Grinding coffee for non-espresso brewing at home is a pain in the tits. Short of finding space and the budget for a shop grinder your choices are limited and there a lots of concessions. When the Mahlkonig Vario arrived it was lauded as a grinder which could deliver a quality filter grind, and an espresso grind and sing and dance and do everything in between. Its performance grinding for brewed coffee left an awful lot to be desired.

For the past few months, however, on a daily basis I have been brewing filter coffee with a Mahlkonig Vario. The results have been excellent. The difference, notably is that the stock ceramic burrs have been replaced by a set of steel burrs designed specifically to produce a coarse grind.

What are the effects of swapping these burrs:

• The grinder is rendered useless for espresso (one step from touching will produce a gusher).
• The grind rate is greatly decreased (to about 1g/s at a filter setting – the old burrs do faster than that at an espresso setting).
• The grinder is louder.
• The noise coupled with the extended grinding time is a minor annoyance in a domestic setting, and perhaps a major annoyance in a light commercial setting.
• The uniformity of the grind produced is comparable to some shop grinders.

This result suggests a few theories and questions.

Burr size is not necessarily the major determinant of grind uniformity. Perhaps small burrs are typically not good at filter grinding, because small burrs are typically not designed for filter grinding.

Why can some grinders not grind fine enough for espresso?

Is the speed reduction a factor in the output quality or a symptom? Does it suggest that the burr has to strike the coffee more times to achieve sufficient size reduction. Does this mean that the comminution is less explosive? … more controlled? Is there a relationship between burr size, grind rate and uniformity?

Even though the burrs are dramatically different looking, it is hard to elucidate the aspects of the burr desing responsible for these changes. The breaking teeth are shallower and there are many more of them. The cutting teeth are deeper and present a less angled face (they are closer to being on the radial axis). All edges are noticeably sharper to touch.

In any case, these burrs are not yet widely promoted, but they should be. Those in the business of selling Chemexes, Harios and the like to end users should want to offer these. The Vario is a solid grinder, and can with these make a very competent filter grinder. Even better perhaps would be a grinder using these burrs with fewer of the Vario’s bells and whistles, similar or better build quality and a somewhat lower price.

It would be nice if domestic grinder manufacturers defocused on espresso. Hopefully a critical mass of end users will emerge who understand the requirement for a better quality grind, to whom dusts and shards is unnaceptable. It requires enough users who don’t give a damn about espresso grind to create the market to drive these products.

I was going to start off this review with some bad vague allusions to the unfortunate naming of this espresso machine. I’m not sure about the rest of the world, certainly I expect Taiwan where the machine originates is clear, but “Gee”, here at least, is a pejorative term, a slang word usually referencing a specific part of female anatomy. I was going to say how I had become excited at the prospect of getting my hands on this Gee. How I was looking forward to playing with it, and tasting what came out of it.

All these things were actually true. Though the jokes would have been crass, my own internal hype monster had built this machine up as a significant step forward in consumer espresso machines. It was to deliver features usually only found in machines several times the price. It had received an endorsement of sorts from ex-La Marzocco engineer Bill Crossland, who was reported to be working with the Taiwanese manufacturer to rebadge the machine and sell it under his own Crossland Espresso Machine banner. It was to be the espresso machine for the masses.

The problem with this kind of hype, like we witnessed some time ago with the Mahlkonig / Baratza Vario, which was at the time likened to the next coming of Christ, is that failure to meet expectations leaves a rather sour taste (sometimes in the cup). Unlike the Vario, however, which hype-removed is a solid albeit unmessianic grinder, the Gee in its current incarnation carries too many shortcomings to be a relevant competitor, let alone a market leader.

My evaluation unit arrived about 2 months ago. While it closely resembles the form of a Gaggia Classic (very closely), certainly from pictures, it is  in person substantially larger, utilitarian, boxy. It has rough edges, pieces joining at sharp angles. While not ugly to me per se, at best, being kind you might describe it as plain. Nonetheless it easily fits under kitchen cabinets, and it’s footprint is neat enough to not dominate a modest kitchen counter-top.

Somewhat uniquely it comes with an adequate tamper. Granted the tamper is entirely plastic, but it fits the basket, and is pleasingly ergonomic to hold and use. It lacks the weight and most likely the durability of a “proper” tamper. However, I can certainly see how many people would find it good enough, and not feel the need to fork out $50+ on a custom one. While I didn’t know it at the time, this I would later find out would be one of my more positive findings.

