"Alex Rast" > wrote in message
...
> at Sun, 07 Nov 2004 13:50:08 GMT in
> >, (JMF) wrote :
>
> That's a high ratio of butter and sugar in the recipe. IMHO, it's far too
> much if going for the classic Chocolate Decadence cake.
Ah, so it would fall into the general category of the decadence cake. That
makes sense.
> The sugars and the
> butter will melt, and that fluid mass is going to keep the cake from
> firming up until the eggs *really* cook. I think the end result would be
> rather weak in chocolate flavour, fudgy, and very, very sweet, in addition
> to the baking-time issues you've already mentioned.
Yes, it was quite sweet.
> Be aware furthermore that it's actually pretty safe to take out a
Chocolate
> Decadence long before it looks fully done. Even when the whole surface
> seems to quiver, and bubbles in the oven, it is often ready to take out
> (assuming enough time has passed that you're not dealing with something
> you've just put in). It will firm up nicely as it cools. Remember that all
> the ingredients other than eggs are solid at room temperature, and then
> you'll realise that once the internal temperature is high enough to cook
> the eggs, you can take out the cake safely, and, once cool, it will be
> solid. If it starts to look solid in the oven, especially in the center,
> you've probably overbaked because at that point the eggs have cooked to
> rubbery consistency and your decadence, while it will still taste OK, will
> have something of a gummy texture. The idea is to cook the eggs to the
> point where they'd be appropriate for custard.
Interesting! Now I get the idea of how the eggs are supposed to work in all
this. I don't remember the cake being particularly rubbery, although maybe
around the outside a bit.
> Also, virtually every recipe I've seen that calls for egg-stabilised
cooked
> fillings or centers or tortes seems to underestimate baking times
> drastically, at least IMHO. You can account for some of this time by what
> temperature your mix is at when it goes in the oven. If your mix is cool
> (e.g. refrigerator temperature) then it may take longer than the recipe
> suggests, if the recipe assumed the mix was at room temperature to begin
> with. I also suspect that recipes may be off in timing because they've
been
> designed and tested in professional kitchens with commercial baking ovens
> that are much larger and more solid than your typical home oven, thus
> having far higher heat capacity and therefore much less tendency to sag in
> temperature when the cake (or whatever else) goes in the oven or, for that
> matter, later on in the baking process (there's always heat leaking out
and
> the oven cycles - a commercial oven doesn't cycle as much because it
> doesn't lose heat as fast).
Also very interesting! Sure, that makes sense, too. So even if I had the
"right" temperature, it's still not the same as a professional oven
experience.
> So to summarise, you were dealing with a combination of factors. First was
> a recipe somewhat off in ratios. Second is the natural tendency of
> Chocolate Decadence to look impossibly underbaked when it's ready. Third
is
> the possibility the timing was a little on the low side anyway.
I'll certainly look out for the "seemingly undercooked" phenomenon, which I
wasn't explicitly aware of with respect to the decadence category - although
as I said, it was hopelessly liquid at 22 minutes.
> I recommend that you cut down *drastically* on the butter and sugar, and
> replace them with more chocolate. This will give a much better flavour and
> probably a better texture as well. I'd try as a starting point 400g
> chocolate, 125g butter, and 125 g sugar.
Great! makes perfect sense. I'll give it a try. Nice fit, too, with the size
of European butter sticks at exactly 125 g.
> While I might tweak the baking time upwards a bit, it wouldn't be extreme.
> 25 minutes should be OK, and by 30 minutes you'll almost certainly be
safe.
> The real test for chocolate baking is the smell. When the chocolatey smell
> hits its peak, and is really overwhelming, it's usually time to take it
out
> of the oven. Remember also that an underbaked chocolate decadence is
better
> than an overbaked one.
>
> >P.S. And what about trying it with Amedei Chuao? ;-)
>
> This would be the wrong choice because there is a chocolate that you MUST
> use for Chocolate Decadence-like cakes: Amedei Trinidad. (at least insofar
> as you're thinking of using an Amedei chocolate). Trinidad produces an
> incomparable Chocolate Decadence with the perfect flavour. Another
> excellent choice, if you're looking for options, is Michel Cluizel
Hacienda
> Concepcion.
>
> Amedei Chuao, for a Decadence-like cake, is too powerful, dark, and
> brooding. The result is a cake that has a heavy, overwhelming taste, like
> being smothered in black velvet. Those familiar with my tastes will know
> that I'm ultra-enthusiastic about Chuao but also that IMHO it isn't
> completely general-purpose: it works well in some applications but for
> others it overwhelms.
Also very interesting. I had understood your earlier remarks on Chuao to
mean that it would be right for this cake. But it's great to have these
suggestions, too.
Thanks,
John