|
|
|
|
at Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:28:22 GMT in >,
wrote :
>Janet Puistonen > wrote:
>
>> But are they "truffles"? I'd say they are "chocolates." A truffle is
>> by definition a free-formed thing. I tend to think of molding two
>> demispheres then pressing them together as "cheating" <G>.
>
>If you go to the original concept of truffles, which was
>to mimic the look of the underground fungi, then any kind
>chocolate coating is not very truffle-like.
I have to agree. Personally, I think that the only chocolate that is really
a truffle as such is the one that is simply ganache rolled in cocoa. All
others I think *should* be called "chocolates".
But success of the word, applied to a wide variety of confections, has
eroded the term to the status of a generic. If another person refers to
some chocolate that isn't really a truffle in conversation, you only add
confusion by calling it something different, such as a chocolate. Indeed,
another part of the problem is distinguishing between *chocolates* (small,
bite-size confections made with chocolate) and *chocolate* (solid chocolate
mass composed of chocolate liquor, cocoa butter, sugar, and vanilla, and
possibly milk powder and a trace of soy lecithin). There's no generic term
that refers to chocolates in the singular. So I think a lot of people
adopted the term truffle to get around this problem. It's unfortunate that
they should have chosen a term that refers so instantly and recognisably to
a specific chocolate confection - after you've had a "real" chocolate
truffle even once, you immediately understand why it has the name.
Nonetheless, it's probably impossible to turn back the clock now and create
another generic term.
--
Alex Rast
(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)
|