I've been on a hunt for a rich, moist chocolate cake recipe. At
various restaurants, I've had rich, dark, moist cakes, but the closest
home version I can find is a Duncan Hines devils' food cake.

Does anyone have a from-scratch recipe? Or at least a guide for what
to look for in a chocolate cake recipe (i.e. cocoa vs chocolate,
presence/absence of things like sour cream, etc)?

I've tried a couple of cakes (chocolate pound cake, and the basic
chocolate cake recipe) in The Cake Bible, and they came out drier,
with a paler color than I would have liked. (As a side note, if you
accidentally melt the butter by adding the water/cocoa poweder mixture
while it's still hot in the basic cake recipe, it makes decent
brownies....).

Last week for Thanksgiving, I made a cake called "rich chocolate cake"
from a bargain cookbook that was ok, but certainly not rich. Instead
of cocoa powder, it called for bittersweet chocolate, and used brown
sugar instead of regular. The color was extremely light, and the
chocolate taste only so-so.

Thanks for any hints!
--Elit.

Elitsirk wrote:

>I've been on a hunt for a rich, moist chocolate cake recipe. At
>various restaurants, I've had rich, dark, moist cakes, but the closest
>home version I can find is a Duncan Hines devils' food cake.
>

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D REZKONV-Rezept - RezkonvSuite v0.96f

Titel: Chocolate "Mont Blanc" cake
Kategorien: Cake, Chocolate
Menge: 1 Rezept

250 Gramm Dark chocolate
100 Gramm Sugar
100 Gramm Unsalted butter, pieces
75 Gramm Plain flour
4 Eggs, separated
2 tablesp. Liquid to flavour *

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D QUELLE =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
-Erfasst *RK* 10.10.02 von
-H.W. Hans Kuntze, CMC

Melt chocolate with liquid in bowl over hot water. Add butter and
stir until melted in. Beat in sugar and egg yolks, then add flour.

Fold in stiffly beaten eggwhites. Pour into greased and floured tin.

Bake for about 40 minutes in oven at 180 degrees, until skewer comes
out clean. Watch for burning; chocolate burns horribly.

Note: this cake is called "Mont Blanc" because it's meant to be
cooked in a kugelhopf mould, and then the centre hole filled with a
mound of cream before serving, so that it resembles a snow covered
mountain. It's very nice this way!

*coffee, liqueur, brandy work well. You must use water if nothing
else!

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D


--=20
Sincerly,

C=3D=A6-)=A7 H. W. Hans Kuntze, CMC, S.g.K. (_o_)
http://www.cmcchef.com , chef<AT>cmcchef.com
"Don't cry because it's over, Smile because it Happened"
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/=20

Nothing ever has enough of a chocolate taste to me, so

I bought some Star Kay White's chocolate extract and used it as an addition
to brownies, using their advice "It is used to enrich, fortify and enhance
chocolate flavored food products." But when I added a teaspoon to a pan of
brownies, the brownie had a chemical taste. Perhaps I should have left out
the vanilla in the recipe -- maybe I did leave it out, I don't remember now
and can't locate the recipe.



Wanting myself a rich moist chocolate cake like Duncan-Hines devils' food
cake recipe, I would be tempted to add this chocolate extract, but I think
it would take more than this extract to make the taste-alike Duncan Hines
devils food cake.



Some might ask if one likes the Duncan Hines mix so well why not use it?

My Answer: I try not to use any product that has hydrogenated oils,
vegetable shortening, vegetable oils, etc. in it. Although I have used
products that do contain it, I would prefer not to use them on a consistent
basis. And I like the process of "trying" to bake a good product.



As an aside, since I bought some "Green and Black" organic hot chocolate mix
over the holidays, even it is NOT chocolaty enough for me, and I'm tempted
to add some of the chocolate extract to it.



Does anyone use "chocolate extract" often or have a track record with it - I
'd be glad to hear any experience.



Thanks,

Dee

"Elitsirk" > wrote in message
om...
> I've been on a hunt for a rich, moist chocolate cake recipe. At
> various restaurants, I've had rich, dark, moist cakes, but the closest
> home version I can find is a Duncan Hines devils' food cake.
>
> Does anyone have a from-scratch recipe? Or at least a guide for what
> to look for in a chocolate cake recipe (i.e. cocoa vs chocolate,
> presence/absence of things like sour cream, etc)?
>
> I've tried a couple of cakes (chocolate pound cake, and the basic
> chocolate cake recipe) in The Cake Bible, and they came out drier,
> with a paler color than I would have liked. (As a side note, if you
> accidentally melt the butter by adding the water/cocoa poweder mixture
> while it's still hot in the basic cake recipe, it makes decent
> brownies....).
>
> Last week for Thanksgiving, I made a cake called "rich chocolate cake"
> from a bargain cookbook that was ok, but certainly not rich. Instead
> of cocoa powder, it called for bittersweet chocolate, and used brown
> sugar instead of regular. The color was extremely light, and the
> chocolate taste only so-so.
>
> Thanks for any hints!
> --Elit.

Dee Randall wrote:

>Nothing ever has enough of a chocolate taste to me, so
>[...]
>
>
>Does anyone use "chocolate extract" often or have a track record with it=
- I
>'d be glad to hear any experience.
>
http://www.saffron.com/
But their Extract page is hard to find and is at.
http://www.theposter.com/extracts2.html

The brand is Golden Gate and i've been using them for years, excellent.=20
Shipping is free.
The extracts are extremely potent, use in moderation, especially the=20
butter pecan for Toll-House cookies.
IMHO much-much better than Pennzy's f.i. or the junk you find in=20
supermarkets.

BTW, their persian saffron is great too, best quality.

Although on Vanilla I use "La Vencadora" (hard to get, try Ebay)=20
straight from Mexico.
Some of the mexican vanilla is no good, "La Vencadora" is excellent.

--=20
Sincerly,

C=3D=A6-)=A7 H. W. Hans Kuntze, CMC, S.g.K. (_o_)
http://www.cmcchef.com , chef<AT>cmcchef.com
"Don't cry because it's over, Smile because it Happened"
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/=20

at Wed, 03 Dec 2003 21:52:56 GMT in
>,
(Elitsirk) wrote :

>I've been on a hunt for a rich, moist chocolate cake recipe. At
>various restaurants, I've had rich, dark, moist cakes, but the closest
>home version I can find is a Duncan Hines devils' food cake.
>
>Does anyone have a from-scratch recipe?

This recipe is for the cake portion of "Chocolate Death", my ultimate
chocolate cake recipe that I posted some time back. It's hard to go wrong
with this one.

Chocolate cake

8 oz. 70%-type bittersweet chocolate (Guittard Bittersweet recommended)
1 cup sugar
2/3 cup flour
8 tbsp butter
4 eggs
1/3 cup water

Preheat the oven to 350F. Thoroughly grease and flour a 9" cake pan.
Separate the eggs into yolks and whites. Cut up the butter
and allow to soften a bit. Bring the water to a simmer, and in it melt the
chocolate over low heat (that's right - *in* the water). Remove from the
heat and stir in the egg yolks one at a time. Add the sugar and butter
and mix well. Once everything has melted, stir in the flour. Whip the egg
whites into stiff peaks and fold in. Pour into the prepared pan and bake at
350F for 45-50 minutes, testing carefully to avoid scorching. Remove and
cool.

>Or at least a guide for what
>to look for in a chocolate cake recipe (i.e. cocoa vs chocolate,
>presence/absence of things like sour cream, etc)?

Now, let me give a bit of a guide on identifying what to look for. I can
use the recipe above for examples.

