On Feb 5, 8:45Â*am, Melba's Jammin' > wrote:
> In article >,
>
> Â*Goomba > wrote:
> > A ribbon slut wannabe I'm thinking.
>
> > Although unusual flavor combos, eh??
>
> >http://www.chow.com/blog/2010/02/thi...oler-than-you/
>
> :-)
> I always find it interesting that some people put a lot of stock in the
> absence of commercial fruit pectin in their concoctions. Â*I don't. Â*The
> recipes that do not include it, while they use less sugar, require a
> longer cook time which, to my taste, results in a "heavier" taste€¹I
> don't know how else to describe it. Â*And some fruits, when cooked
> without pectin, just get thick and sometimes gummy. Â* That's not really
> "jam" as I understand a commonly-acknowledged definition of the product.
>
> Â*I know a guy who looks upon popular American recipes for jams
> (typically requiring the addition of pectin) with extreme disdain.
> Tiresome. Â*He has a commercial, small-batch company and markets
> commercially. Â*I tasted one of his "jam" products and was quite
> underwhelmed. Â*"Sauce" would have been a more honest labeling of the
> product. Â*
>
> The interesting combinations are. . . . interesting. Â*:-)
>
> It's too bad that the Gedney jams are not distributed nationally; they
> really do make a fine product with three or four ingredients: Â*Fruit,
> sugar, pectin, citric acid. Â*And the pieces of fruit are actually
> identifiable! Â*
> --
> -Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJhttp://web.me.com/barbschaller;new entries posted 2-2-2010

"Must be jelly cause jam don't shake like that". Don't know why
that just popped into my head ;-)