There are bits of fit and finish that are a little worrying. The tube connecting the solenoid to the drip tray, only extends into the drip tray courtesy of half an inch of roughly cut silicone tubing. The steam knob is the cheapest of cheap plastic, and in fact fell off during the initial unboxing (happily slotting back on without too much trouble).

There is ample room on top for cups which I am always happy to use. However, I would hasten to call it a cup warmer as little heat is radiated from this surface, nor are there vents to allow boiler heat to rise up.  Having left a number of cups up there for several hours to an entire day the machine barely manages to take the chill out of the cups, let alone transfer any heat into them. Holding the cups between your thighs, or the thighs of a loved one if you prefer, would probably accomplish more.

The steam wand rotates only on one axis, similar to older models of the Rancilio Silvia. Not a big deal, and I found the available angles workable. Indeed the steam wand is reminiscent of the older style Silvia wand, replete with a tip that seems best designed to accumulate milk residue. You cannot simply wipe this with a damp cloth after steaming and expect it to produce a clean wand, no you really need to get in there, elbow grease. Even then in practice I found myself having to soak the tip in Cafiza every couple of days as gradually a build up persisted.

Steaming power is somewhat anaemic. Certainly it is slow. Preparing a 6-8oz milk drink can be done without much difficulty. With larger drinks, it can sometimes be difficult to maintain a consistent rolling motion when trying to texture the milk – but it can be done. Contrary to what is suggested on the Gee website, this is not a dual-boiler espresso machine, it has one boiler and one thermoblock, which cannot be run simultaneously. This translates to, in short, lacking the ability to pull a shot and steam milk simultaneously. So, like the Silvia, there is a delay waiting to steam milk. It is perhaps a slightly shorter delay than the Silvia, but it is a delay nonetheless. Coupled with the lack of steam power the machine falls down greatly in this area, where it had promised much.

The portafilter is of the 58mm variety, made of chromed brass. It is, however, a non-standard portafilter, no other 58mm portafilter (or a SCACE for that matter) I had in my possession would fit the grouphead (although any 58mm basket I tried fit fine).

Far more worryingly, however, is the rate at which the grouphead and portafilter heat up. That is to say they do not do so in any reasonable amount of time. Without any exaggeration, and without any external interference, it can take 2+ hours for the grouphead and portafilter to reach anything resembling an acceptable temperature.

For a machine in this market category, 30 mins would be the maximum acceptable amount of time, and even then it would be towards the long end.

So, although I have gauged the water exiting the grouphead to be consistent with the digital readout, because of the lack of heating of the group and portafilter the brew temperature is often dramatically lower. This not only caused brew problems, but also meant that I was frequently drinking espresso that was too cold, even for someone like me who abhors piping hot espresso.

If ever a machine needed an efficient cup warmer this was it.

Another concern is the stock portafilter basket. I found consistent results rather difficult to achieve with this basket. Crema was often thin and rapidly diminishing, and better results were achieved when using a third party basket. It might be worthwhile to have this basket analysed.

The digital setup works intuitively enough. Setting temperature, brew duration and “pre-infusion” are all very straightforward. The pre-infusion marketed here, however, is dissimilar from what we would traditionally understand as preinfusion, which is brewing under line pressure for a short period of time at the start of the brewing, before ramping up to brew pressure. Here the pump is engaged for a couple of seconds and then stopped before re-engaging for the full brew duration. I cannot determine if this has any benefits, I did not find it improved the quality of coffee produced, and found myself turning this function off.

There are a couple of other quirks to contend with. The PID does not appear to be tuned as well as one would hope. There is a consistent temperature fluctuation, which can get irritating. Every time the temperature drops below the set temp the machine beeps. When it recovers to its set temp it beeps. This can several times in a small number of minutes and can be very irritating. I was unable to find a way to turn this off.

The machine will not allow you to start a brew if the temperature has dropped below the set temp. It will, however, allow you to brew above the set temp. This can sometimes translate to having prepared the coffee puck, locking the portafilter in, only to find the temperature has dropped to 93C instead of your desired 94C. Instead of perhaps making the decision whether this 1 degree difference is acceptable or not, you must wait. On the other side, the temperature may have overshot to as much as 99C and you can brew with that temperature with no restrictions.