The most important thing to bear in mind is that it's not a question of
which ingredients are in a recipe, or even how much of a main ingredient
there is, but rather of proportions and method. As a result, you have to
look at the relative amounts of ingredients instead of the absolute
amounts. This takes some experience and practice. It helps to have an
awareness of what different ingredients do, and in what direction they lean
a recipe.

Flour lends structure, while weakening the overall intensity of flavour and
drying out the result. Low-protein flour (pastry flour) will make a cake
considerably lighter and drier. High-protein flour will make it denser and
moister, and also more sturdy.

Sugar also contributes to structure, and will make the cake somewhat
chewier and more springy. It tends to lean a cake away from the crumbly
side and towards the gummy side. Obviously, it makes it sweeter. Brown
sugar will make a cake moister and deeper in flavour, and the darker the
sugar the stronger this effect. Liquid sugars will make for a very smooth
texture. You have to be careful with honey because enzyme reactions can
destroy the texture altogether - a real mess! The key point with honey is
not to overdo it.

Butter makes a cake denser and richer, as well as browning the outside.
It's key also to keeping a cake moist.

Vegetable shortening (e.g. Crisco) makes a cake much lighter and airier.
Cakes made with shortening almost never taste as rich as those made with
butter, and there's often a bit of a strange pastiness to them.

Liquid oils make a cake very tender indeed, and generally quite light. Some
oils (olive, hazelnut, sesame) have very strong flavours which you must use
with caution.

Eggs will make a cake lighter and puffier. Too few, however, and your cake
turns towards brownie, and ultimately to cookie. Yolks alone will make a
cake somewhat richer and more silken, whites alone will make a cake very
light and springy.

Chocolate makes a cake much denser and generally drier. It also makes the
texture smooth and silken. Cocoa, OTOH, will always make a cake drier and
crumblier, as well as lighter. Clearly, both will add intensity of flavour.
There are many variables here. Sweetened chocolate will add flavour in
proportion to its cocoa percentage - high-percentage chocolates at 70% will
add a lot of flavour, low-percentage at 50% will contribute much less.
Cocoa adds a lot of flavour whack for little addition, but will give a
harsher taste relative to chocolate and the cake will always taste of
cocoa, not chocolate. "Dutch-processed" cocoa, as well as chocolate, will
make any cake much darker, almost black, but paradoxically with a milder
flavour and a characteristic metallic twang. It's crucial to use the best
quality chocolate or cocoa you can find. Much "baking chocolate" - the
blocks that Bakers', Hershey's, and Nestle sell, is worthless and you
shouldn't use them at all. Don't believe that a good recipe will hide a bad
chocolate - it's rather the reverse: a bad chocolate can spoil a good
recipe. Better to get a quality brand like Ghirardelli, Callebaut, or
Guittard. Finally, chocolate chips will almost always make a cake drier and
leaning towards a cocoa texture, but without the powerful flavour cocoa
provides; rather, the flavour will be mild.

Most of the "white dairy" products, e.g. milk, cream, sour cream, etc. make
a cake very tender. Sometimes the acid in the cultured members such as
buttermilk, sour cream, and yogurt is necessary to react with leavening
agents like baking soda.

Cakes that use chemical leavening such as baking soda or baking powder will
be generally somewhat light, but rarely as light as those that use air-
leavening (generally, from beaten egg whites), which can be very light
indeed, if the volume of egg white is large. If there's neither beaten egg
white nor any kind of chemical leavening, the resulting cake will be very
dense (e.g. pound cake).

Now, on to method. As I just said, if a recipe calls for beaten egg whites,
it's usually going to be quite light. However, to some degree, this depends
on how much egg white there is. Really large volumes of egg white almost
always signal a very light, airy cake, but small volumes (such as, for
instance, 3 egg whites for 2 cups of flour) don't necessarily indicate
this. If the recipe calls for yolks to be beaten along with the whites,
then the cake will usually be considerably denser. Some recipes ask for
yolks to be beaten separately. This is for the lightest cakes of all,
especially the sponge-cake family which are all very low density.

If you beat sugar in with the whites, it stabilizes the mixture
considerably so that there will be less deflation, and a lighter cake, when
this mixture gets blended with everything else.

When egg whites are beaten, they are to be folded in (that is, you take a
spatula and lightly draw the other parts of the mix over the egg whites in
a scooping, sweeping motion). One question here concerns what is to be
folded into what. If the recipe asks that the whites be folded with melted
chocolate first, it'll be denser than one that folds flour in first. If
chocolate and flour are mixed together first, then the whole folded in, it
will be lightest of the 3. The key point: folding melted chocolate directly
into egg whites causes a lot of deflation. The more things dilute the
chocolate, the less deflation. Cocoa, by contrast, does not deflate egg
whites.

Most recipes will ask you to cream the butter. If you don't cream butter,
cakes will usually be extremely dense, often leaden and brick-like. It's
not necessary to cream vegetable shortening. A very few recipes will call
for melted butter, usually in small amounts. As you discovered, this will
lean the texture towards that of a brownie.

Recipes that ask you to stir most of the ingredients together tend to
emphasize robust structure over tenderness or lightness. Ones that mix
things in carefully, in stages, and with different, sometimes seemingly
bizarre, specific methods of incorporation usually come out more tender and
lighter.

Higher oven temperatures, around 425F and above, generally emphasize
exteriour browning. They will make the cake drier on the outside, and
moister in the middle for a time, but then suddenly everything will dry out
completely. If the recipe starts at a high temperature but then decreases
it, the goal is often to set a crucial ingredient, usually eggs. If you
started such recipes at a lower temperature, they tend to lose volume, or
worse still, separate and become uneven (the usual result: a dense, greasy
buttery layer on the bottom, a light, dry, eggy layer on top) Also, high
temperatures create many more problems with cake "doming" - the effect
where the center rises much more than the edges.

Moderate oven temperatures, around 350F, usually allow for moist cakes with
a uniform texture throughout and a somewhat browned exteriour. The outside
will not usually be truly crisp, although it can be firm and a bit crusty.
These also can dry out if left in the oven too long. With chocolate,
there's a risk at this temperature that the chocolate will scorch, and you
must remove them before you smell anything that seems even slightly burnt.

Low oven temperatures, 325 and below, emphasize minimal doming and a tender
outside. Paradoxically, these can be very dry indeed because they require
long baking for the center to be done at all. If the cake is in a water-
bath while in the oven, this won't happen, but if not, it could well be
designed to be fairly dry. There's much less risk of chocolate scorching at
this temperature.

With all this in mind, I will "dissect" the above recipe. While this may
not be obvious without experience, the proportions of ingredients reveal
much of the secret - it's a cake absolutely *laden* with chocolate and
butter, while minimizing sugar and especially, flour. Clearly the objective
is to increase the chocolate proportion and decrease the flour proportion
as much as sanely possible, before you reach truly brownie-like
consistency. 2/3 cup of flour is a tiny amount, while 8 oz chocolate, for
that little flour, is extreme. The amount by itself isn't enough to be
conclusive - for instance, if it were 8 oz to 2 cups flour, that'd simply
be "typical", but when you see it at that ratio, it's clear that intensity
is the aim. Then you have the butter. 8 tbsp is already a lot, with those
amounts of flour and sugar, and when you add it to all that chocolate, the
direction this cake seems to be headed is towards a chocolate decadence.
Meanwhile, the number of eggs is merely that which one might find in a
"typical" butter cake - in other words, this isn't going to have sponge-
cake consistency, especially not with the levels of butter and chocolate.

