# Tamping technique.



## foundrycoffeeroasters.com

So, I'm curious. If all things are equal, i.e you are able to tamp perfectly level, with the same amount of pressure each time, is it best to go coarser with more tamping pressure or finer with less? I'm particularly interested in the rationale that sits behind people's opinions on this one. Also, I'm less interested in the impact on the barista for the sake of this particular discussion, purely wanting to explore what makes for the best distribution and extraction, and why.


----------



## foundrycoffeeroasters.com

I'll start us off by offering my opinion - I have no idea.


----------



## Mrboots2u

Depends on the grinder and its sweet point of particle distibution . With ek there is a point where finer > micro channeling - uneven distribution . I always try and leave grind on any of my brews as the thing i adjust to get balance .


----------



## foundrycoffeeroasters.com

Yeah, maybe staying away from the EK at this stage may help the discussion as the EK requires special treatment as far as nutating. So for a standard espresso grinder? Or is it different for a conic/flats.


----------



## Mrboots2u

foundrycoffeeroasters.com said:


> Yeah, maybe staying away from the EK at this stage may help the discussion as the EK requires special treatment as far as nutating. So for a standard espresso grinder? Or is it different for a conic/flats.


I have no idea


----------



## foundrycoffeeroasters.com

So, if you were using a Push tamper for example. You could set it so that it effectively tamped really hard, or really lightly. Is there a general consensus around which would be best?


----------



## foundrycoffeeroasters.com

Would a change in grind size be more or less 'effective' in changing the level of extraction if the grinds are packed in super tight for example?


----------



## Glenn

I tend to go finer and tamp lighter.

With a coarser grind and harder tamp there is more chance of a gap opening between particles and leading to channeling if it fractures.

That's my theory (and what I have found over the past 20 odd years)


----------



## Rhys

Grind fine, tamp light for me as well. Fingertip pressure on the shoulders of the tamper - usually so it's level with edge of the basket.


----------



## amansherg

I'm only new to the coffee world but from what I've read and understand I'd say go finer and tamp lighter - finer grinding gets better extraction on the whole right?

As most people will say here it's what's best in the cup so maybe try going a touch coarser with a harder tamp and then the other way and letting us know what you think tastes yummier









Be very intrigued to know what the outcome is


----------



## GCGlasgow

Just feels right to me to grind fine and tamp light...no science behind that at all.


----------



## jeebsy

Perger was advocating go a bit coarser and tamp the shit out it- coarser = more likelihood of even extraction*

*maybe. Can't remember for sure.


----------



## Jon

The last few days, since watching Doug of Orphan Espresso gently levelling his coffee bed with a tamper, I've been doing the same thing. And I think it's good. I've been totally unscientific about it and haven't blind tasted a brutally tamped one against a gently finessed one BUT the gentle finessing tastes no worse and leaves my wrist feeling far less abused


----------



## jeebsy

Did Boots or Gary **** not do some tests that showed there wasn't much difference in shots between pressures?


----------



## Jon

I actually noticed very little difference in time and output (at my current grind setting) between gently stroking it with a tamper and really tamping hard.

But I imagine Gary and Martin were more scientific!


----------



## Mrboots2u

jonc said:


> I actually noticed very little difference in time and output (at my current grind setting) between gently stroking it with a tamper and really tamping hard.
> 
> But I imagine Gary and Martin were more scientific!


The simple test i did was time to brew ratio ( no extractions measured ) - i used a hausgrind too i think


----------



## urbanbumpkin

jeebsy said:


> Perger was advocating go a bit coarser and tamp the shit out it- coarser = more likelihood of even extraction*
> 
> *maybe. Can't remember for sure.


I think you're right Jeeps. That's his current point of view on his coffee journey.

In fairness my views have changed along mine. I'm going through a Harder tamp phase from fine and light.

I'm sure I'll change my routine in a few weeks.


