Intro / Blah

I've been using a Pergtamp for the past several weeks, both at home and on bar. I'll just offer some quick thoughts here. Since it's "just a tamper," (cue the chorus of haters who all had plenty to say when this tamper came out) these will not be terribly in-depth, and I won't replicate Perger's refractometer results since my current refractometer only offers tenths of brix. (Soon I will use my HG One sale funds to buy a VST Lab Refractometer... muahahaha...) 

Aesthetics

It's beautiful. The wood has great grain. The base's steel is flawless. It's easily on par with the industry-standard Reg Barber. 

Feel

I really like the shape of the handle. It's quite large and supports my hand for an even tamp. Preferred tamper shape is immensely personal, and Perger will be offering Reg Barber bases to support those who prefer an option from RB. Of course, you can also buy an alternate handle from Pullman. Before I worked in coffee, I preferred a more minimal tamper handle and pressed with my fingers on the base. When you're producing hundreds of shots a day, that simply isn't viable if you don't want to suffer from horrendous workplace injuries.

Shot Quality

So here's what actually matters. The Pergtamp improves shot quality in two ways. First, you'll tend to tamp in a more level fashion. Now I know I used to think my tamp was perfect, and it was pretty good... but not perfect. Since the Pergtamp fits perfectly in your basket, it's very intuitive and easy to tamp perfectly level. In fact, it's pretty hard to screw up dramatically. Now if it had a flat tamper side (I mean from the tamping surface to the top of the base), it would be quite impossible to screw up. But in any case, it's great as-is. The second is that the Pergtamp actually seals the puck better. There are no grounds pushed up along the edge of the puck - a huge improvement vs. a 58.0 mm tamper and a substantial one vs. my previous 58.3 mm tamper. I'm not positive how much of an effect this has, but it's potentially beneficial. I am curious how much Perger's well-known and often-ridiculed findings are from reduced operator "error" vs. the actual tamping surface being more perfect. Visually, shots are cleaner, more even along the bottom of a naked portafilter. EK shots are less ugly (but still ugly). Shots tend to converge on a single stream more reliably and rapidly. Although I have never experienced much channeling due to careful distribution rituals, it's even rarer than it used to be. Taste-wise, shots are more consistent. Shots are not dramatically better at their peak, just reliably closer to their peak. A little bit of the randomness and unpredictability of espresso-making is removed... lovely.

Nutation

So I'll discuss nutation as a brief note, since I think it's a contentious topic. I don't nutate on bar. I wouldn’t nutate at home if I could slow flow from my EK without doing so. It's unnecessary if your grinder goes fine enough or is sufficiently non-modal. Nutation potentially causes uneven grounds distribution or uneven compacting of different segments of grounds. Perger himself has said that nutating at the WBC was essentially a hack to get shorter shots in longer shot times. I do nutate at home on my EK because of its inability to produce a normale-size espresso without nutation. Combined with reduced pump pressure on the CC1 (manometer on the way), I no longer feel a need for my HG One. If I were to buy an espresso grinder, it would be a flat, but I wouldn't do so unless I stumbled on to a very large sum of money, and that would just be to allow shorter shots (any shorter than approximately 40% or 1:2.5 by weight). With the EK, nutation, and reduced pump pressure, I can produce tasty espressos of brew-roasted (city or even slightly lighter) coffees. I will miss my old school ristrettos, but Linea has me covered in that regard. 

End