Now you look at method. Unusually, the butter is to be melted. Again, it's
headed towards brownie territory. This recipe is starting to look more and
more like a chocolate decadence. And in a bizarre twist, you're melting
chocolate *in* water. The reason for this may not be clear, but I'll give
it to you: the idea is to add moisture to the cake, so that the high
chocolate proportion won't dry it out completely (extreme amounts of
chocolate risk making a cake very dry). So what's to stop this "cake" from
becoming a chocolate decadence? Reversing every other trend in the recipe,
the egg whites are to be beaten and folded in. Now this *is* a surprise.
It's rare that a recipe that's been headed denser, denser, denser, suddenly
does an about-face and goes...lighter. But here's where the larger vision
of the cake comes in to view - the objective was to densify the mix as much
as possible, up to a point where one does the most extreme thing possible
to lighten it, so that it doesn't end up as a bomb. The net result is that
the beaten egg whites lighten it just enough to keep it within the texture
range of "cake" rather than "brownie" or "decadence", while pushing the
proportions of everything to the limits of the possible. Baking at 350
keeps the uniform consistency (at this density, there aren't going to be
many problems with doming, either), so at the end you arrive at a very
moist, very chocolatey, very rich cake, perhaps as extreme as you can go.

What this recipe also illustrates is the unusual measures necessary to get
a chocolate cake that is both strongly chocolatey and quite moist, without
it becoming a brownie. The reason you have to resort to unorthodox tactics
is that the natural tendencies of the ingredients fight each other. The
problem is chocolate. In order to get lots of flavour, you have to add a
lot of chocolate. But this tends to dry out the cake. You can use cocoa,
but this only makes the drying problem worse if you do nothing else, and it
makes the cake taste of cocoa. You can increase the amount of butter to
offset the moistness problem, but this only exaggerates your density
problem. So to get around this, you use beaten egg whites, the most
powerful way of increasing volume and lightness.

>I've tried a couple of cakes (chocolate pound cake, and the basic
>chocolate cake recipe) in The Cake Bible, and they came out drier,
>with a paler color than I would have liked. (As a side note, if you
>accidentally melt the butter by adding the water/cocoa poweder mixture
>while it's still hot in the basic cake recipe, it makes decent
>brownies....).

As I hope I explained above, it's not surprising that most book recipes
come out this way, because there's a finite limit to how much chocolate you
can add to a "typical" or classic recipe before it becomes unacceptably dry
and/or dense. So the rich, moist chocolate cake requires a radical rethink
of the cake method altogether. Even expert pastry chefs have limits on
their time, creativity, and ingenuity, and they may stumble across a magic
formula, but generally it's going to take someone unusually obsessed with
chocolate to concoct a chocolate cake recipe that is really chocolatey and
really moist at the same time.

--
Alex Rast

(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)

Thanks for the information on the
http://www.saffron.com/
page

I've bought saffron from Penzy's and needed some more and bought it at a
global market about a month ago and haven't used it yet, tho. After I got
home and looked at it more closely, it did have some "white" in it and I
didn't have Penzy's to compare it with, but I couldn't recall Penzy's
saffron having white it in at all.

I see that saffron's page sells Iranian (you call Persian?), which I've
heard is the best -- I don't know. I've only used Spanish. On the page,
which amount do you buy or recommend. I keep my in a closed jar in the
refrigerator.

thanks,
Dee





"H. W. Hans Kuntze" > wrote in message
...
Dee Randall wrote:

>Nothing ever has enough of a chocolate taste to me, so
>[...]
>
>
>Does anyone use "chocolate extract" often or have a track record with it -
I
>'d be glad to hear any experience.
>
http://www.saffron.com/
But their Extract page is hard to find and is at.
http://www.theposter.com/extracts2.html

The brand is Golden Gate and i've been using them for years, excellent.
Shipping is free.
The extracts are extremely potent, use in moderation, especially the
butter pecan for Toll-House cookies.
IMHO much-much better than Pennzy's f.i. or the junk you find in
supermarkets.

BTW, their persian saffron is great too, best quality.

Although on Vanilla I use "La Vencadora" (hard to get, try Ebay)
straight from Mexico.
Some of the mexican vanilla is no good, "La Vencadora" is excellent.

--
Sincerly,

C=¦-)§ H. W. Hans Kuntze, CMC, S.g.K. (_o_)
http://www.cmcchef.com , chef<AT>cmcchef.com
"Don't cry because it's over, Smile because it Happened"
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/

Thanks for your recipe. I think I may try it in a few days.
You are so knowledgeable about this, (after reading your information below)
that I feel I can ask you this question.

You recommended 70% bittersweet chocolate. I have in my pantry 62%
Scharffen Berger bittersweet pure dark chocolate, a 70% Scharffen Berger
bittersweet pure dark chocolate. And a 99% Scharffen Berger "unsweetened"
(doesn't say "bittersweet") pure dark chocolate. I should use as you
recommended the 70%?

I notice that you do not say unsalted or salted butter. Would it make a
difference in this recipe? I have both on hand. My salted butter is Amish,
and my unsalted is just typical from Costco.

I'm curious as to the "baking powder" or "baking soda," as I'm not quite
sure, having not made many cakes in my life, does this recipe not need a
baking powder or soda, but most cakes do?

I am going to use all-purpose flour in this recipe, as I don't use cake
flour because it is all bleached. I take it that the flour called for in
this recipe is all-purpose? I hope so. I prefer it to cake flour.

I'm glad your recipe didn't include chocolate chips.

Thanks for your extra comments with your recipe, I really appreciate them.