It would be unfair to completely pan this machine. It sets its sights high, and seems to accomplish much, such as accurate digital control of brew water temperature (and for that matter I found my unit to set to 9 bar out of the box). I have made plenty of tasty drinks with it. Sometimes I found myself having to cajole them out of it. The cold portafilter could be remedied by running lots of brew water through the portafilter (wasteful), or pulling a dummy shot and leaving the spent puck (also wasteful), or even once, as I found myself doing, boiling the kettle and sitting the portafilter in a jug of very hot water (tedious). All these machinations defeat the purpose of this machine, to offer push button control and consistency, to take away the little quirky tricks (temperature surfing) that are the bane of consumers in this market segment. Had it accomplished that, I could readily forgive build quality quibbles, superficial concerns. Sadly in this iteration it fails on many levels.

To the best of my knowledge, this machine, in this guise is currently for sale in Asia and Australia. Bill Crossland is still working with the engineers to bring it to the US, however, I understand that it will be a substantially upgraded model. For all the shortcomings I can see why Bill chose this machine and this company, not for what it is, but for what it can be.

For what we still hope it can be.

During some recent shenanigans at Marco HQ, Paul Stack (El Grande Uber himself) whipped out a bunch of these Xpress thingies. They’re made by a company called Smartcup, and the basic idea is that it is a disposable french press that is also your cup. The idea of a cup with a built in press isn’t all that new, but in a disposable form I guess it is. So instead of getting a cup of brewed coffee and taking that away, you would get a cup of brewing coffee and take that away. I would have a few concerns, but anyway, here’s what Paul thought.

I have spent hundreds, nay thousands of euros on coffee equipment. I did not start that way, however. My earliest coffee equipment purchases now seem trivial, but then as someone merely dipping their toe into something unknown, they seemed like sizable investments. It can be hard to get that epiphany, “I get it” coffee moment without the ability to grind to order. In a way the availability (or lack thereof) of a competent low priced grinder is a rate limiting step in the appreciation of speciality coffee, and the growing of that audience.

Marco, who have recently become the agent for Baratza’s line of home grinders (minus the Vario), asked me to take a look at the Maestro, Maestro Plus and Virtuoso grinders. These grinders, seemingly around for eternity stateside, have never fully appeared over here, in civilization. Sometimes certain models have appeared under the Swiss brand Solis – and I think the Starbuck’s Barista grinder is an ancestor of one of the current models.

I first evaluated all three grinders for filter brewing, then for espresso. Cup quality was really my primary interest, but also observations regarding usability and build quality were made.

After I had dialed in all three grinders to produce identical cups (in terms of strength and extraction), I noted a few things. Firstly, the numerical scales on all three grinders seem to have been calibrated quite uniformly. I found notch 18 on both the Maestro and Maestro+ got me to 19% extraction, while setting 20 was required on the Virtuoso. This I like, it feels reassuring in terms of quality control, but also perhaps if consistent in the broader sense of production runs, may prove useful in terms of giving people starting points for particular brews.

The Maestro and Maestro+, which share a burr set distinct from that of the Virtuoso, produced a cup that was head and shoulders above any other domestic grinder I have ever used. So much so, that I felt it necessary to cup them against my Tanzania. While they did not meet it’s standards in terms of clarity and separation of flavour, their cups were relatively untouched by the malignant hand of bitterness resulting from excessive fines. No such luck with the Virtuoso. It’s cup was closer to what I would expect from a home grinder.

Tables were turned when it came to the espresso section. At one step above burrs touching on the Maestro and Maestro+ I was unable to produce an acceptable espresso. The grinds produced insufficient resistance and the brew water gushed through. The Virtuoso, on the other hand had no such difficulties. The espresso produced seemed perfectly acceptable, rounded. Fine.

In terms of build quality the Maestro is very much the poor cousin. Just pick them up, it lacks the heft and solidity of the other two. This also translates into a somewhat worrying hopper wobble during grinding (although I can’t say it affected the cup). It also lacks the front mounted button for activating grinding. Surprisingly I did prefer this on the other two grinders, not because it did anything particularly amazing, but instead because the side switches were near uniformly cack (that’s a technical term). I don’t like analog timers, I cannot turn them the same amount each time with any accuracy, especially as the burrs start turning before you even release the switch (ie as soon as you start turning it). I don’t really get the point of them. I’d much prefer a simple on/off button.

Grind retention seemed very low (0.5g perhaps) across the board.

