I think the answer to "basket science or propaganda (malarkey)" is...Yes, both!

Certainly, there are those of us who have been doing this for a couple of decades...and many of us have tried just about every basket and screen on the market, numerous different distribution and grooming tools, etc...and while not really true science is going on in our home "lab", we've done innumerable taste tests and comparisons to determine what works best for us...and in this regard, I'd say there is "science" in basket, screen, puck building combination selection.

There are also beginners, as pointed out already, who are influenced by experienced enthusiasts to upgrade everything before they even learn how to pull their first drinkable shot...and for them, yes, it is definitely malarkey. They don't need the precision gear upgrade items, or even many of the puck building tools we all recommend. Sure, many of those make it easier and are nice to have, but needed? No! Heck, when I first learned, we were overdosing our baskets and sweeping the excess off with our finger, tamping, and pulling...and the coffee was certainly drinkable, if not good.

cafeIKE wrote: Precision baskets existed long before VST concocted their offering. VST baskets have a different shape from then typical tapered basket. The vertical wall results in a thinner cake, increasing flow. The IMS basket in the original post is more tapered than the LM and even more so than the Synesso, resulting in a thicker cake.

From my memory VST were the first to claim precision (2009-2010??), maybe there were precision offerings at that time but I believe Vince was the first to do a thorough QC with scanning and software.

My personal preference is for a tapered basket. I must admit the past month or so I have been using a VST in my LM Linea+Kafatek but if I am using a lever I will switch to a tapered basket like the EPNW HQ. For the Robot I deliberately went with a tapered basket, it makes life so much easier. There are currently 2 main basket companies in the world, IMS and another in China. The latter is who I use and they make most of the branded baskets mentioned here.

Many many years ago Dalla Corte would spend a lot of time discussing their 54mm baskets. Their argument was that almost all baskets say 58mm but with the taper they are more or less 53/54mm and that is what they thought made the ideal coffee. It was an interesting observation or just sales talk, but the lever crowd do love the small diameter baskets.

erik82 wrote:That being said for a Strega I would advice to buy the EPHQ baskets as soon as possible as they give so much better results without the fuss, but that's specific to that machine as it's kind of in it's own class.

1 parameter [Strega] out of how many that go into making great espresso? Turning around, I have an e61 and a drawer of baskets because the one certainty in espresso is there are none. Ditto Hi-Fi, HT and probably most other hobbies we OCD types enjoy.

emradguy wrote:there is "science" in basket, screen, puck building combination selection

Absolutely! IF used a scientific method to determine what matters.

RapidCoffee wrote:What does the first number refer to? Presumably something to do with hole size? And how does this relate to "precision"?

The first number is hole size. It has nothing to do with precision. Just FYI. We have 3 baskets of varying geometry and hole size. IMO, hole size other than holding the coffee in the basket has next to zero to do with shot quality.

A particle in a fine grind is, what, 300µm? The smallest hole size I have is 12,000µm.

Since we're quoting old topics Basket Wear Trivia from April 2008: "In an uncontrolled test wherein I randomly grab a new Synesso, a new LM, or the used Synesso, I can detect no difference by taste or performance."

RapidCoffee wrote:A decade ago, I participated in a study

Doncha just hate people that don't read the thread before posting?
I posted a link to the topic and quoted the findings...

I've never maintained the baskets aren't precision made, just the claims are suspect.

AND one size never fits all.

Paul_Pratt wrote:From my memory VST were the first to claim precision (2009-2010??), maybe there were precision offerings at that time but I believe Vince was the first to do a thorough QC with scanning and software.

My recollection of discussions on CoffeeGeek back then is that VST developed their basket in conjunction with LM, when LM was working on their Strada baskets. Andy Schecter was a tester for them and couldn't tell me the difference between the two. Looking at them side by side, it was really hard to tell them apart, except for the markings on the side. Of course, now, the Strada baskets have a different finish. However, I definitely find a difference between the two in the cup, and prefer the Strada. The shots give a smoother mouthfeel, and are slightly sweeter.

cafeIKE wrote:Doncha just hate people that don't read the thread before posting?
I posted a link to the topic and quoted the findings...

Sorry Ian, I missed that. Not the first time, and I'm sure it won't be the last.

But back atcha: a cursory glance at the decade-old plot that I reproduced, shows a clear difference between VST and "standard" baskets. Since then, several espresso machine manufacturers have started including rebranded "precision" baskets (defined as above: tighter tolerance on hole sizes) in their product line. Those that I've tested include Breville, Decent, and La Marzocco. The inexpensive EPHQ basket is also a precision basket. So it's not just VST and IMS any more. Like it or not, precision baskets have become mainstream.

cafeIKE wrote:The first number is hole size... A particle in a fine grind is, what, 300µm? The smallest hole size I have is 12,000µm.

Sorry but this doesn't seem right. 12000µm is 12mm, much too large. 12µm is much too small. Where did those numbers come from?

IIRC my measurements indicated basket hole diameters around 300-400µm, which makes much more sense.

0.012 inches is about 305 microns

Bingo!