Dee





"Alex Rast" > wrote in message
...
> at Wed, 03 Dec 2003 21:52:56 GMT in
> >,
> (Elitsirk) wrote :
>
> >I've been on a hunt for a rich, moist chocolate cake recipe. At
> >various restaurants, I've had rich, dark, moist cakes, but the closest
> >home version I can find is a Duncan Hines devils' food cake.
> >
> >Does anyone have a from-scratch recipe?
>
> This recipe is for the cake portion of "Chocolate Death", my ultimate
> chocolate cake recipe that I posted some time back. It's hard to go wrong
> with this one.
>
> Chocolate cake
>
> 8 oz. 70%-type bittersweet chocolate (Guittard Bittersweet recommended)
> 1 cup sugar
> 2/3 cup flour
> 8 tbsp butter
> 4 eggs
> 1/3 cup water
>
> Preheat the oven to 350F. Thoroughly grease and flour a 9" cake pan.
> Separate the eggs into yolks and whites. Cut up the butter
> and allow to soften a bit. Bring the water to a simmer, and in it melt the
> chocolate over low heat (that's right - *in* the water). Remove from the
> heat and stir in the egg yolks one at a time. Add the sugar and butter
> and mix well. Once everything has melted, stir in the flour. Whip the egg
> whites into stiff peaks and fold in. Pour into the prepared pan and bake
at
> 350F for 45-50 minutes, testing carefully to avoid scorching. Remove and
> cool.
>
> >Or at least a guide for what
> >to look for in a chocolate cake recipe (i.e. cocoa vs chocolate,
> >presence/absence of things like sour cream, etc)?
>
> Now, let me give a bit of a guide on identifying what to look for. I can
> use the recipe above for examples.
>
> The most important thing to bear in mind is that it's not a question of
> which ingredients are in a recipe, or even how much of a main ingredient
> there is, but rather of proportions and method. As a result, you have to
> look at the relative amounts of ingredients instead of the absolute
> amounts. This takes some experience and practice. It helps to have an
> awareness of what different ingredients do, and in what direction they
lean
> a recipe.
>
> Flour lends structure, while weakening the overall intensity of flavour
and
> drying out the result. Low-protein flour (pastry flour) will make a cake
> considerably lighter and drier. High-protein flour will make it denser and
> moister, and also more sturdy.
>
> Sugar also contributes to structure, and will make the cake somewhat
> chewier and more springy. It tends to lean a cake away from the crumbly
> side and towards the gummy side. Obviously, it makes it sweeter. Brown
> sugar will make a cake moister and deeper in flavour, and the darker the
> sugar the stronger this effect. Liquid sugars will make for a very smooth
> texture. You have to be careful with honey because enzyme reactions can
> destroy the texture altogether - a real mess! The key point with honey is
> not to overdo it.
>
> Butter makes a cake denser and richer, as well as browning the outside.
> It's key also to keeping a cake moist.
>
> Vegetable shortening (e.g. Crisco) makes a cake much lighter and airier.
> Cakes made with shortening almost never taste as rich as those made with
> butter, and there's often a bit of a strange pastiness to them.
>
> Liquid oils make a cake very tender indeed, and generally quite light.
Some
> oils (olive, hazelnut, sesame) have very strong flavours which you must
use
> with caution.
>
> Eggs will make a cake lighter and puffier. Too few, however, and your cake
> turns towards brownie, and ultimately to cookie. Yolks alone will make a
> cake somewhat richer and more silken, whites alone will make a cake very
> light and springy.
>
> Chocolate makes a cake much denser and generally drier. It also makes the
> texture smooth and silken. Cocoa, OTOH, will always make a cake drier and
> crumblier, as well as lighter. Clearly, both will add intensity of
flavour.
> There are many variables here. Sweetened chocolate will add flavour in
> proportion to its cocoa percentage - high-percentage chocolates at 70%
will
> add a lot of flavour, low-percentage at 50% will contribute much less.
> Cocoa adds a lot of flavour whack for little addition, but will give a
> harsher taste relative to chocolate and the cake will always taste of
> cocoa, not chocolate. "Dutch-processed" cocoa, as well as chocolate, will
> make any cake much darker, almost black, but paradoxically with a milder
> flavour and a characteristic metallic twang. It's crucial to use the best
> quality chocolate or cocoa you can find. Much "baking chocolate" - the
> blocks that Bakers', Hershey's, and Nestle sell, is worthless and you
> shouldn't use them at all. Don't believe that a good recipe will hide a
bad
> chocolate - it's rather the reverse: a bad chocolate can spoil a good
> recipe. Better to get a quality brand like Ghirardelli, Callebaut, or
> Guittard. Finally, chocolate chips will almost always make a cake drier
and
> leaning towards a cocoa texture, but without the powerful flavour cocoa
> provides; rather, the flavour will be mild.
>
> Most of the "white dairy" products, e.g. milk, cream, sour cream, etc.
make
> a cake very tender. Sometimes the acid in the cultured members such as
> buttermilk, sour cream, and yogurt is necessary to react with leavening
> agents like baking soda.
>
> Cakes that use chemical leavening such as baking soda or baking powder
will
> be generally somewhat light, but rarely as light as those that use air-
> leavening (generally, from beaten egg whites), which can be very light
> indeed, if the volume of egg white is large. If there's neither beaten egg
> white nor any kind of chemical leavening, the resulting cake will be very
> dense (e.g. pound cake).
>
> Now, on to method. As I just said, if a recipe calls for beaten egg
whites,
> it's usually going to be quite light. However, to some degree, this
depends
> on how much egg white there is. Really large volumes of egg white almost
> always signal a very light, airy cake, but small volumes (such as, for
> instance, 3 egg whites for 2 cups of flour) don't necessarily indicate
> this. If the recipe calls for yolks to be beaten along with the whites,
> then the cake will usually be considerably denser. Some recipes ask for
> yolks to be beaten separately. This is for the lightest cakes of all,
> especially the sponge-cake family which are all very low density.
>
> If you beat sugar in with the whites, it stabilizes the mixture
> considerably so that there will be less deflation, and a lighter cake,
when
> this mixture gets blended with everything else.
>
> When egg whites are beaten, they are to be folded in (that is, you take a
> spatula and lightly draw the other parts of the mix over the egg whites in
> a scooping, sweeping motion). One question here concerns what is to be
> folded into what. If the recipe asks that the whites be folded with melted
> chocolate first, it'll be denser than one that folds flour in first. If
> chocolate and flour are mixed together first, then the whole folded in, it
> will be lightest of the 3. The key point: folding melted chocolate
directly
> into egg whites causes a lot of deflation. The more things dilute the
> chocolate, the less deflation. Cocoa, by contrast, does not deflate egg
> whites.
>
> Most recipes will ask you to cream the butter. If you don't cream butter,
> cakes will usually be extremely dense, often leaden and brick-like. It's
> not necessary to cream vegetable shortening. A very few recipes will call
> for melted butter, usually in small amounts. As you discovered, this will
> lean the texture towards that of a brownie.
>
> Recipes that ask you to stir most of the ingredients together tend to
> emphasize robust structure over tenderness or lightness. Ones that mix
> things in carefully, in stages, and with different, sometimes seemingly
> bizarre, specific methods of incorporation usually come out more tender
and
> lighter.
>
> Higher oven temperatures, around 425F and above, generally emphasize
> exteriour browning. They will make the cake drier on the outside, and
> moister in the middle for a time, but then suddenly everything will dry
out
> completely. If the recipe starts at a high temperature but then decreases
> it, the goal is often to set a crucial ingredient, usually eggs. If you
> started such recipes at a lower temperature, they tend to lose volume, or
> worse still, separate and become uneven (the usual result: a dense, greasy
> buttery layer on the bottom, a light, dry, eggy layer on top) Also, high
> temperatures create many more problems with cake "doming" - the effect
> where the center rises much more than the edges.
>
> Moderate oven temperatures, around 350F, usually allow for moist cakes
with
> a uniform texture throughout and a somewhat browned exteriour. The outside
> will not usually be truly crisp, although it can be firm and a bit crusty.
> These also can dry out if left in the oven too long. With chocolate,
> there's a risk at this temperature that the chocolate will scorch, and you
> must remove them before you smell anything that seems even slightly burnt.
>
> Low oven temperatures, 325 and below, emphasize minimal doming and a
tender
> outside. Paradoxically, these can be very dry indeed because they require
> long baking for the center to be done at all. If the cake is in a water-
> bath while in the oven, this won't happen, but if not, it could well be
> designed to be fairly dry. There's much less risk of chocolate scorching
at
> this temperature.
>
> With all this in mind, I will "dissect" the above recipe. While this may
> not be obvious without experience, the proportions of ingredients reveal
> much of the secret - it's a cake absolutely *laden* with chocolate and
> butter, while minimizing sugar and especially, flour. Clearly the
objective
> is to increase the chocolate proportion and decrease the flour proportion
> as much as sanely possible, before you reach truly brownie-like
> consistency. 2/3 cup of flour is a tiny amount, while 8 oz chocolate, for
> that little flour, is extreme. The amount by itself isn't enough to be
> conclusive - for instance, if it were 8 oz to 2 cups flour, that'd simply
> be "typical", but when you see it at that ratio, it's clear that intensity
> is the aim. Then you have the butter. 8 tbsp is already a lot, with those
> amounts of flour and sugar, and when you add it to all that chocolate, the
> direction this cake seems to be headed is towards a chocolate decadence.
> Meanwhile, the number of eggs is merely that which one might find in a
> "typical" butter cake - in other words, this isn't going to have sponge-
> cake consistency, especially not with the levels of butter and chocolate.
>
> Now you look at method. Unusually, the butter is to be melted. Again, it's
> headed towards brownie territory. This recipe is starting to look more and
> more like a chocolate decadence. And in a bizarre twist, you're melting
> chocolate *in* water. The reason for this may not be clear, but I'll give
> it to you: the idea is to add moisture to the cake, so that the high
> chocolate proportion won't dry it out completely (extreme amounts of
> chocolate risk making a cake very dry). So what's to stop this "cake" from
> becoming a chocolate decadence? Reversing every other trend in the recipe,
> the egg whites are to be beaten and folded in. Now this *is* a surprise.
> It's rare that a recipe that's been headed denser, denser, denser,
suddenly
> does an about-face and goes...lighter. But here's where the larger vision
> of the cake comes in to view - the objective was to densify the mix as
much
> as possible, up to a point where one does the most extreme thing possible
> to lighten it, so that it doesn't end up as a bomb. The net result is that
> the beaten egg whites lighten it just enough to keep it within the texture
> range of "cake" rather than "brownie" or "decadence", while pushing the
> proportions of everything to the limits of the possible. Baking at 350
> keeps the uniform consistency (at this density, there aren't going to be
> many problems with doming, either), so at the end you arrive at a very
> moist, very chocolatey, very rich cake, perhaps as extreme as you can go.
>
> What this recipe also illustrates is the unusual measures necessary to get
> a chocolate cake that is both strongly chocolatey and quite moist, without
> it becoming a brownie. The reason you have to resort to unorthodox tactics
> is that the natural tendencies of the ingredients fight each other. The
> problem is chocolate. In order to get lots of flavour, you have to add a
> lot of chocolate. But this tends to dry out the cake. You can use cocoa,
> but this only makes the drying problem worse if you do nothing else, and
it
> makes the cake taste of cocoa. You can increase the amount of butter to
> offset the moistness problem, but this only exaggerates your density
> problem. So to get around this, you use beaten egg whites, the most
> powerful way of increasing volume and lightness.
>
> >I've tried a couple of cakes (chocolate pound cake, and the basic
> >chocolate cake recipe) in The Cake Bible, and they came out drier,
> >with a paler color than I would have liked. (As a side note, if you
> >accidentally melt the butter by adding the water/cocoa poweder mixture
> >while it's still hot in the basic cake recipe, it makes decent
> >brownies....).
>
> As I hope I explained above, it's not surprising that most book recipes
> come out this way, because there's a finite limit to how much chocolate
you
> can add to a "typical" or classic recipe before it becomes unacceptably
dry
> and/or dense. So the rich, moist chocolate cake requires a radical rethink
> of the cake method altogether. Even expert pastry chefs have limits on
> their time, creativity, and ingenuity, and they may stumble across a magic
> formula, but generally it's going to take someone unusually obsessed with
> chocolate to concoct a chocolate cake recipe that is really chocolatey and
> really moist at the same time.
>
> --
> Alex Rast
>
> (remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)

