I wanted to know how much of what's coffee is extracted from the beans. There is lots written on this, I didn't feel it gave sufficient details and so I decided to have my own go at this. I thought I'd start with the same thing and go two different ways.
the coffee
Methodologies
Method one was to take the puck, weigh it first (in the basket/groupset tamped), extract the coffee and then dry it and weigh it after.
Method two was to take the coffee I'd made, then remove the water (drying it) and weigh the remainder.
I did both.
Baseline:
I thought I'd ask an AI for a summary of things (I mean its what they do and it was a simple question):
Which felt like two different answers (and probably was).
Method 1
I weighed the basket (the group head steel basket), then added my usual amount of coffee (my grinder has a memory and produces pretty similar deliveries of grinds), then weighed the combined (tamped) basket and coffee, subtracted the basket and had 17.93g of coffee grinds. (side note: I also use this to work out my ratio for making a flat white as I do)
I banged out the puck (biscuit) and put it in the oven in a plastic bowl (11.7g) for drying at about 47C.
I kept inspecting and weighing and breaking the puck up and stirring with a fork, until eventually it became nice and dry
Method 1 working
So ultimately I seemed to lose 1.8g from the puck. Interestingly this result gave about 1g of loss per 10g of coffee, as identified in the first AI answer.
Concerns
I was thinking while doing this (the iterative stirring, checking and replacing) that I had no idea when was "Dry" and what the actual state of the water content of the beans was before I ground them. Because I knew that would be about 3% and how would I know what the water content of my drying was?
This was vexing and so I decided to approach it from the other end: what could be found by removing the water from the espresso.
Method 2
This method was similar but less measurement intensive. I would pull a shot, into the above demitasse and then weight would tell me how much coffee I had to start with (57.3g) (from 17.45g of beans) which is a bit more than I pull into my mug (I don't weigh, I use volumetric on the mug and judge that by taste then use the time for a pull to make it a bit more consistent)
I soon saw that it would take too long to dry that coffee out, so I tipped it into a shallow small dish that would allow faster drying (because surface area to volume ratio) and put both the cup (with some tiny amount of coffee in it) and the saucer into the oven for drying. I dried till it looked like freshly applied paint (but didn't touch it); not moving around at all (as liquids do) when inspected.
this gave a different result 4.68g (interestingly similar to the second AI answer). However what I don't know is what amount of "fines" came through (to add to that mass of coffee) and how much of water may remain bound to those coffee remains (its very hard to remove the water from a solution).
Conclusions
So now I have two answers of my own making and in some ways have not got just one answer. Reflection on this has led me to wonder if the best approach is to repeat method 1, but add in a "control" where I have ground coffee of the same mass and only put one through the espresso extraction process ,but both through the oven. This would mean that I could track the weight of the "control" grinds against the espressed grinds. Any loss of weight of the control sample could then be further subtracted from the final weight of the espressed grinds and I'd have an answer.
I've been a keen coffee nut for some 40 years (so since I was young) and over time I've been through a few different methods of making coffee. Two methods have stuck:
Espresso
Pour over
I've had brief forays into Plunger (the fancy folk call it French press) and naturally when camping use the Pot Immersion (and sedimentation) style that was with us for centuries. In the workplace I've tried Nespresso pods but fallen back always onto a plastic V60 style of "on the cup" filter because its compatible with the office kitchen, its quick and I can pick the coffee beans I like. I first encountered these in Japan in the year 2001 and they were pretty common in the Hyaku-yen shops for about 100yen. However I always lamented the loss of the oils (absorbed by the paper, which could be tasted in plunger style) but favoured the clean taste without the inevitable grind "fines" that you get with a plunger (esp in the second cup).
I've read of filters which relied on fine metal mesh (even as early as the 1990's) but there were rare and expensive. However I recently discovered this stainless steel one from China (via Ali and eBay)
This has a fine metal mesh on the inside and has some holes in the steel to allow some sort of bypass on the outside, however in reality while some might make its way down the outside and into the cup it would seem that the water passes between the mesh and the steel ... dunno. The mesh is a fine weave that's for sure.
looking from the outside we can see through the holes in the steel to the size of the mesh. My phone has a pretty good microscope which shows this clearly.
Its amazingly fine.
So now I get excellent pour over which has almost no "fines" (or sludge) in the bottom of the cup, a great mouth feel and taste and has renewed my coffee drinking methods.
Price was also amazingly good at AU$12 (including postage), but even at $20 I would not hesitate.
Its surprisingly tolerant of grind size, so as long as its anything in the ballpark of "Supermarket" ground coffee (for those who grind their own, I go a bit coarser), but still I tested it today on my usual espresso grind and that worked quite well (although a bit slow) and still no fines!
Its win win and the only thing against it is that you need to spend a bit more time "washing it" than if you just pull out a paper and dump it. Filter papers are king for convenience there!