----------



## Jon

Mrboots2u said:


> The simple test i did was time to brew ratio ( no extractions measured ) - i used a hausgrind too i think


Sounds very complex.


----------



## risky

Don't remember the grind courser part but but Perger definitely says tamp hard for consistency. Push down until the coffee stops compressing. As soon as you start not tamping as hard as you can, you can't guarantee repeatability. He also says there is a point where you tamp hard enough that pushing harder will not compact the bed any more.


----------



## Mrboots2u

jonc said:


> Sounds very complex.


and it proved very little


----------



## urbanbumpkin

risky said:


> Don't remember the grind courser part but but Perger definitely says tamp hard for consistency. Push down until the coffee stops compressing. As soon as you start not tamping as hard as you can, you can't guarantee repeatability. He also says there is a point where you tamp hard enough that pushing harder will not compact the bed any more.


I think he was saying there's more repeatability tamping harder and there's not a great deal of difference between tamping at 30lb and tamping at Big Daddy Splash weight.


----------



## jeebsy

My Push is set to medium.


----------



## yardbent

Motta 58 convex in a Gaggia double

MBK 58.35 flat in a VST 18g

....canna taste any difference

i always tamp medium-firm on the unproven belief it will compress evenly and amalgamate any clumps into the puck

as i canna be fussed using needles, chopsticks, yoghurt pots, carbon fibre chutes, etc etc....


----------



## Thecatlinux

If you grind too fine and tamp too hard it'll choke.

If you grind to coarse and tamp too light it'll gush..

so , in answer to your question , somewhere in the middle of those two .


----------



## insatiableOne

risky said:


> Don't remember the grind courser part but but Perger definitely says tamp hard for consistency. Push down until the coffee stops compressing. As soon as you start not tamping as hard as you can, you can't guarantee repeatability. He also says there is a point where you tamp hard enough that pushing harder will not compact the bed any more.


I have seen video of that, but.. with those sentiments I might as well break out my commercial lemon press. At least carpal tunnel syndrome will be mitigated.

Have heard others claim, that no mater how hard or light you tamp only the top grounds are affected, the rest does not get affected much if any.

Having said that, I have found different for my lever from pump. As I also grind finer & just use the weight of my tamper for repeatability. But then again, I'm only some guy behind a keyboard not some pro-barista.


----------



## Spazbarista

Thecatlinux said:


> If you grind too fine and tamp too hard it'll choke.
> 
> If you grind to coarse and tamp too light it'll gush..
> 
> so , in answer to your question , somewhere in the middle of those two .


Which is worse? Choke or The Gush


----------



## foundrycoffeeroasters.com

Interesting. I can understand why people do the things they do in order to either try to promote consistency (ie as hard as you can or lining up the shoulder of your tamper with the top of the basket etc) or to preserve their wrists.

What I'm thinking more about it if there was no need to do either of those things. The Push tamper for example would allow you to consistently tamp level and at a pressure of your choosing. If you had one, what would you do? Grind fine and set the tamper to not put much pressure on or grind coarse and set the tamper to tamp harder?

Is there agreement about particle size consistency being better at finer or coarser settings on a typical grinder? Are all grinders different in that respect? Are different types of grinder (ie flats/conics)different in that respect? Presumably the best thing to do would be to (somehow) find out where your grinder produced the most consistently sized particles and use that grind setting, or as close to it as you could get whilst still getting good extractions. Then adjusting the tamp pressure (or other variables) to further help with the shot time, I.e to increase or decrease the contact time between the water and the coffee. Wouldn't this be a way to get the most even extraction?


----------



## insatiableOne

A simple explanation from World Barista Champion, Gwilym Davies.