Dee Randall wrote:

>I've bought saffron from Penzy's
>
I hope the gave you a jar of vaseline as bonus.

> and needed some more and bought it at a
>global market about a month ago and haven't used it yet, tho. After I g=
ot
>home and looked at it more closely, it did have some "white" in it
>
That is common for the cheaper grades of Mancha.

>[...]
>I see that saffron's page sells Iranian (you call Persian?),
>
Yes. That is what it's been called since Methusala. Same with other=20
countries that were renamed. I like the old names better. Ceylon instead =

of Sri-Lanka, etc.

> which I've
>heard is the best -- I don't know.=20
>
It is Sargol, excellent. Best quality there is, comparable (or better=20
than) to Mancha Coupe or the best of the Kashmiri Saffron. The flavor=20
(Eugenol) is a little different than Mancha.

> I've only used Spanish. On the page,
>which amount do you buy or recommend.
>
Whatever you can use within a few month or you can keep it in the=20
freezer a long time.
And never ever buy saffron ground, too much monkey business with that one=
=2E

> I keep my in a closed jar in the
>refrigerator.
>
[...]

If it is airtight it should not pick up moisture or flavors.

As long/ or if you/ as you prefer spanish saffron, check out:
http://www.sfherb.com/
an ounce of select Mancha (good quality) goes for around $30 an ounce.
At Pennzy's they ask 4x as much for the same thing.
Their spices are nice, but way overpriced.
Or if you live on the east-coast(same company):
http://www.atlanticspice.com/

--=20
Sincerly,

C=3D=A6-)=A7 H. W. Hans Kuntze, CMC, S.g.K. (_o_)
http://www.cmcchef.com , chef<AT>cmcchef.com
"Don't cry because it's over, Smile because it Happened"
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/=20

at Thu, 04 Dec 2003 01:54:29 GMT in >,
(Dee Randall) wrote :

>Thanks for your recipe. I think I may try it in a few days.
>You are so knowledgeable about this, (after reading your information
>below) that I feel I can ask you this question.
>
>You recommended 70% bittersweet chocolate. I have in my pantry 62%
>Scharffen Berger bittersweet pure dark chocolate, a 70% Scharffen Berger
>bittersweet pure dark chocolate. And a 99% Scharffen Berger
>"unsweetened" (doesn't say "bittersweet") pure dark chocolate. I
>should use as you recommended the 70%?

Can't resist a comment. IMHO it's unfortunate that you have Scharffen
Berger, because it's not particularly good, relative to other chocolates in
its class. They underroast, resulting in an aggressively fruity taste. Do
you like *extreme* fruitiness in your chocolate flavour? If so, you're
buying the right chocolate. Otherwise, use this up and then switch to
another brand.

As far as which to use of the 3, yes, the 70% would be the choice.

>I notice that you do not say unsalted or salted butter. Would it make a
>difference in this recipe? I have both on hand. My salted butter is
>Amish, and my unsalted is just typical from Costco.

A slight difference at most. If your salted butter is higher-quality, use
that.

>I'm curious as to the "baking powder" or "baking soda," as I'm not quite
>sure, having not made many cakes in my life, does this recipe not need a
>baking powder or soda, but most cakes do?

It doesn't need it because of the egg whites, which add all the leavening.
As I mentioned in my original reply, some recipes ask for chemical
leavening, others don't. The ones that don't generally either use air
leavening from egg whites, or remain very dense.

>I am going to use all-purpose flour in this recipe, as I don't use cake
>flour because it is all bleached. I take it that the flour called for
>in this recipe is all-purpose? I hope so. I prefer it to cake flour.

*I* use pastry flour, but all-purpose will be fine. It'll be slightly
denser, but still within the acceptable range. Bread flour, however, will
make it too dense (It's that close to the borderline)


--
Alex Rast

(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)

Thanks for the answers, but whut's up with the vaseline statement? Do you
mean because it's so hard to open? If so, possibly a strap wrench would be
in order.

I'll file your answers for future orders.
My appreciation,
Dee

"H. W. Hans Kuntze" > wrote in message
...
Dee Randall wrote:

>I've bought saffron from Penzy's
>
I hope the gave you a jar of vaseline as bonus.

> and needed some more and bought it at a
>global market about a month ago and haven't used it yet, tho. After I got
>home and looked at it more closely, it did have some "white" in it
>
That is common for the cheaper grades of Mancha.

>[...]
>I see that saffron's page sells Iranian (you call Persian?),
>
Yes. That is what it's been called since Methusala. Same with other
countries that were renamed. I like the old names better. Ceylon instead
of Sri-Lanka, etc.

> which I've
>heard is the best -- I don't know.
>
It is Sargol, excellent. Best quality there is, comparable (or better
than) to Mancha Coupe or the best of the Kashmiri Saffron. The flavor
(Eugenol) is a little different than Mancha.

> I've only used Spanish. On the page,
>which amount do you buy or recommend.
>
Whatever you can use within a few month or you can keep it in the
freezer a long time.
And never ever buy saffron ground, too much monkey business with that one.

> I keep my in a closed jar in the
>refrigerator.
>
[...]

If it is airtight it should not pick up moisture or flavors.

