 oz in volume bean dependent obviously.


I quite clearly state that crema volume should not be used, when I quite the definition of an espresso. You don't include the crema...now get weighing guys and tell me what this massive difference is?


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

DavecUK said:


> I quite clearly state that crema volume should not be used, when I quite the definition of an espresso. You don't include the crema...now get weighing guys and tell me what this massive difference is?


WBC, INEI include crema. You can make a shot that's nearly all crema, but it varies, hence it is best (for consistency, especially when learning) to eliminate any ambiguity (volume v weight, crema v no crema).


----------



## DavecUK (Aug 6, 2013)

I still see no one providing this big weight difference (don't include crema), has no one tried it yet. Someone was very quick to point out how I was wrong and there was a weight difference inferring that the difference was significant enough to make my point invalid.



garydyke1 said:


> 1 ml of espresso does not weigh 1 gram


Please Gary, just show how wrong I am, do the measurement, lets see just how bad my point was....I'll be very interested in your results when you get home later. you Obviously think it's a significant point and it's important new users understand how significant.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

DavecUK said:


> I still see no one providing this big weight difference (don't include crema), has no one tried it yet.


I understand why you are suggesting not including crema (even though this is not typical for the volume approach), but is this practical? Crema weighs 'something', when it collapses into the beverage, the liquid will appear to have more volume. If we determine a 'typical settled volume' for crema, what are we to do, grab some vernier guages at each shot, measure it & factor it into volume equations? Isn't it simpler just to weigh?


----------



## froggystyle (Oct 30, 2013)

Wow, didnt realise this subject could have so much steam in it!


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

However there was 1mm crema , could not be bothered to wait for it to dissipate . My guess >28g

EDIT - its meant to be a 25ml scoop


----------



## coffeechap (Apr 5, 2012)

2 gram slightly more than a lot less than 1 gram then! over to you Dave


----------



## DavecUK (Aug 6, 2013)

MWJB said:


> I understand why you are suggesting not including crema (even though this is not typical for the volume approach), but is this practical? Crema weighs 'something', when it collapses into the beverage, the liquid will appear to have more volume. If we determine a 'typical settled volume' for crema, what are we to do, grab some vernier guages at each shot, measure it & factor it into volume equations? Isn't it simpler just to weigh?


Just extract the shot until the brown line is at the volume you want, please not the vernier guages....it's simpler to just forget about crema, just let it settle out normally. Also just to help you the normal crema on a shot has no real significant weight % in comparison to that of the liquid volume once It's settled like a guinnes. I am not talking about what method you should use to get shot "amount" volume or weight, my whole point was when I said the methods were to all intents and purposes interchangeable. When using an espresso cup where you didn't know how the the volume. should look. Someone implied it was invalid to expect 25g of liquid...to be essentially the same as 25ml of liquid - crema (after settling), under the same conditions.

Just wait 10 seconds or so to get a settled volume, if there is that much crema. If the crema is 3mm 5mm or 7mm it won't make a significant difference. People are slitting hairs with the argument, as if there will be some specific difference in weight vs volume...their won't be. 25g of espresso (as I defined it) will give you 25ml of liquid, the difference will not be significant.

*Just go weigh it...*

All the time, just obfuscation, the whole point of my post was these super ristretto shots that people push as if it's espresso Normale and it's not. It's a very very tight Ristretto and people need to understand that and by people, I mean those new to the forum getting the advice on how to make espresso..


----------



## coffeechap (Apr 5, 2012)

guess you should have waited a little while dave clearly the weight is not the same, wonder what the shot tasted like though, which is essentially ALL that matters.


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

coffeechap said:


> guess you should have waited a little while dave clearly the weight is not the same, wonder what the shot tasted like though, which is essentially ALL that matters.


I preferred the water.

The difference is 6% with this particular extraction/TDS. It wasn't particularly thick in mouthfeel. 20g into 31.9g


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

But 'ristretto', 'normale, 'lungo' are arbitrary terms (even the INEI definition is +/-20%)...they mean different things to different people, that's kind of the whole point, they shift with roast level, bean solubility, personal preference.

For a typical shot, say you hit a good extraction yield, +/-2g of beverage (Gary's example: liquid ml vs liquid weight) is all your leeway between under, ball-park & overextraction, crema is certainly enough to compound that further. That is significant.


----------



## DavecUK (Aug 6, 2013)

coffeechap said:


> guess you should have waited a little while dave clearly the weight is not the same, wonder what the shot tasted like though, which is essentially ALL that matters.


No, I really shouldn't bother posting in the first place and and leave it to you guys to help the new joiners....to much hassle in all this for me.


----------



## coffeechap (Apr 5, 2012)

Don't think that is the case Dave remember there is a lot of knowledge on here that will step in if they think there are inaccuracies in someone's post as you indeed do yourself, you challenged someone to check and they did! everyone has there own expertise and everyone has something to give. Is the diversity of this forum that makes it a great place to chat about coffee.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

What Coffeechap says, DavecUK we all appreciate your circumspect machine advice & technical knowledge, we're just rationalising why we do what we do...there's no intent to cause hassle, such is the nature of forums, we can't read tone into posts - if we were all in a big room, chewing the fat, we'd see we have more in common with each other, than not.