----------



## MWJB

foundrycoffeeroasters.com said:


> Is there agreement about particle size consistency being better at finer or coarser settings on a typical grinder? Are all grinders different in that respect? Are different types of grinder (ie flats/conics)different in that respect? Presumably the best thing to do would be to (somehow) find out where your grinder produced the most consistently sized particles and use that grind setting, or as close to it as you could get whilst still getting good extractions. Then adjusting the tamp pressure (or other variables) to further help with the shot time, I.e to increase or decrease the contact time between the water and the coffee. Wouldn't this be a way to get the most even extraction?


Particle size consistency in terms of a high modal peak is better at coarser settings (for the same grinder), but coarser settings mean lower strength/higher brew ratios to hit a consistent EY. Plus the overall distribution gets wider as there are larger boulders. Shot time doesn't have the greatest impact on extraction, you can nutate, or tamp very hard to slow the shot but have this result in a lower extraction. How are you going to calibrate a tamp pressure accross staff, or even by yourself? The grind needs to not be so fine as to let EY drop & not so coarse as to let EY drop. The grind drives extraction more than shot time, so tamp consistently, but in a reasonable range (say 10-40lb) & let the grind do its job.


----------



## jeebsy

Does time increase TDS rather than extraction?


----------



## MWJB

jeebsy said:


> Does time increase TDS rather than extraction?


For a given brew ratio, both TDS & extraction increase in a linear fashion...but time, unless wildly out of the norm, is not a very good indicator of either. Grind & shot weight in conjunction with each other are the big drivers.


----------



## jeebsy

So a 20 in, 48 out shot that takes 26 secs will be both lower strength and lower EY then the same shot but in 30 secs?


----------



## MWJB

jeebsy said:


> So a 20 in, 48 out shot that takes 26 secs will be both lower strength and lower EY then the same shot but in 30 secs?


Well, you're talking there about a 28sec shot +/-2sec. Might not be enough difference in time to have a significant effect, assuming the 28sec shot is on target?


----------



## jeebsy

Suppose to make the shot take longer you need to go finer which will push up EY. I found that I prefer quicker shots with the EK (26ish) as once they started going over 30 secs they got a bit muddled and lost the clarity of flavour. Was trying to work out if this was because they were over, or TDS got too high etc. I should stop being so tight and refrac some espresso to find out really.


----------



## Mrboots2u

jeebsy said:


> Suppose to make the shot take longer you need to go finer which will push up EY. I found that I prefer quicker shots with the EK (26ish) as once they started going over 30 secs they got a bit muddled and lost the clarity of flavour. Was trying to work out if this was because they were over, or TDS got too high etc. I should stop being so tight and refrac some espresso to find out really.


or just dilute a couple and see if they clarity returns at a lower strength


----------



## MWJB

Finer only pushes up EY until it stops...then it can drop again and/or possibly make for less even extractions.

Look at it this way, 2sec/28sec = +/-7% in terms of time. But for a 20:48 shot, 7% in terms of weight is 45-51g, might be in this scenario the mass makes more difference than the time. If your target is 26sec, then +/-4sec is +/-15%, or 48g +/-7g...possibly enough for either parameter to make some difference...I'd still bet on the mass for the bigger effect.


----------



## foundrycoffeeroasters.com

MWJB said:


> How are you going to calibrate a tamp pressure accross staff, or even by yourself?


That's where the Push tamper example fits in. In terms of where to set the Push, I guess that's the crux of what I'm asking for views about - put more concisely than I have managed so far!


----------



## jeebsy

Mrboots2u said:


> or just dilute a couple and see if they clarity returns at a lower strength


And if it did, you could look at lower brew ratio?


----------



## unoll

Maybe wth the push tamper/great leveller the approach can be rethought and switched to considering average puck density and ignoring tamp pressure deviation. Think I'll do a bit of experimenting tonight by keeping tamp depth constant and only adjusting grind size. In theory, the average puck density remains the same but the surface area changes and the pressure I'm tamping at doesn't matter.


