"Alex Rast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:at Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:27:09 GMT in <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] (Dee Randall) wrote :
Quoted message said:
"Alex Rast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:at Tue, 15 Nov 2005 17:14:12 GMT in <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] (Margaret Suran) wrote :
>Today when I went grocery shopping, I wanted to get a couple of
>packages of the Ghiradelli Double Chocolate chips. ... instead there
>were packages of "60% Cocoa Bittersweet Chocolate" chips ...
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:... they're the replacement for the Double Chocolate chips.
Ghirardelli has chosen to trade off improved flavour and mouthfeel for
poorer shape maintenance during baking.
<deletia>
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Is this an improvement? Depends on your POV.
--
Alex Rast
Perhaps with the national interest in chocolate in percentages is also a
reason to change the packaging.
Yeah, but you could have done that without changing the formulation.
Quoted message said:I checked out a book from the library
which I read much of last night, Alice Medrich, author, of "Bitter Sweet
.. Recipes and Tale from a Life in Chocolate." She gives recipes many
of which include the variations for the different percentages of
chocolate. I must admit it looks very persuasive, given her
creditentials.
Medrich is pretty good, overall. She has a very definite style, though.
She
isn't interested in following "classic" recipes per se, and so if you want
a solid grounding in basic technique following the tried-and-true methods,
it isn't the best choice. She has recipes for the same *end products* -
thus you'll see recipes for truffles, brownies, etc..., but these recipes
follow her own conventions.
What this means is that they're somewhat more difficult to tinker with.
One
of the nice things about basic classic recipes is that they give you a
nice
reference point from which to experiment.
I get the feeling, too, that she tends to "fall in love" with recipes
without ever really investigating if they could be better. That is, she
finds or gets a recipe that elicits a strong positive reaction from her,
and then simply reproduces it without really experimenting. This would be
consistent with what I said earlier. So I find her recipes to be a mixed-
bag of ones which are great and ones that are merely good.
I also wonder how much research she does. At least one recipe she
described
she described as an ultimate chocolate experience, without, it seems to
me,
ever noticing that all she'd done is end up recreating Rigo Jancsi in a
slightly modified form. (It must be said, btw, that Rigo Jancsi *is*
pretty
much the ultimate chocolate cake)
I know I've sounded somewhat negative here but actually I'm pretty
positive
about her work - it's mostly a case of that there are only so many ways to
say "great", "awesome" etc... and small nitpicks are much more
multifarious.
--
Alex Rast
Alex, you say,
That is, she
Quoted message said:finds or gets a recipe that elicits a strong positive reaction from her,
and then simply reproduces it without really experimenting.
Hmm, Alex, now I'm really confused. In most of her recipes in this book,
she has given a recipe - and this may be the point you are making - the
recipe she has given, I'm not sure if it is a 'tried and true recipe' in the
baking world, or not - then she gives variations in that recipe of it being
made with 62% choc, 70% choc, 99%, etc. That would appear that she has
experimented with the recipe. A big reasoning for her book is that she HAS
experimened with recipes, doesn't believe in cream, but prefers WATER to
bring out the taste of the chocolate, and this is a result of a lifetime of
work and experimentation. And then shows you what her experimentation with
different percentages can produce in the particular recipes (formulas) she
is giving.
I must admit that I was a bit alarmed when I read something to the effect
that she had given recipes 'somewhere' (books, newspapaers or what, I can't
recall) which she hadn't tried, and said it a bit cavalierly, IMO. Perhaps I
took her words wrong, but she was probably referring to her past
transgressions, I don't know.
The point of the book for me was that aaah! here is a book at last that
deals with a recipe using different percentages of chocolate and it's time
has come. However, I am not a chocolate recipe-book collector, so I don't
know, but I don't recall other recipes saying, "use this percentage of
chocolate, and if you change it to another percentage, deduct this amount of
...." etc.
I've got a bit of stored chocolate with percentages on them, and I'm wanting
to try a bit -- perhaps I should concentrate on how to make a good truffle,
chocolate sauce with it; basically this is what I was hoping for with her
book. I was a bit *astounded* - tee hee -- by the attention to the
percentages and her knowledge about it passed on to readers. This is the
sort of thing, that I feel that sometimes authors of cookbooks have maybe an
idea about, but don't for whatever reason let their readers know about.
Written to much, as you can see it's somewhat confusing -- just like the
subject of bread - I WANT SOME ANSWERS! Boo hoo.
Dee Dee