----------



## frasermade (Feb 26, 2014)

Wow. That was technical. I'm looking forward to using all these detailed discussions when I finally get a machine. Dave, its ok. The pixel peepers will always peep. Haters gonna hate. Wives gonna spend money.


----------



## Obnic (Jan 14, 2014)

ROFL. This discussion will help me get through this weekend's dinner party with my wife's inane friends (who it seems to me care only about the winner of the Voice) without scratching death threats into the underside of the table with my fingernails! The objective is elusive. The experience is subjective. The detail matters.


----------



## m4lcs67 (Mar 16, 2014)

And another thing while we are at it (not wishing to make things more complicated), Do you weigh your ground coffee in a small receptacle to get the quantity first then transfer it to the portafilter?


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

m4lcs67 said:


> And another thing while we are at it (not wishing to make things more complicated), Do you weigh your ground coffee in a small receptacle to get the quantity first then transfer it to the portafilter?


I weigh mine in the basket (after it's ground ) then put the basket in the PF .

i have ridge less baskets though


----------



## urbanbumpkin (Jan 30, 2013)

I weigh the beans before putting them in the hopper as I single dose. As I don't get a great deal of retention I dose straight into the basket that's already in the PF.


----------



## jeebsy (May 5, 2013)

urbanbumpkin said:


> I weigh the beans before putting them in the hopper as I single dose. As I don't get a great deal of retention I dose straight into the basket that's already in the PF.


What this man said.


----------



## DavecUK (Aug 6, 2013)

MWJB said:


> What Coffeechap says, DavecUK we all appreciate your circumspect machine advice & technical knowledge, we're just rationalising why we do what we do...there's no intent to cause hassle, such is the nature of forums, we can't read tone into posts - if we were all in a big room, chewing the fat, we'd see we have more in common with each other, than not.


The problem for me is, I have done all this stuff years ago, nearly 10 years ago. I wondered what the difference in weight was between the same volume of water vs espresso (forget the crema). I did tests and a little more accurate than the quick tests performed on here. I wanted to see what the difference was, not specifically for the reasons some of you do it today, but for other reasons. I had hoped to find out more about:


grind and fines in the cup

weight vs Volume, because it was a ballache putting espresso into new cups

Whether there was any mileage in the volume/weight of extraction solutes and non soluble material

how temperature and pressure affect this.


I had a list of things I wanted to find out and went about trying to do this, with the equipment I had. Unfortunately the results were not measurable on any meaningful basis with the equipment I had, or could borrow at the time. This is because the differences were minute and nowhere near the variance the forum poster has found. In fact they were so small, I could put it down to experimental error, as they were not statistically significant. What was clear though was that weighing the shot, gives you a consistent basis for the "volume" or amount of liquid in the shot. Allowing you to change other variables, or know whether your going too far one way or the other, for the desired outcome you are trying to achieve. What is cannot tell you...is when to stop the shot. It also can't tell you whether the shot was good, bad or can be improved. it's simply a broad brush marker.

Weighing the grind in the basket, container or portafilter is valid in terms of that specific coffee on that particular day...to getting consistency in your shots. Unfortunately specific extraction ratios, specific amounts to dose, don't work as a rule across coffees, it depends on the bean, the grind, the temperature and the roast level. Even the coffee crop changes year on year and we are presented with an ever moving target. However 10 years ago, all this taught me a very valuable lesson. Unless your in a competition, weighing everything all the time is simply difficult and not necessarily helpful. Once you know a specific coffee and how it grinds, with an untimed grinder, all of us can learn to consistently dose. For some coffees, height in the portafilter and depth of puck was more important than weight (because they don't all tamp down the same, weight for weight). Different coffees can also be better at different doses within a given portafilter, which can even change by grind. I also dislike the portafilter getting cold and want to get it back in the machine as fast as possible. I even leave my tamper on the machine so it's warm, speed is of the essence.

I experimented with leaving the portafilter in the machine for 30s or longer once it was filled with coffee (10 years ago), but this was difficult with HX machines, however it was easier with the Zaffiro (but the Zaffiro had terrible temperature control). However this is an area I am currently revisiting and have been testing for more than a year. Leaving the portafilter in the machine for 30s 1, 2, 3 minutes after filling with coffee/tamping and performing the extraction. to see what difference there is, it's something all of you could try as well. My friend sometimes wonders why it takes me so long...he doesn't realise he is a guinea pig and I always ask (how was the coffee) and record the result.

*A lot of what you guys talk about I tried 10 years ago or more.* To think I have a specific view about things is also wrong, I'm more than willing to experiment and do so all the time, but have been less than willing to share all those ideas, because some are way out there and others for future coffee machine designs. I was trying to persuade the many prosumer manufacturers to insulate boilers 8 years ago, met a lot of resistance (in forums as well!), but some manufacturers agreed, the rest followed...I don't need to try any more do I? That said in the UK the insulation of brew boilers is probably not optimum for certain technical reasons, where in the states it's useful due to their machines limited power draw.