----------



## mazi

foundrycoffeeroasters.com said:


> If all things are equal, i.e you are able to tamp perfectly level, with the same amount of pressure each time, is it best to go coarser with more tamping pressure or finer with less?


And I want to add something. Maybe is important the burr type? For example from my experience with conic burrs I go fine and light tamp but on ek43 I go course and hard tamp.


----------



## MWJB

unoll said:


> Maybe wth the push tamper/great leveller the approach can be rethought and switched to considering average puck density and ignoring tamp pressure deviation. Think I'll do a bit of experimenting tonight by keeping tamp depth constant and only adjusting grind size. In theory, the average puck density remains the same but the surface area changes and the pressure I'm tamping at doesn't matter.


Is average puck density a key driver? What about porosity & permeability of the puck?


----------



## unoll

Maybe i didn't explain myself very well (as usual). The idea is that density is a constant that you can lock in and therefore you only have to worry about changes to grind size/setting i.e. porosity and permeability which I agree have a greater effect (I simplistically refered to these as surface area but agree this isn;t necessarilly correct on its own). By keeping density the same the theory is you elminate factors such as tamp pressure and headspace.


----------



## MarkyP

unoll said:


> Maybe i didn't explain myself very well (as usual). The idea is that density is a constant that you can lock in and therefore you only have to worry about changes to grind size/setting i.e. porosity and permeability which I agree have a greater effect (I simplistically refered to these as surface area but agree this isn;t necessarilly correct on its own). By keeping density the same the theory is you elminate factors such as tamp pressure and headspace.


but surely these aren't mutually exclusive?

As soon as you lower the grind size, the density would increase as you can pack more into the same space...

Edit: I know don't call me Shirley


----------



## Thecatlinux

Spazbarista said:


> Which is worse? Choke or The Gush


Judging by your avatar ...choke ??


----------



## unoll

MarkyP said:


> but surely these aren't mutually exclusive?
> 
> As soon as you lower the grind size, the density would increase as you can pack more into the same space...
> 
> Edit: I know don't call me Shirley


Not if dose is constant. The idea is that everything else remains constant apart from grind size.


----------



## MarkyP

unoll said:


> Not if dose is constant. The idea is that everything else remains constant apart from grind size.


I think that's what I'm trying to point out, you can't just vary grind size as that affects density as the same tamp pressure would mean a more compact puck and more head room

in the basket which affects extraction.

Or am I barking mad?


----------



## unoll

The type of tamper being discussed can be calibrated to give you a set headspace.


----------



## MarkyP

...and then less density?


----------



## unoll

Mass/volume = density. If the grams of coffee going in is the same and the volume of the compressed puck is the same then the average density is the same.


----------



## MarkyP

Right, I see...

You've just got more space between particles then?


----------



## unoll

Pretty much. I think the key is to find a depth which gives good consolidation of the puck for your different grinds. Just experimenting now.


----------



## foundrycoffeeroasters.com

It's good to see that there are more articulate people than me here, this is what I was trying to get at. If I ever get my hands on a Push, I would do some testing/comparison. Consistency is the thing id be looking for, do I get similar results more often that with usual tamping. Even then, I guess it would be difficult to draw any conclusions that were reliable for anything other than the grinder and coffee that you're using for the tests.


----------



## dsc

I was always a firm believer in light tamps, but I've done a full 180deg after a few super hard tamp tests yesterday. This is on an L1 lever.

T.


----------



## coffeechap

I am still a medium tamper, have never done the grind super fine tamp light, but I know it works for many


----------



## robashton

I'm surprised nobody seems to have linked this (That I was able to see)

http://socraticcoffee.com/2015/07/the-impact-of-tamping-pressure-on-espresso-extraction/

From my own tests, even my lightest most delicate tamp is over 5kg so easily falls within their test of "it makes no difference", furthermore Matt Perger (again reading the posts here saying he states to "tamp the crap out of it" is out of date, he's a light tamper now too).