To be clear, watches can be tools or they can be adornments. If they are going to be adornments then they are jewellery. Nothing wrong with that if that's your thing. But I see a lot of hardlube freeKingWanging going on over on Reddit (yeah, what else would you expect right?)
Anyway, while back I bought the Casio F-91W, which is the embodiment of the following:
accurate
functional
rugged
feature laden (compared to an uncomplicated plain watch; it has day and date complication as well as chronograph, hourly chime and alarm, display in 12h or 24h times)
Compared to a Rolex like this:
The Casio
is more accurate (seconds per month not seconds per day)
is more rugged
has a day date (and the date is actually a perpetual unlike 90% of automatic watches)
has a chronograph
has an alarm
is lighter (mine weighs 27.3g including the strap the Rolex will be over 130g on the strap)
Without a doubt the Casio (cost $20) is a mere fraction of the cost of a Rolex and I'm unafraid to wear it when working on stuff (like my motorcycles or other things). I know a few old watch makers and they tell me that back in the 1970's workers (welders, mechanics, boiler makers, fishermen) would still buy a Rolex because it could withstand punishment. Now they are more like $10,000
Lets be honest here, do you see Rolex's on workers wrists to tell the time (or help time a task) or do you see them on finely dressed wankers who are trying to signal their wealth (either real or faked).
One of these is worn by a tool, the other is being worn as a tool.
The Quartz revolution nearly drove expensive mechanical watches extinct, indeed the Swiss were really unable to beat brands like Seiko, Orient and Casio and indeed were only able to survive (after some dreadful and laughable failures) by appealing to wankers with too much money who wanted to be special on their Yacht or in their Armani Suite who were buying Swiss mechanical watches for exclusivity.
So I put it to you that if you want a "tool watch" then you want a Casio, and probably one of these amazing little F-91W's
If you think that the influencers telling you that an IWC or an Omega, or a Rolex is really a "tool watch" then I'm afraid that the tool is wearing the watch.
I don't wear my little Casio all the time, as I have a couple of other watches (quartz and mechanical) which I enjoy wearing (sometimes for ornamentation, sometimes comfort, other times for functionality) but its only the Quartz watches that can sit in the watch box for weeks and come out and just be fine, indeed its only the Casio because its digital that nothing needs changing (you know, like the date).
BTW, I put the NATO on the Casio with but a little effort, I bought a $15 one (so yeah, nearly overcapitalised) because I just didn't really like the original straps. Fitting the NATO took a little fiddling but there's plenty of videos on YouTube about that. I initially put a strong crease in the strap and used a typical watch springbar tool to guide the pin when I was inserting it so as to guide the pin back into where it will click in.
Then when one side was in, I could lay it over and see exactly where the other side needed to be "creased" so that it would fit in and sit nicely.
Naturally I cut off the useless flap (which is only there for military watches which have fixed bars and the watch might slide off without that flap).
Straight up: this watch is in the upper tier of Chinese made watches and its good value for money. No matter what I say after this, if this is your first watch you'll be very pleased. If perhaps you've bought other watches then this may not compare well. Sure its well ahead of Pagani, but maybe not Sugess and Seestern (at similar prices).
So, as is my 'want' I've removed the (very nice but not my preference) black two part strap and fitted one of my well worn (comfortable) leather straps.
Classic style, stainless steel body, Seiko NH36 movment, screw down crown, sapphire crystal, for US$150 its a lot of watch for a little price.
The specs from the Baltany site (I'm not sponsored nor supported by them, so go look that up if you're keen) suggest:
Myself the combination of 2 years warranty and the simplicity of buying it through Baltany made the AliExpress possible saving barely worth it. So I bought direct.
The watch alone (no spring bars either) came to 71.6g on my scale, however with the straps I'm sure that's right (cos I checked).
While handling the watch without straps I noted that the watch feels sharp (not uncommon with low end Chinese watches). Meaning the edges feel like they are not properly finished (for human contact), or at the very least are finished without attention to detail. Instead they are just deburred and cleaned up after machining the (around 90degree edges of the case) so the nobody gets actually cut.
To show you what I mean, lets compare to my Seestern (thoughts on that hereand in that also a link to my earlier "review" of it) on the left.
The macro shots tell the difference between "hard and unfinished" edges on the Baltany (right hand side) and the rounding of corners on Seestern (left). This is most evident in the lugs, but its everywhere.
Comparison
Since its hard to look at something in isolation (we're always comparing things in our mind unconsciously) why not make it explicit and compare this to the Seestern (a watch I already own that's at a similar price point) which as you can see I also have. That they're both similar in size and are both "nod's" to another watch it makes sense to me.
Both are very similar at first glance and both whare a lot of commonality in specs (like weight) so lets look at that. I guess firstly I'll say that I prefer the nicer subtle crown guards of this version (over the homage of later model by Addiesdive (review)), and the actual crown does not protrude from the case as far as the Addiesdive does.
