|
|
|
|
"Alex Rast" > wrote in message
...
> at Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:32:17 GMT in
> >, (JMF) wrote :
>
> >
> >"Alex Rast" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >> at Sun, 07 Nov 2004 13:50:08 GMT in
> >> >, (JMF) wrote :
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> >One more question: suppose I were to use Lindt 85% (which I know you
> >have a lot of respect for, and I can get very easily) as the chocolate.
> >Would you still recommend the same proportions as above?
> >
> Not if you want to maintain the same flavour balance. If this were your
> objective, then the proper ratios would be 270g chocolate, 205g sugar, and
> 195 g butter. The cake will be somewhat softer (because more of the fat is
> as butter). If, OTOH, you're looking for higher chocolate intensity, then
> you could leave the ratios as is. In that case, the cake would be a little
> drier and more astringent (because of the lower sugar).
>
> However, Lindt's 85% is another excellent chocolate that I wouldn't
> recommend for Chocolate Decadence. It's got a very earthy flavour, and in
a
> decadence the result would be reminiscent of a mud cake. If you want to go
> with an 85%, for Chocolate Decadence by far the first choice would be
> Bernard Castelain Noir Extreme 85% - a perfect match. Another one that
> would work well is Cote D'Or Brut 86%.
>
> As a general rule, I will caution against considering a high rating I
might
> give to a chocolate as an endorsement of broad applicability. There are
> many chocolates that are excellent for eating but which in a baking
> application need careful consideration. It's easy to assume a chocolate
> good for eating will translate into a good baking chocolate, and while
> without doubt a good eating chocolate will make for a far better result
> than one that's genuinely bad eaten straight, once you reach the ranks of
> the good to excellent, it's much more subjective.
>
> I think perhaps I also have a tendency to use far too nuanced
descriptions.
> For instance, you took my earlier remark "Chuao works best with things
that
> are supposed to be intense, dense, and heavy..." as indicative of it being
> possibly suitable for Chocolate Decadence, only to have me respond "Amedei
> Chuao, for a Decadence-like cake, is too powerful, dark, and brooding."
The
> key word that differentiates the cases is "heavy". While Chocolate
> Decadence is undeniably intense and dense, the idea isn't that it's
> supposed to be heavy, in the sense that it sits in your stomach and gives
> you a warm, filled feeling. In fact, Chocolate Decadence is most
> appropriate for summer, when that's the last thing you want. What it's
> supposed to do is give you a strong "hit"- a powerful punch that may knock
> you out, but doesn't weigh you down. I think, therefore, Chuao is best for
> the truly heavy - brownies, steamed puddings, hot custards - where its
> power and weight really shine: a "winter" chocolate.
>
> The ones I've been recommending are what I'd call "summer" chocolates -
> ones that hit fast and sharply: a Karate master as opposed to a Sumo
> champion. Meanwhile, Lindt 85% is a "fall" chocolate, something mellow and
> with very long duration, that lingers without becoming oppressive. No
heavy
> punch here, but a long, drawn-out push. Finally, there are the "spring"
> chocolates, the ones that are light and fresh, exciting but which don't
hit
> you over the head. Chocolates like Domori Porcelana and Puertofino,
> Guittard Colombian, and Valrhona Araguani are exemplars of this type.
>
> However, such finely graded shades I suspect are lost on people, at least
> over the Net where there's only so much you can convey in words. I think
> that if I sat people down with a bunch of these chocolates side-by-side,
> it'd be easy to see what I was talking about but it's virtually an
> impossible task to do an unconfusing job in a posting.
Maybe so, but it's sure fun to read these posts and a lot more filters
through than you think. One thing is clear from it all, I'm going to have to
broaden my sources of chocolate.
Thanks,
John
|