I find that when I accidentally start tamping "too hard", I get massive variation in extraction because I'm the weakest link, just getting the tamper on and letting it do most of the work leads me with far more consistent results, this has less to do with tamping pressure per se and more to do with my ability to keep it flat whilst applying more tamping pressure.

Tamping pressure itself (apparently) makes no difference (at least to TDS, I'm sure there some arguments it might make a difference to flavour*) according to Socratic so I'd hazard a guess that most people's variation from tamping pressure comes from their ability to be consistent at any given pressure rather than the pressure itself.

I tamp gently, let the grind size do the work and dispute that tamping hard allows you to use a coarser grind.

---

*also I bet that some of the taste differences found are imagined as a consequence of tamping harder, I have to slap myself occasionally when I let my own preconceptions get in the way of tasting coffee)


----------



## jeebsy

robashton said:


> Matt Perger (again reading the posts here saying he states to "tamp the crap out of it" is out of date, he's a light tamper now too).


That barista hustle was October


----------



## robashton

Oh he's probably changed his mind three times since then - good point!

@jeebsy as you've actually got a tamper that lets you be consistent at various 'pressures', what difference have you noted? Is your choice arbitrary?


----------



## foundrycoffeeroasters.com

dsc said:


> I was always a firm believer in light tamps, but I've done a full 180deg after a few super hard tamp tests yesterday. This is on an L1 lever.
> 
> T.


Could you say something about why you changed what you're doing? What was the thinking behind it?


----------



## foundrycoffeeroasters.com

robashton said:


> I'm surprised nobody seems to have linked this (That I was able to see)
> 
> http://socraticcoffee.com/2015/07/the-impact-of-tamping-pressure-on-espresso-extraction/
> 
> From my own tests, even my lightest most delicate tamp is over 5kg so easily falls within their test of "it makes no difference", furthermore Matt Perger (again reading the posts here saying he states to "tamp the crap out of it" is out of date, he's a light tamper now too).
> 
> I find that when I accidentally start tamping "too hard", I get massive variation in extraction because I'm the weakest link, just getting the tamper on and letting it do most of the work leads me with far more consistent results, this has less to do with tamping pressure per se and more to do with my ability to keep it flat whilst applying more tamping pressure.
> 
> Tamping pressure itself (apparently) makes no difference (at least to TDS, I'm sure there some arguments it might make a difference to flavour*) according to Socratic so I'd hazard a guess that most people's variation from tamping pressure comes from their ability to be consistent at any given pressure rather than the pressure itself.
> 
> I tamp gently, let the grind size do the work and dispute that tamping hard allows you to use a coarser grind.
> 
> ---
> 
> *also I bet that some of the taste differences found are imagined as a consequence of tamping harder, I have to slap myself occasionally when I let my own preconceptions get in the way of tasting coffee)


Thanks for the link Rob. They only used tamping pressures between 5kg and 20kg though. 5kg still seems like a fairly hefty tamp to me, it's a shame they didn't go for a really light tamp. Still, I'm pretty happy to go with the 'makes no real difference' notion based in this.

In which case it is presumably not just about working out where your grinder is at its most consistent at all because of the need to manage the flow restriction element too (with the grind size). Hmm.


----------



## robashton

Have you tried doing a tamp less than 5kg?







(I find this 'weight' to be a weird way of doing thing as it's surely about the overall pressure over the surface area of the puck but..)

I got the scales out earlier and it really doesn't take much to go over!


----------



## foundrycoffeeroasters.com

robashton said:


> Have you tried doing a tamp less than 5kg?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (I find this 'weight' to be a weird way of doing thing as it's surely about the overall pressure over the surface area of the puck but..)
> 
> I got the scales out earlier and it really doesn't take much to go over!


Fair enough, no I haven't. I was just wondering about people saying that they use pretty much the weight of the tamper, maybe I'll have a go and see what it's like. The lack of rally strong ideas either way is making me think it probably doesn't really matter that much - so maybe even consistency isn't all that important either? (at least in terms of pressure).


