I disagree. For 50$ you can get a basic second-hand espresso maker that produces decent servings. 10$ gets you a grinder. I've tasted espresso from all kinds of makers. Admittedly, some were noticeably better. Very rarely it was because of the machine. Mostly it was the beans. So save all that money and reinvest it in testing various beans, until you find some you like. What does a 500$ grinder even do?
> For 50$ you can get a basic second-hand espresso maker that produces decent servings.
i highly doubt you can get any espresso maker with $50 that produces the right pressure, consistently enough, and with evenly heat enough, to produce anything that someone would call espresso.
The secondhand, $10 hand grinder _might_ be good, but most hand grinders aren't good enough to grind fine for espresso.
The cheapest cost, real espresso is a manual press like the flair. These won't cost $50 secondhand.
> i highly doubt you can get any espresso maker with $50 that produces the right pressure, consistently enough, and with evenly heat enough, to produce anything that someone would call espresso.
I just did. I'll spare myself the snobbery in your remark and stand by mine. There's quite a bit of sophistry in how coffee is (subjectively) appreciated and my argument is based on one such observed fallacy.
As a traveler, I've noted that the problem of finding a good espresso is common among people who would call themselves aficionados. I've also observed such people who would normally look down at the entry-level Breville or DeLonghi machines, with similar arguments to yours, be perfectly content with the output of a Staresso or Nanopresso when traveling/camping, even if it's admittedly not on par with what their high-end machine usually produces at home. Now, forgive the subjective argument, but I'd say that the popular Breville Roma produces a noticeably better espresso than either the Staresso or Nanopresso. If you like the latter, you should also be able to somewhat enjoy the former.
Hop on Facebook Marketplace and I bet you could find a second-hand Roma for around 50$.
The roma and similar sub $100 espresso machines (I have a delonghi model in that category) use a pressurized basket and aren't really making espresso comparable to more expensive machines. Expensive machines have more powerful pumps and boilers that ensure a proper 15 bar of pressure delivered to the puck vs. the roma and similar pressurized basket machines have a valve in the bottom of the basket that forces the basket to build all the pressure. The end result is an inconsistent brew as pressurizing on the basket wreaks havoc on the puck. Basically these cheap machines are designed to give a lot of crema and a meh espresso shot.
I've had more success with my machine after removing the valve and depressurizing the basket, but then you start to run into the limitations of the boiler and pump not being up to the task. It's why I said you really need to spend about 500 on a brewer to get espresso comparable to what you get at a coffee shop. This isn't snobbery or whatever you want to say, it's just a simple fact pressurized basket brewers don't work the same way and are difficult to get consistently good results--they're designed to make a pretty looking brew.
for an electric machine, yes, this is the basic minimum, but not for a manual lever machine (i would expect brand new to cost less than $250, and second hand to be around $150 in good condition).
The most expensive part of espresso machine is the pump. If you for go that with a manual, lever espresso machine, you bring the cost down drastically. Ditto with grinder - a good manual grinder with good burrs capable of the fine grind for espresso can be had for around $100 bucks brand new.
Thanks for the detailed answer and insight. It opened up an interest in more closely comparing the shots one gets from machines in the different categories, to see how apart they really are.