While I don’t have grind distribution profiles for the grinders, all signs point to one burrset (Maestro and Maestro+) that produces a unimodal  (one peak) distribution, and a second (Virtuoso) that produces a bimodal (two peak) distribution. Interestingly from the Baratza specs the Maestro and Maestro+ burrs are claimed to be German manufactured while the Virtuoso is Italian. You could perhaps draw a conclusion about traditional coffee drinking habits in those two countries and what they may have been trying to achieve in terms of burr manufacture (Baratza don’t have any role in the making of these burrs – they are “off the shelf” parts).

I would have no qualms recommending the Maestro or Maestro+. It will be my go-to recommendation for those looking to get on the better coffee bandwagon (that and a list of urls to Europe’s best roasters). If you are looking for something to also use for espresso, then forget the Maestro and plus. The Virtuoso would be a reasonable choice for that task, but that is a much more crowded sector. Though, at €150 cheaper than the Mahlkonig Vario, it might  very well prove quite popular.

The first units have just gone on sale through Coffee Angel (in very limited numbers). It is my understanding that another small number will pop up also through HasBean. Initial numbers will be low, but expect supply lines through these sellers and others to fill up by summer.

I’ve posted at some length previously regarding extraction, TDS, meters and all that. I daresay I may become typecast in the role of extraction curmudgeon. That said, the Extract Mojo software and refractometer have become as much a part of my coffee toolset as my grinder, or kettle. However, the economy of the meter and software has been the one area I have had some concern. Ideally, everyone could afford the package, and we could all move forward, industry and consumers, both understanding how to get to where we want to be. Job done. The price barrier has been formidable for all but the most devoted consumers, and even, I imagine, for plenty of small coffee shops and roasters. The path to widespread adoption has not looked to be a speedy one.

Last autumn, I had a number of really interesting conversations with Vince Fedele regarding extraction, TDS meters, conductivity vs refraction among other things. At this time I had the coffee meter. Shortly after, Vince asked if I would consider taking part as a beta-tester for his new iPhone based “universal refractometer” software. And here’s the kicker, it would not only perform a lot of the analysis functions of the Windows based software, it would also allow me to use my Coffee meter for measuring espresso TDS (or vice versa – had I the espresso meter).

This amazed me. It turns out the two meters have the same ability to measure refractive index, but due to limited memory on the meters, conversion tables for both espresso and coffee cannot be accomodated. What once was quite a big expense for 2 meters and the windows software, had instantly become a more reasonable single meter and iPhone app.

The basic premise is that instead of reading the TDS value from the meter, you switch to nD mode (nD = refractive index), and by inputting the nD and temp (also read by the meter) into MoJoToGo, you get the TDS. Similar to the original software, the TDS is combined with the coffee and water doses (or in the case of espresso – beverage weight) to get you to extraction %.

There are plenty of other functions that are interesting, like saving recipes, sending recipes via email, geotagging, not to mention extended usage into Brix territory (home brewing anyone?). It’s probably beyond the scope of this blog post to adequately discuss all the features, so instead I’ll point you towards the new home of all things MoJo… www.mojotogo.us.

I can sum up my feelings on MoJoToGo thusly; in the time I’ve had the app, I’ve only used the Windows version maybe twice. The iPhone app is always there, in my pocket, ready to go in a second.

This is a ropey video I threw together. Apologies in advance.

Stovetop espresso is no longer a misnomer.

Thanks to Colin for the loan. Didn’t mention on the video, but it tasted good, clean, no hints of burnt flavours that you might associate with a moka pot brew.

More info here, here and here.

This is a heady time for filter brewing. I don’t think at any time in recent memory has the discourse been as vibrant. Gold Cup, Extract Mojo, TDS, extraction percentage, are terms we are all hearing a lot more of in recent times. They are becoming a greater part of the general coffee lexicon. This is a good thing, I hope this momentum continues. This post is really a continuation of the thought process in my last post on the subject. This post specifically asks the question:

Why don’t we use powder-fine grind for brewing filter coffee?

Before I attempt to answer that, let me start by addressing why I think a powder-fine grind could be a good thing.

With current grinding technology fines are inevitable. At a coarse grind, fines will pretty much fully extract in the time it takes to get a desirable extraction out of the normal grind population. This creates those not so nice flavours discussed previously. The finer your normal population becomes, however, the two populations of grind sizes start to approach unity in terms of speed of extraction, to a point where theoretically you could approach a single peak, of fines.