----------



## MWJB

foundrycoffeeroasters.com said:


> Thanks for the link Rob. They only used tamping pressures between 5kg and 20kg though. 5kg still seems like a fairly hefty tamp to me, it's a shame they didn't go for a really light tamp. Still, I'm pretty happy to go with the 'makes no real difference' notion based in this.
> 
> In which case it is presumably not just about working out where your grinder is at its most consistent at all because of the need to manage the flow restriction element too (with the grind size). Hmm.


Socratic did try a "no tamp"...disaster & quickly abandoned.

I can easily overload my 5KG scales with a typical tamp, try it.

There is a paper knocking about where scientists evaluated permeability of coffee pucks at different grinds...http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0260877414004737


----------



## robashton

foundrycoffeeroasters.com said:


> so maybe even consistency isn't all that important either? (at least in terms of pressure).


That's where I'm at - I tamp light (probably around 5kg) because I know every time I start pushing harder I start inducing channeling and other defects because I can't do it evenly if I put any real effort into it. I stood there in typical Rob fashion and pulled around a dozen shots for me doing it soft vs doing it hard. Soft was pretty much on my target time and weight every time, and hard was above and below by five seconds because I'm crap at this.

It was with huge relief that I read the socratic stuff and realised that it wasn't that big a deal.


----------



## risky

Hrm, good that the socratic data supports it. I wonder if that's why Mr. Perger once again changed his tamp technique.

Is your channelling somehow related to the EK grind? I don't notice any channelling no matter how hard I tamp.

http://socraticcoffee.com/2015/08/comparing-the-impact-of-tamper-on-tds/ this is also an interesting read. About how your tamper doesn't make much difference either, unless you have a La Marzocco one for some reason.


----------



## robashton

Doubt it - you're probably just better at tamping than me - I always end up skewiff if I think about it too much


----------



## MWJB

risky said:


> http://socraticcoffee.com/2015/08/comparing-the-impact-of-tamper-on-tds/ this is also an interesting read. About how your tamper doesn't make much difference either, unless you have a La Marzocco one for some reason.


Not quite that simple I'm afraid. 3 of the 4 tampers were flat & oversized, or flat with a levelling mechanism, they don't seem to have radiussed edges (photos & descriptions aren't that clear). The La Marzocco was not a flat tamper, that's why its extractions were lower. The test seemed to be inspired by Kaminsky's claims about flat tampers vs curved & Perger's claim about the Pergtamp vs 58mm radiussed tampers. However, at the time Perger made claims about the Pergtamp neither the Bigstep, nor the Easytamp model used in the test actually existed. So, if you have a good fitting 58mm+ flat tamper, or the Easytamp, you are not likely to see a big difference. But there are lots of 58mm tampers with radiussed edges & none of these made it into the test.


----------



## dsc

foundrycoffeeroasters.com said:


> Could you say something about why you changed what you're doing? What was the thinking behind it?


Just to try it out, I was getting rather underextracted shots from light tamps and now it seems much better, you can smell it straight away, much less sourness in the smell alone and then the shots are more balanced. I'm guessing the light tamp wasn't securing edges well enough maybe? I used to have to have to either nutate slightly or simply press a bit harder around the edges to not get side channelling, now with the hard tamp I can tamp once, hard without paying attention to the edge and it starts evenly.

T.


----------



## Thecatlinux

I find getting a good distribution before any form of tamp is far more important . dOnt know why I spin the tamper either I've tried to get out of the habit of spinning the tamper before I remove it but I always seem to forget .

Medium pressure for me and when I do tamp hard I ask myself why am I trying to alter anything with tamping pressure when I could or should be altering outcome with the grind/dose ......dunno seems the more relaxed I am with preparation the easier it is , the more I over over egg or thing too much about it the harder things seem to get.