As long/ or if you/ as you prefer spanish saffron, check out:
http://www.sfherb.com/
an ounce of select Mancha (good quality) goes for around $30 an ounce.
At Pennzy's they ask 4x as much for the same thing.
Their spices are nice, but way overpriced.
Or if you live on the east-coast(same company):
http://www.atlanticspice.com/

--
Sincerly,

C=¦-)§ H. W. Hans Kuntze, CMC, S.g.K. (_o_)
http://www.cmcchef.com , chef<AT>cmcchef.com
"Don't cry because it's over, Smile because it Happened"
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/

Dee Randall wrote:

>Thanks for the answers, but whut's up with the vaseline statement? Do y=
ou
>mean because it's so hard to open?
>
Nope.

> If so, possibly a strap wrench would be in order.
>
I don't think a strap wrench would help in this case, Dee. :-)

It has more to do with easing the pain of being taken advantage of.

Fair prices would help a great deal more.

But, more power to them.

--=20
Sincerly,

C=3D=A6-)=A7 H. W. Hans Kuntze, CMC, S.g.K. (_o_)
http://www.cmcchef.com , chef<AT>cmcchef.com
"Don't cry because it's over, Smile because it Happened"
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/=20

You say,
it's unfortunate that you have Scharffen
Berger, because it's not particularly good, relative to other chocolates in
its class. They underroast, resulting in an aggressively fruity taste. Do
you like *extreme* fruitiness in your chocolate flavour? If so, you're
buying the right chocolate. Otherwise, use this up and then switch to
another brand.
***

Yes, come to think of it, a "fruitiness" now that I think back on using
half of the 99%, is the taste that I was wondering about. I was thinking
it was just to bitter for me (even tho I prefer dark chocolate for eating),
but I believe that is probably what it was.


I am open to suggestions for what is considered a good brand of chocolate
that you might recommend. I know that I love Ghiradelli chocolate ice cream
AT THEIR FACTORY, and I really like the Ghiradelli cocoa, and have bought a
number of brands of chocolate and cocoa from King Arthur over the years,
but these have all been bought without recommendation and I haven't really
learned anything from it - perhaps my chocolate taste buds aren't
sophisticated enough -- yet.

My appreciation,
Dee


"Alex Rast" > wrote in message
...
> at Thu, 04 Dec 2003 01:54:29 GMT in >,
> (Dee Randall) wrote :
>
> >Thanks for your recipe. I think I may try it in a few days.
> >You are so knowledgeable about this, (after reading your information
> >below) that I feel I can ask you this question.
> >
> >You recommended 70% bittersweet chocolate. I have in my pantry 62%
> >Scharffen Berger bittersweet pure dark chocolate, a 70% Scharffen Berger
> >bittersweet pure dark chocolate. And a 99% Scharffen Berger
> >"unsweetened" (doesn't say "bittersweet") pure dark chocolate. I
> >should use as you recommended the 70%?
>
> Can't resist a comment. IMHO it's unfortunate that you have Scharffen
> Berger, because it's not particularly good, relative to other chocolates
in
> its class. They underroast, resulting in an aggressively fruity taste. Do
> you like *extreme* fruitiness in your chocolate flavour? If so, you're
> buying the right chocolate. Otherwise, use this up and then switch to
> another brand.
>
> As far as which to use of the 3, yes, the 70% would be the choice.
>
> >I notice that you do not say unsalted or salted butter. Would it make a
> >difference in this recipe? I have both on hand. My salted butter is
> >Amish, and my unsalted is just typical from Costco.
>
> A slight difference at most. If your salted butter is higher-quality, use
> that.
>
> >I'm curious as to the "baking powder" or "baking soda," as I'm not quite
> >sure, having not made many cakes in my life, does this recipe not need a
> >baking powder or soda, but most cakes do?
>
> It doesn't need it because of the egg whites, which add all the leavening.
> As I mentioned in my original reply, some recipes ask for chemical
> leavening, others don't. The ones that don't generally either use air
> leavening from egg whites, or remain very dense.
>
> >I am going to use all-purpose flour in this recipe, as I don't use cake
> >flour because it is all bleached. I take it that the flour called for
> >in this recipe is all-purpose? I hope so. I prefer it to cake flour.
>
> *I* use pastry flour, but all-purpose will be fine. It'll be slightly
> denser, but still within the acceptable range. Bread flour, however, will
> make it too dense (It's that close to the borderline)
>
>
> --
> Alex Rast
>
> (remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!
That's a good one, Hans -- you got me on that one!
Dee

"H. W. Hans Kuntze" > wrote in message
...
Dee Randall wrote:

>Thanks for the answers, but whut's up with the vaseline statement? Do you
>mean because it's so hard to open?
>
Nope.

> If so, possibly a strap wrench would be in order.
>
I don't think a strap wrench would help in this case, Dee. :-)

It has more to do with easing the pain of being taken advantage of.

Fair prices would help a great deal more.

But, more power to them.

--
Sincerly,

C=¦-)§ H. W. Hans Kuntze, CMC, S.g.K. (_o_)
http://www.cmcchef.com , chef<AT>cmcchef.com
"Don't cry because it's over, Smile because it Happened"
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/

at Thu, 04 Dec 2003 04:50:08 GMT in >,
(Dee Randall) wrote :

>it's unfortunate that you have Scharffen
>Berger, because it's not particularly good, relative to other chocolates
>in its class. They underroast, resulting in an aggressively fruity
>taste....
>
>Yes, come to think of it, a "fruitiness" now that I think back on using
>half of the 99%, is the taste that I was wondering about. I was
>thinking it was just to bitter for me

Fruitiness and bitterness are closely related. Scharffen Berger is very
deliberate in going for a fruity flavour, but rather like you, most people,
it would seem, just find it too aggressive for their liking. Good chocolate
isn't deceptive in that sense - if it tastes less-than-ideal, it's less
than ideal. Even a 100% can have no bitterness at all (e.g. Slitti) or have
bitterness that is by no means harsh (e.g. Cluizel).

>I am open to suggestions for what is considered a good brand of
>chocolate that you might recommend.

For everyday use, Ghirardelli is very good.
For slightly upscale, Guittard is excellent.
For *definitely* upscale, Michel Cluizel is perhaps the best overall.
For an ultra-splurge, experiment with Domori which is as good as Cluizel
but with some additional, exclusive varietals (especially Porcelana,
Carenero Superior)

--
Alex Rast

(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)

Thank you for the very in-depth answer! This is just the sort of
information I was looking for. I am looking forward to trying your
recipe--it definitely looks intriguing

--Elit.

(Alex Rast) wrote in message >...
> at Wed, 03 Dec 2003 21:52:56 GMT in
> >,
> (Elitsirk) wrote :
>
> >I've been on a hunt for a rich, moist chocolate cake recipe. At
> >various restaurants, I've had rich, dark, moist cakes, but the closest
> >home version I can find is a Duncan Hines devils' food cake.
> >
> >Does anyone have a from-scratch recipe?
>
> This recipe is for the cake portion of "Chocolate Death", my ultimate
> chocolate cake recipe that I posted some time back. It's hard to go wrong
> with this one.
>
{snip}

Thanks for all of the chocolate info. I'm afraid I don't get out enough and
by "good" chocolate (not that I buy bad chocolate instead).

Anyway, since I don't know much about this subject, can you give me your
opinion of chocolates such as Valrohna?