A lot of consideration has gone into populations of coffee grinds, but a coffee grind as a single entity is also worth considering. It has depth, volume, surface area, all characteristics that effect how it is extracted. Upon brew the outer-most layer of coffee, the surface, will begin to immediately extract. This is true for all grind sizes. Below the surface, however, the layers will not begin to extract until the solvent (water) has permeabilised the outer layers.

We cannot, however, create a grind that is composed of either all exposed or all unexposed layers. The smaller our grinds become, the surface area to volume ratio approaches, but never reaches infinity. The coarser our grinds become the surface are to volume ratio approaches, but never reaches zero. Both scenarios offer routes to near as possible grinds composed of one type of layer vs the other. Of course we are restricted in how coarse we can brew, by bean size, and practical brew times, not to mention that our assumption that an outer though not surface layer of a grind is equaivalent to an inner layer is evidently false.

Fine grinds are far less limiting. The finer we grind, the more surface area is exposed. Theoretically we could reach a point where we are close to, though never arriving at, a population of grinds that are all surface area.

So in terms of even extraction, fine grinds in theory should be better.

Another consideration is of course that fine grinds will extract much more quickly, and I don’t think anyone has ever said, “That’s a great cup of coffee, if only I had to wait longer for it”.

So, why do we not use powder fine grind for filter coffee?

The short answer is that the finer you grind the harder it becomes to separate the insoluble matter from the brew.

Relatively coarse meshes like those on a french press, or swissgold filters, will allow too much insoluble matter through. With paper or cloth filters it merely becomes difficult to seperate the grinds from the brew sufficiently quickly to avoid overextraction.

With that in mind, I picked up a piece of laboratory glassware that I have fond memories of using in my undergraduate chemistry labs:

I’m not advocating this as a filter brewing method going forward, but I hope it might give some food for thought. I suspect the way we think about coffee grinding is too simple, there are too many broad strokes in how we describe it, and how we describe its influence on a brew. I don’t think brewed coffee is a finished product. While I like the French Press, drip filter and vac-pots, I hardly think they can be the pinnacle of technological advancements in coffee brewing. Who is going to fill the void left by Clover? Where is the 21st Century coffee brewer?

PS the coffee from the video had an extraction of 18.5% (measured with a cheapo TDS) and tasted mighty fine.

PPS yes I made a rookie mistake at the end of the vacuum period.

Abid Clever

I’m going to be honest here, though I’ve had long-standing love affairs with the French Press, and even the vac-pot, drip brewing is a more recent interest. Like the good sheep I am, I’ll admit it was sparked by Square Mile’s now famous/infamous Chemex videocast. They are dangerous videos to watch because they usually make me want to go buy some new toys. I’ve actually really enjoyed using the Chemex, and other drip cones, I still love the elegance of the Chemex, but to a certain degree I find all of these manual drip methods as much of an art as a science.

With all coffee brewing there are 5 basic things you want to control:

• Coffee Dose
• Coffee Grind Size
• Water Dose
• Water Temperature
• Contact Time

Ideally these 5 elements would be completely independent of each other. However, with manual drip, contact time is inversely proportional to coffee dose and coffee grind size, meaning one cannot alter one without altering the other. In practice this often meant I was bumping up the dose a little, or making the grind a little finer to push out the contact time to the desired amount. It’s a bit like stepped espresso grinders, having to alter the dose to compensate for jumps in grind size.

Of course pour rate and pour style also influence contact time (and of course turbulence and agitation), but all things being equal contact time is dependent on coffee dose and grind size. Most people would agree, I’m sure, that contact time and grind size should be directly rather than inversely proportional.

Brewing...

Enter the Abid Clever Coffee Dripper.

These are not easy to acquire in Europe / US (yet). After scouring the internet looking to buy one, I eventually succeeded in getting one when the manufacturer kindly sent me one (thanks Jessica). I already had the tea brewer from Abid, rebranded by a few different sellers, which Abid call the Miraculous Coffee & Tea maker. Despite the name it isn’t actually great for coffee, producing a very sludgy cup (great tea brewer though).

The premise of their brewers is simple enough, you have a vessel in which coffee/tea can be brewed. At the bottom of the vessel there is a valve attached to a platform. When the platform is down the valve is closed, when it is pushed up (by placing the brewer on top of a cup), the valve opens, allowing the brew to exit at the bottom.

Basically the valve stays closed unless you place it on top of a cup or jug or something similar – then it opens.