Therefore concluding , for me anyway K.I.S.S. Applies.

Great thread by the way.


----------



## dancing james

have to agree that distribution appears more important than the tamping pressure to me.

using a naked pf shows if distribution is poor or even, and in my experience tamping has much less impact than an uneven distribution. the pressure of the water coming from the machine will act to compress and tamp the puck of coffee. after distribution i tend to think of tamping as an act to compress the coffee enough so that as the pf is put into the machine the action won't create any channels in the puck.


----------



## "coffee 4/1"

as we are on tamping here, i can't quite make this out, my first time using a r-barber euro curve on mcal lever, producing some wonderful shots whether its a med/firm tamp or a hand stand, extraction time the same,

the outer edge of puck has risen to shower screen, there is a 10ml clearance to start with.


----------



## fluffles

I am also an absolute convert to basket prep. I've paid more attention to this recently and it makes a huge difference to the evenness (as viewed on a naked PF). Even if I get it almost flat and level pre-tamp, when you start to tamp you can quite easily feel that one side of the basket is denser than the other as you can feel it through the tamper. These shots are never as even as those where it is perfectly level and the tamper feels to be tamping evenly across the whole basket right from the start.

The only trouble is the time this takes. Basket tapping only works up to a point for me, it is never truly level. I still have to get in there with a pointy device to get it level right to the edge which takes 20 seconds or so.


----------



## hotmetal

I have no theoretical basis for this but in my (admittedly limited) experience I now do minimum prep - just a gentle tap/shake to reduce the height of the mound pre-tamp. Then I try to exert roughly the same pressure as always, release pressure and twist to polish. Usually that goes well, although sometimes it has led to 'doughnut extractions' (the middle of the basket is last to show droplets and may remain dry until halfway through). This is with a flat tamper, assuming the grind is on the finer side of 'right'. It happens less if I grind a tad coarser (i mean really a tiny bit coarser) but keep the tamp the same.

I discovered this ironically while trying to grind finer and tamp lighter - it seems to make it harder to tamp consistently when trying to tamp lighter. The result is a shot that takes longer due to fineness combined with a not-light-enough tamp. So now I've gone back to the pressure that seems embedded in my muscle memory, using the basket/tamper edges and puck resistance as a guide.

I may find that this changes now I have a convex Torr which is also heavier than my flat MBK. I could imagine the Torr's weight may be sufficient so I could use that as a standard and tighten up. An experiment for later.


----------



## Jon

I wondered about starting an Ultimate Distribution thread because this seems to be key - so I've started one with the following post:

"I wonder if OD grinders like the 75e are actually making me/us/some a bit lazy with distribution and exacerbating the situation.

My current work flow is stick portafilter on the holder and let it dump into the centre, then have a wee shake to even it all up - but is the act of letting it dump into the centre causing a more compressed centre?

Is this redeemable with the shake - I'm getting some good flavours at the moment but seeing some spritzing and ugly LOOKING extractions.

Any thoughts?"

http://coffeeforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=28286


----------



## Epic_Espresso

I would say set the grinder to allow for whichever tamp level you can achieve most regularly


----------



## scottgough

I tend to use a finer ground and a calibrated tamper http://espro.ca/tamper I'm sure the calibrations not perfect, but it's probably more consistent than my guesstimate would be!


----------



## AMCD300

Not sure if it is considered heresy on CFUK to link to another forum however I found myself reading this article while researching VST baskets. I found the latter part about leveling really interesting, especially where the author discusses how his old habits (tamping from a cone versus a flat fill) had a detrimental effect upon flow through straight VST baskets.

http://coffeegeek.com/opinions/markprince/04-29-2011


----------



## hotmetal

I don't think anyone will get upset if you link to other articles of interest. This is the only coffee site I'm on but I know some other members are on several. People's United Judean Espresso Front? Home Barista? TMC? Splitters!


----------