This all leads to a warning...it's very easy get so wrapped up in the doing, that the seeing and the enjoyment suffers and leads to a poor product. Pilots fly planes into the ground because they believe everything the instruments tell them, People arrive at a destination in their car, without remembering the journey, sometimes a thing becomes so overshadowed by technical mumbo jumbo that we go backwards. I remember a friend with his hi fi, he spent more and more and more and more each year, until 15K had been reached....sadly there came a point where it was sounding worse and worse and worse!

The making of the coffee is important, watching the grind, the smells, the pour...we sometimes (and often), need to put the equipment aside, take the time to just see and taste. Not weigh, measure, photograph or obsess. Concentrate on the shot, let it run or stop it, stop it short or not..... I use equipment for experimentation, but nothing when making coffee....no scales, milk jugs, thermometers, stick on widgets. The only inspection I do is the beans going into the grinder and pull out any bad ones or stones etc..

My other obsession, drop the shower screen every 2-3 days and thoroughly clean the screen and the area behind it (dispersion disk) with a brush, sponge and washing up liquid...biggest improvement 90% of people will make in the taste of their coffee.

You are doing me a disservice if you think I pull all this stuff out of my backside for fun on forums, it does not feel like rationalising what you do, it and certainly tells me I'm not helping, just wasting my time. I learnt a lot in the last 10 years by asking why, I chose my latest grinder on the basis of advice of a person who owned both models I was considering. Anyone can "win" any forum argument with me on any subject, just keep on disagreeing and I will give up and wish you the best in your endeavour..even if I think its not right.


----------



## Charliej (Feb 25, 2012)

A question for Davec, Dave would you then in light of your discussed points in this thread prefer that we as an example dose 20g and instead of going with a 1.6 ratio and pulling 32g we should actually use a ratio of 3 times brew weight to achieve a double espresso of 60g? I think common practice these days is to denominate a single or a double espresso from the dry weight in the basket rather than going by traditional Italian standards of 30ml and 60ml, tbh I couldn't give a flying copulation about what the espresso I brew should be called as long as it's damn tasty.

I spent the afternoon in Manchester today and spent some agreeable time in 3 coffee chops, the small Caffeine and CO near the Royal Exchange, North Tea Power and Takk, I had some good chats with the baristas and none of them would consider pulling a shot weighing 60g or even 60ml in volume from a dose of 20 g(the WBC standard basket being the 20g VST). I think that the specialty coffee world has moved on from those Italian Espresso standards so I guess it could be argued that we are all drinking Ristrettos of one kind or another, or that either standards need a new definition or a new name for the drinks.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

Charliej said:


> I spent the afternoon in Manchester today and spent some agreeable time in 3 coffee chops, the small Caffeine and CO near the Royal Exchange, North Tea Power and Takk, I had some good chats with the baristas and none of them would consider pulling a shot weighing 60g or even 60ml in volume from a dose of 20 g(the WBC standard basket being the 20g VST). I think that the specialty coffee world has moved on from those Italian Espresso standards so I guess it could be argued that we are all drinking Ristrettos of one kind or another, or that either standards need a new definition or a new name for the drinks.


Hi Charlie, I know your post was aimed at Dave, but there are few thoughts knocking around my head on this..it's not so much that the world/WBC has moved on from the Italian standards (barista competition & INEI are actually pretty close, overlapping at 33.3%), it's more (as I see it, purely) that espresso coffee is now often made with higher grown, perhaps denser, lighter roasted (hence less soluble) beans...at the same concentrations as darker roasted blends the coffee may not pack the same punch, so folk are driven more concentrated & shorter. It's not so much about ethos, nor about style, more about the tools & ingredients effecting a change & moving with that change?

With an Italian style roast/blend longer shots may well be desirable. I mostly buy medium/lighter roasted coffees, but still drink all sorts, darker roasts get pretty pungent at higher concentrations, I can well see that if this is someone's preference, pulling shots as short as often mentioned here would seem odd.

VST baskets, a good point - they are designed to pull 3 lengths of shot all within a desired range of extraction 72.5%, 50% & 33% at a predetermined %TDS range at each ratio, without a change in grind. So it might not be typical to pull 60g from 20g, but there's nothing to stop anyone doing so.

The brew ratio is universal, 1.6:1 is always 1.6:1, if you prefer 3:1, 4:1, 5:1 (or a % ratio) it doesn't matter what that ratio, or preference is, but we know exactly what each other is talking about, it's just less ambiguous.


----------



## davetucker (Apr 7, 2014)

While perhaps slightly off-topic (but back to the fluid ounces)...

One thing that bamboozled me when making bottles for my little one was that there is actually a difference between the UK fl. oz and a US fl. oz.

According to Wikipedia:

UK (Imperial) fl. oz = 28.41ml

US fl. oz = 29.57ml

I guess it's worth bearing in mind when considering any values in fl. oz quoted by those coffee drinkers stateside.

It's a very small difference, but when we start getting scales involved every ml/g counts









Long live millilitres!


----------