Draining...

The Clever differs from some of Abid’s other brewers being cone shaped, designed to accept a coffee filter (solving the sludge problem). Flat bottomed filters (eg Mellita) are the best fit, though I’ve found Chemex and Hario (paper and cloth) filters to work fine with the brewer. There is a small space under the filter, which is a slightly larger, though still a small space with the cone filters – no biggie. Well, there is one time when this becomes a little of an issue, if you are brewing more than one cup at one time, the liquid that fills this space tends to be weaker than the liquid that remains on the other side of the filter paper. By separating the brew into two cups, the first would get all of this portion. In this scenario it would be best to first empty into a preheated jug, before portioning into individual cups.

In practice I found myself using a coarse grind, much coarser than I would have dreamed of with a Chemex, with a somewhat high dose (80g / L) – though I don’t mean to prescribe on this. For a 4 minute brew you can allow to stand till about 3:15 – 3:25, then place on top of the cup. I like to submerge the grinds, however, after about 30-45 seconds. The grinds settle at the bottom of the cone and remain in contact with the brew water until the final moments. It does add about 30 seconds onto the drainage time for me (with my dose / grind size / brew volume). Fairly simple stuff, and by and large I’ve been very happy with the results. A super clean cup that is incredibly simple to prepare (and clean up after).

Underneath...

Probably worth noting that it’s also dishwasher and microwave safe, and while I can’t see much use for the latter, the former is a nice option to have.

Made a video of the Abid – this isn’t meant to prescribe a “definitive” technique for the brewer – it’s just how I have been using it.

As always – can be viewed in HD on Vimeo.com.

Abid Clever Coffee Dripper from The Other Black Stuff on Vimeo.

*Addendum 1* the drain time is of course dependent on your grind (and whether you submerge or not). With finer grinds I’ve experienced drain times of up to 2.5 mins.
*Addendum 2* looks like Sweet Maria’s are now selling the Abid – as you can see from the pics the one I was sent had Sweet Maria’s branding on it – so it’s little surprise.

I’m gonna keep this one short. I’ve seen the good and bad the Vario has to offer, and as much as anything, I’ve taken away from my observations that the biggest issue with the Vario is the hype that preceded its release. It’s a pretty good home grinder, better than pretty good for espresso in fact. However, in creating unrealistic expectations, the grinder is going to get shot down, and people will focus on what it doesn’t do instead of what it does.

I don’t like pointing the finger at specific people, and I have huge respect for Mark Prince and his site, which if truth be told, I have spent way too many hours reading, and have learned a great deal from. In a thread regarding his “First Look” at the Vario he commented:

“It is also, in my opinion, the best bang for the buck restaurant grinder, offering nearly as much consistency, a potentially better grind, and nearly 2/3rds the speed of a Ditting KF804 ($1200) grinder. In many areas, it beats the Ditting, offering digital timers, a collection aparatus (the grinds bin), and a better grind (my 100mm 1:1 macro which is nearly a 2:1 macro on a cropped camera body tells the tale).”

This was in stark contrast to my observations of lots of fines in the French Press / Filter range of things – unscientific observations (dust, sludge etc) – perhaps a camera isn’t the best way to gauge grind distribution. Over on the Über Project Blog, Paul Stack of Marco was discussing their efforts in analyzing grinder pairings for the Über Boiler. He posted this picture:

Vario Vs 805 Vs Guatemala

In comparing the grind profiles of the 805, Guatemala and Vario, I think it’s fairly evident that there is a marked difference between the Guatemala / 805 and the Vario. Taking 200 microns as an arbitrary point for delimiting fines vs desired grind, there is a little over twice the amount of fines comparing the Vario to the 805 (relative area under the curve measured in pixels). In percentages this equates to 6.8% of the area under the 805 curve is under 200 microns, while 15% of the Vario curve is in that region. The main peak is also more squat and spread, giving a wider range at the “desired” level. For what it’s worth the 805, as far as I can tell has the same burrs as the current 804, and an almost identical profile. Mark may of course have the older cast 804 burrset, whose performance I don’t know.

So this post is really for those out there, like me, who are looking for a filter/press/cupping grinder comparable to the big boys, that (a) will fit in a home setting, and (b) will not cost a small fortune. For now at least I can’t say that option exists.

*Can be watched in HD on Vimeo*

Mahlkönig Vario: Some Observations from The Other Black Stuff on Vimeo.