I don't know if it's a grift but it is absurd
No one is arguing -- or at least I haven't seen it argued -- that a $200 basket, or a $100 distribution tool, or a super-expensive knock box make better coffee that the basic models.
There's just a certain subset of home espresso people who want fancier things, or prettier things, for reasons external to efficacy. How does it look on the counter when I'm not using it? How pleasant is it to hold? Does it tickle that "finely machined object" thing in my brain?
For example, lots of people use the Weiss Distribution Technique on their espresso grounds. Simply put, you stir the coffee in the portafilter using a tool with several fine needles on it to reduce clumping and more evenly distribute the grounds. This has been experimentally proven to produce improvements in the shot.
BUT, critically, it doesn't matter how expensive the tool is. The DIY crowd buys acupuncture needles on Amazon and sticks 'em into a wine cork, which costs almost nothing. That works every bit as well as a $150 fancy one with a hand-tooled wooden handle and matching base, and no one argues differently. It's just that some people value aesthetics enough to pony up for the fancy option.
they do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzmGNwyN0MI
most often it's followed up with 'diminishing returns'
you are otherwise correct about the aesthetic reasons. i have a very expensive Kafatek grinder but it's designed and manufactured locally to me (bellevue, WA). it's more like a utilitarian art piece, including Denis' logic to go above and beyond on manufacturing precision, which is artistic in a sense to me.
The question isn't whether it makes a marginally better espresso (it probably does); the question is whether it's the best bang for your buck.
For most people, it probably isn't.
For people who have Weber EG-1s on their coutertops (AFAICT, it was Weber with their Unifilter who started this wave of super-expensive baskets/portafilters?) and La Marzoccos / Decents? It might be!
(I prefer Hoffmann, and he definitely does the same thing -- ie, point out that some given object might be pretty, and it might do a fine job, but not enough of a BETTER job to justify its premium.)
Oh this is easy. - Starbucks, as an org, in whole. Brutal dishonesty in much of their marketing, naming, and Brewing methods. Their Coffee flavor is intended to distort your expectations of 'quality coffee'. - The "Roast Date" disappearance on high-end coffee to sell "Quality" rather than freshness. - Keurig's marketing of quality or that they can make 'Espresso' (it can't), their product is designed for lock-in. - Nespresso Vertuo's fake "Froth"
Nobody who cares enough about coffee to grind their own beans is fooled.
Again, not in the same realm.
The VAST majority of Americans are "Fooled" and would say "Starbucks" or "Nespresso" is "Luxury Coffee". I would argue that the coffee industry is where the Audiophile headphone industry was at around the mid 2000s (Monster Headphones, Beats, ETC) where the public was so fooled and only those who knew what good sound was like, knew it was way off.
I have yet to see any assertions in the coffee world that approach the sheer amount of overt dishonesty and grift that characterizes high-end audio.