Thanks,
SC

"Alex Rast" > wrote in message
...
> at Thu, 04 Dec 2003 04:50:08 GMT in >,
> (Dee Randall) wrote :
>
> >it's unfortunate that you have Scharffen
> >Berger, because it's not particularly good, relative to other chocolates
> >in its class. They underroast, resulting in an aggressively fruity
> >taste....
> >
> >Yes, come to think of it, a "fruitiness" now that I think back on using
> >half of the 99%, is the taste that I was wondering about. I was
> >thinking it was just to bitter for me
>
> Fruitiness and bitterness are closely related. Scharffen Berger is very
> deliberate in going for a fruity flavour, but rather like you, most
people,
> it would seem, just find it too aggressive for their liking. Good
chocolate
> isn't deceptive in that sense - if it tastes less-than-ideal, it's less
> than ideal. Even a 100% can have no bitterness at all (e.g. Slitti) or
have
> bitterness that is by no means harsh (e.g. Cluizel).
>
> >I am open to suggestions for what is considered a good brand of
> >chocolate that you might recommend.
>
> For everyday use, Ghirardelli is very good.
> For slightly upscale, Guittard is excellent.
> For *definitely* upscale, Michel Cluizel is perhaps the best overall.
> For an ultra-splurge, experiment with Domori which is as good as Cluizel
> but with some additional, exclusive varietals (especially Porcelana,
> Carenero Superior)
>
> --
> Alex Rast
>
> (remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)

at Thu, 04 Dec 2003 21:10:23 GMT in >,
(Me) wrote :

>Thanks for all of the chocolate info. I'm afraid I don't get out enough
>and by "good" chocolate (not that I buy bad chocolate instead).
>
>Anyway, since I don't know much about this subject, can you give me your
>opinion of chocolates such as Valrohna?
>

Well, there really isn't such a thing as "such as Valrhona". It's either
Valrhona or not. What I mean by this is, you can't "lump" chocolates into
categories by associating them with a particular brand. Nor can you do so
by country. So it's equally misleading to talk about "French" or "Swiss" or
"American" chocolate as it is about chocolates "such as" Valrhona, or
Lindt, or Guittard. Even price isn't a particularly reliable guide: there
are world-class chocolates available at pittances, and chocolates that cost
a bomb that aren't any better than Nestle. Typically each quality chocolate
manufacturer has a "signature" taste - it's then up to you to decide which
type of taste you tend to like best.

As for Valrhona themselves, they make generally excellent chocolate. The
flavour of their chocolates usually leans strongly towards the fruity side.
But unlike Scharffen Berger, I've found that they usually don't go
overboard, so, yes, it's fruity, no, it's not overbearingly fruity. The
other thing Valrhona is well-known for is impeccable texture. Valrhona
chocolates are always ultra-smooth and creamy, usually better than similar
competitors. While this is valuable when you're eating it straight, it has
less of a direct impact if you're using it in baking. There are a few big
"winners" from Valrhona : chocolates that are worth your time to track down
and try.

Caraibe: Displays the characteristics of Trinitario cocoas. Pungent,
molasses flavour.
Le Noir Amer: A good reference for a general-purpose 70% bittersweet.
Nicely powerful, redolent of currants.
Araguani: A refreshingly new direction for them. It's roasted a little
longer, resulting in a beautiful, floral taste.
Gran Couva: The last 2 I'm listing are definitely a notch better than the
others. This one is very complex, with piney and blueberry notes. It varies
from year to year. A grand semisweet chocolate.
Guanaja: This is the chocolate that started it all: the one that created
the revival of interest in ultra-quality chocolate. Lives up to its
reputation beyond your imagination. Amazingly intense, tropical flavour,
and even the texture somehow seems a little better than other Valrhonas.
When it first came out, this chocolate pretty much redefined people's
concepts of what good chocolate could be. One of the world's great
chocolates.

--
Alex Rast

(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)

Alex, I can't get back to your posting re the Chocolate Death cake, so I
will piggy-back this message to ask you:

When you say to "thoroughly grease and flour a 9" cake pan," I'm wondering
if you would consider using butter instead of shortening -- I don't use
shortening. Or what you might use instead of shortening? I don't have any
more spectrum. I usually put a teeny-weeny bit of oil (olive oil -- don't
scold!) on the bottom of a pan -- not enough to really taste. If I use Pam,
I will wipe the majority of it off, as well.

#2 question:
What do you think of the suggestion that many cooks make: to use "cocoa"
instead of flour when greasing and flouring the pan. I'm not sure what the
top limits of degrees -- say 375? would be for using cocoa.
Any comments on this appreciated!

Dee




"Alex Rast" > wrote in message
...
> at Thu, 04 Dec 2003 21:10:23 GMT in >,
> (Me) wrote :
>
> >Thanks for all of the chocolate info. I'm afraid I don't get out enough
> >and by "good" chocolate (not that I buy bad chocolate instead).
> >
> >Anyway, since I don't know much about this subject, can you give me your
> >opinion of chocolates such as Valrohna?
> >
>
> Well, there really isn't such a thing as "such as Valrhona". It's either
> Valrhona or not. What I mean by this is, you can't "lump" chocolates into
> categories by associating them with a particular brand. Nor can you do so
> by country. So it's equally misleading to talk about "French" or "Swiss"
or
> "American" chocolate as it is about chocolates "such as" Valrhona, or
> Lindt, or Guittard. Even price isn't a particularly reliable guide: there
> are world-class chocolates available at pittances, and chocolates that
cost
> a bomb that aren't any better than Nestle. Typically each quality
chocolate
> manufacturer has a "signature" taste - it's then up to you to decide which
> type of taste you tend to like best.
>
> As for Valrhona themselves, they make generally excellent chocolate. The
> flavour of their chocolates usually leans strongly towards the fruity
side.
> But unlike Scharffen Berger, I've found that they usually don't go
> overboard, so, yes, it's fruity, no, it's not overbearingly fruity. The
> other thing Valrhona is well-known for is impeccable texture. Valrhona
> chocolates are always ultra-smooth and creamy, usually better than similar
> competitors. While this is valuable when you're eating it straight, it has
> less of a direct impact if you're using it in baking. There are a few big
> "winners" from Valrhona : chocolates that are worth your time to track
down
> and try.
>
> Caraibe: Displays the characteristics of Trinitario cocoas. Pungent,
> molasses flavour.
> Le Noir Amer: A good reference for a general-purpose 70% bittersweet.
> Nicely powerful, redolent of currants.
> Araguani: A refreshingly new direction for them. It's roasted a little
> longer, resulting in a beautiful, floral taste.
> Gran Couva: The last 2 I'm listing are definitely a notch better than the
> others. This one is very complex, with piney and blueberry notes. It
varies
> from year to year. A grand semisweet chocolate.
> Guanaja: This is the chocolate that started it all: the one that created
> the revival of interest in ultra-quality chocolate. Lives up to its
> reputation beyond your imagination. Amazingly intense, tropical flavour,
> and even the texture somehow seems a little better than other Valrhonas.
> When it first came out, this chocolate pretty much redefined people's
> concepts of what good chocolate could be. One of the world's great
> chocolates.
>
> --
> Alex Rast
>
> (remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)

at Thu, 04 Dec 2003 23:25:47 GMT in >,
(Dee Randall) wrote :

>Alex, I can't get back to your posting re the Chocolate Death cake, so I
>will piggy-back this message to ask you:
>
>When you say to "thoroughly grease and flour a 9" cake pan," I'm
>wondering if you would consider using butter instead of shortening...

Not only would I consider it, you *should* use butter. That's what I use.
Those familiar with this NG know that it would be a rare occasion indeed
that I would use vegetable shortening - there is almost always a better fat
to use. "Grease" in this context simply means "smear with such solid fat as
you prefer". Butter is IMHO the preferred choice.

>#2 question:
>What do you think of the suggestion that many cooks make: to use "cocoa"
>instead of flour when greasing and flouring the pan.

