On Apr 11, 4:29 pm, "Pete C." > wrote:
> merryb wrote:
>
> > On Apr 11, 9:09 am, "maxine in ri" > wrote:
> > > Glancing at the NYT brownie recipes printed today,I noticed that the
> > > ratios of flour, and eggs are the same, but one uses bittersweet
> > > chocolate and 40% of the sugar than the other (also, it's brown, not
> > > white), and the latter uses a water bath to cool the brownies after
> > > baking, along with unsweetened chocolate and twice the butter..
>
> > > Why the rapid chill? Why does the other recipe call for buttering the
> > > pan, laying in parchment, and buttering the parchment also?
>
> > > No, I'm not going to post them. Go look for yourself.
>
> > >http://preview.tinyurl.com/3asf8k(newclassic brownies)
> > > andhttp://preview.tinyurl.com/2wqo8o(supernaturalbrownies)
>
> > > maxine in ri
> > That's one of the silliest things I've ever heard. There is no
> > advantage to cooling in a water bath. I guess it would speed it up,
> > but why bother!! That's what racks were invented for.
>
> Theoretically it might prevent the core from continuing to bake and
> therefore make for a more chewy-gooey brownie, something that could
> probably also be accomplished more easily with a shorter bake at a
> higher temp. In general though - silly.
>
> Pete C.

That's sort of what I was thinking, that it had to do with the way the
sugar cooled to make a textural difference, but then don't we have
something that's not really a brownie?<g>

maxine in ri