So the Seestern has the same movement but has a custom date wheel that is lumed. Movement: Seiko NH35A Automatic with custom made date wheel (lumed) Of course the Baltany is homaging a watch which has no date, so that's neither here nor there, but it does speak to the commitment that Seestern has put into the quality of this watch. Lug to Lug: 46.20 mm, 47.5mm Height: 13.5 mm, 13.8mm
So since this about the Baltany I'll couch everything in comparative terms to that. Both watches feel very similar on and I can't fault the Baltany or score more to the Seestern there, I do prefer the operation of the Baltany and the face (dial) of Baltany is easier to read than the Seestern because of its "dot dot dash" design language and much more clearly identifiable and easy to see hands.
The lack of bling on the dial of the Baltany makes it appealing, but somehow feels less "dimensional" to me than the Seestern. The matte black of the Baltany is indeed deep and helps the contrast but the applied markers and the nice anthracite sheen of the Seestern is worth mentioning.
Both watch cases are slightly smaller than the bezel, which makes grasping and turning the bezel easier
The Baltanys bezel is like a flat coin with the edge slightly protruding from the case side, while the Seestern (upper image) is more like a cylinder that fits within the case that has a machined bit that protrudes past it. I notice that it sure looks to be gathering gunk in there (and yet its barely been worn, unlike the Seestern. Perhaps even here you can see the differences in the finishing of the underside edge of the watch.
Viewed from above the Baltany AR is working better than the Seestern and the dial and hands of the Baltany are superior in readability
The case design is "different" but its a matter of taste
I copied the half of the Seestern dial, ran a contrast filter and over laid it onto the Baltany for making the subtle differences clearer..
We see that; the crown sticks out less (which the back of my hand made clear from the get go) and the actual visible area of the dial and bezel is the same, however the Seestern bezel is just that bit smaller than the Baltany .. this makes the watch feel more compact and combined with the better finishing the Seestern feels that bit more "premium" than the Baltany.
Speaking of premium, the Seestern has a very nice caseback which is "engraved" and shows the ocean, the Japanese heritage and the Starfish (which is what Seestern means in German)
A point worth noting here is the case of the Baltany is sharp where the strap fits. Its a bit tight and that case edge there is just as sharp as everwhere else, meaning that some of the straps you may fit will be scuffed badly by that edge. I have some nice leather NATO straps and you have to remove the spring bars to change the strap or the sharp edge will skin the polish off the strap in a straight line as you pull it through.
Not nice. At this point I prefer the design and level of finish of the Seestern but the operation feel of the Baltany ... dunno ... hard call depends if you're a bracelet only or rubber strap user. Ultimately I really can't abide the bad "finishing" of the product.
Note that Baltany has opted to go with "genuine" in the case back opening style, its Rolex. If you're doing to do any servicing (or even just regulating) the watch then the usual case back opener won't work on the Baltany.
The Lume
However the lume on the Baltany sucks because they decided to make it look like an aged vintage watch (with no other signs of wear and tear). Fellas this is for wankers. Perhaps the original when it was new had yellowed lume (I doubt it)
Its hard to represent with the camera what the eye sees, but I'll do my best to present the differences, please note that the Seestern was not running time
basically the lume became almost invisible to the camera by about an hour but I could still see both, its just that the Baltany was a lot dimmer.
This reflects what I know with the Seestern; that by 4am its still clearly visible while the Baltany isn't.
So if you you buy the Baltany its not a watch that has good lume (even though they propably spent a pretty penny on that).
A quick video tour to cap off this review....
Seeing something in a picture is not the same as holding it in your hand; but hopefully this video of the Baltany Submariner Homage helps.
These days I buy a watch to see if its how it seems. Its a beautiful watch, great value for money and met my expectations; its just I'm not sure if I like it or not.
The Box
OMG ... the box ... I can't forget the box. I have little doubt there are some out there someone has their favourite lubricant in hand waiting to hear about the box it came in ... I'd hate to disappoint.
So the box is actually a very nice presentation and provides over and above the box itsself a very nice little faux leather case for the watch (one can't just put it in the sock drawer, and of course one must pack it in this for flights to Jamacia (where naturally you'd be hoping to see a lovely Ursula Andress jogging along the beach towards you).
As well as this (and the usual paperwork and colour matched plastic card contained in that envelope) it also ships with a nice pair of tools. The usual spring bar tool (high quality with red 'safety' end covers) and a small jewellers screw driver (which perplexes me somewhat).
Conclusions
Well its odd, for while I prefer the feel of the bezel, the nice black of anodised aluminium over the shiny annoying reflection inducing polished ceramic bezel of the Seestern I've not yet taken to this watch. I lean towards the Seestern for its nicer appearance, better lume better finishing and little touches (like the crown and the caseback).
The more I wear it the less I like their faux aged lume because it jars with pristine reality of a new watch, nothing else looks aged and so it ends up just making the watch harder to read in lower contrast light and have crap lume to boot.