Using cocoa can be problematic because, as you imply, it burns, and also,
it can stick. Cocoa as a dusting agent is less reliable than flour,
although if you're baking at low temperatures (certainly no more than 325),
it's probably OK and of course does mean there's slightly more chocolate
flavour. This particular cake can be tricky to remove if the pan hasn't
really been thoroughly greased and floured, so I don't recommend cocoa
here.

--
Alex Rast

(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)

If this cake can be tricky to get out of the pan, it would be a good
idea to use a parchment circle on the bottom of the pan.

I was re-reading your email to my spouse and getting a good chuckle.

What I do for bulk spices is buy from a "Grandpa's pantry" and several
ethnic grocery stores both within a hundred miles of where I live, but I am
never certain as to their quality.

He is wondering if you have a source you might recommend for bulk spices or
do you order separate spices from separate places? (I know you do for
saffron).

Thanks again for the chuckle, as well.

Dee






"Dee Randall" > wrote in message
...
> Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!
> That's a good one, Hans -- you got me on that one!
> Dee
>
> "H. W. Hans Kuntze" > wrote in message
> ...
> Dee Randall wrote:
>
> >Thanks for the answers, but whut's up with the vaseline statement? Do
you
> >mean because it's so hard to open?
> >
> Nope.
>
> > If so, possibly a strap wrench would be in order.
> >
> I don't think a strap wrench would help in this case, Dee. :-)
>
> It has more to do with easing the pain of being taken advantage of.
>
> Fair prices would help a great deal more.
>
> But, more power to them.
>
> --
> Sincerly,
>
> C=¦-)§ H. W. Hans Kuntze, CMC, S.g.K. (_o_)
> http://www.cmcchef.com , chef<AT>cmcchef.com
> "Don't cry because it's over, Smile because it Happened"
> _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
>
>

Dee Randall wrote:

>[...]
>
>He is wondering if you have a source you might recommend for bulk spices=
or
>do you order separate spices from separate places? (I know you do for
>saffron).[...]
> =20
>
Are we talking commercially or for the household? And what quantities?

Commercially, for super fresh, smaller quantities, there is an outfit,=20
R.L Schreiber, that is reliable and good.
They come by the restaurant, according to need and schedule, replenisch=20
what is needed.
http://www.rlschreiber.com/
They have independent contractors with a van in most larger cities and=20
spices is what they do.

For large quantities, that is competitively bid out as a commodity from=20
approved vendors or per contract from the spice mill.

For the household it is much more difficult with freshness.
I would recommend to buy whole spices in bulk with friends or neighbors=20
from SF Spice Company < http://www.sfherb.com/ > or their equivalent on=20
the east-coast < http://www.atlanticspice.com/ >.
Only buy as much as you can use up within 3- 6 month or keep airtight in =

the freezer (whole) and grind (small, cheap coffe mill) what you need=20
for a few weeks.
Don't buy ground pepper, Allspice, Anis, Nutmeg, etc. ground, grind it=20
yourself, fresh as you need it and you will notice a marked difference.

That will go a long way towards quality. Some people buy sage once, for=20
the thanksgiving turkey and 3 years later they are still using the 4=20
ounce jar.

If at all possible, grow herbs yourself (windowsill is OK) and use them=20
fresh as you need it.

--=20
Sincerly,

C=3D=A6-)=A7 H. W. Hans Kuntze, CMC, S.g.K. (_o_)
http://www.cmcchef.com , chef<AT>cmcchef.com
"Don't cry because it's over, Smile because it Happened"
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/=20

"Elitsirk" > wrote in message
om...
> I've been on a hunt for a rich, moist chocolate cake recipe. At
> various restaurants, I've had rich, dark, moist cakes, but the closest
> home version I can find is a Duncan Hines devils' food cake.
>
> Does anyone have a from-scratch recipe? Or at least a guide for what
> to look for in a chocolate cake recipe (i.e. cocoa vs chocolate,
> presence/absence of things like sour cream, etc)?
>
> I've tried a couple of cakes (chocolate pound cake, and the basic
> chocolate cake recipe) in The Cake Bible, and they came out drier,
> with a paler color than I would have liked. (As a side note, if you
> accidentally melt the butter by adding the water/cocoa poweder mixture
> while it's still hot in the basic cake recipe, it makes decent
> brownies....).
>
> Last week for Thanksgiving, I made a cake called "rich chocolate cake"
> from a bargain cookbook that was ok, but certainly not rich. Instead
> of cocoa powder, it called for bittersweet chocolate, and used brown
> sugar instead of regular. The color was extremely light, and the
> chocolate taste only so-so.
>
> Thanks for any hints!
> --Elit.

Go to Hershey's website and look up the Black Magic chocolate cake. Rich,
moist, and intensely chocolaty, especially if you add a couple teaspoons of
espresso or use coffee rather than boiling water.

Seriously, it's one of the best chocolate cake recipes ever.

kimberly

Nexis wrote:

> [...]
>
>Go to Hershey's website and look up the Black Magic chocolate cake. Rich=
,
>moist, and intensely chocolaty, especially if you add a couple teaspoons=
of
>espresso or use coffee rather than boiling water.
>
>Seriously, it's one of the best chocolate cake recipes ever.
> =20
>
http://hersheykitchens.hersheys.com/...ch_results.asp

Search Results for: Black Magic chocolate cake
=20
There are currently no recipes for Black Magic chocolate cake.
Please check back again for new recipes.

But Google finds it:
http://halloween-recipes.hersheykitc...s/BlackMagicC=
ake.asp=20
(

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D REZKONV-Rezept - RezkonvSuite v0.96f

Titel: BLACK MAGIC CAKE
Kategorien: Baking, Chocolate
Menge: 1 Rezept

1 teasp. Baking powder
1 teasp. Salt
2 Eggs
1/2 cup Vegetable oil
2 cups Sugar
1 -3/4 cups all-purpose flour
3/4 cup HERSHEY'S Cocoa
2 teasp. Baking soda
1 cup Buttermilk or sour milk*
1 cup Strong black coffee OR 2 teaspoons powdered
-instant coffee plus 1 cup boiling water
1 teasp. Vanilla extract

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D QUELLE =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Hershey's
-Erfasst *RK* 05.12.03 von
-H.W. Hans Kuntze, CMC

1. Heat oven to 350=B0F. Grease and flour two 9-inch round baking pans
or one 13x9x2-inch baking pan.

2. Stir together sugar, flour, cocoa, baking soda, baking powder and
salt in large bowl. Add eggs, buttermilk, coffee, oil and vanilla;
beat on medium speed of mixer 2 minutes (batter will be thin). Pour
batter evenly into prepared pans.

3. Bake 30 to 35 minutes for round pans, 35 to 40 minutes for
rectangular pan or until wooden pick inserted in center comes out
clean. Cool 10 minutes; remove from pans to wire racks. Cool
completely. Frost as desired. 10 to 12 servings.

* To sour milk: Use 1 tablespoon white vinegar plus milk to equal 1
cup.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D


--=20
Sincerly,

C=3D=A6-)=A7 H. W. Hans Kuntze, CMC, S.g.K. (_o_)
http://www.cmcchef.com , chef<AT>cmcchef.com
"Don't cry because it's over, Smile because it Happened"
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/=20

Penzey's has some of the best spices I've ever purchased. They are
headquartered in Wisconsin - have stores in several states. I ordered some
Tuesday and received them yesterday. They have a website and will send you a
catalog.

I just got thru eating the Chocolate Death cake made from the recipe.

My comments:
It completely satisfied my chocolate desire -- much better than a couple
dozen Droste chocolates!

I did take a person's hint to put parchment paper on the bottom and it
turned out after 5 minutes ileft in the pan, onto the counter, beautifully.

With this recipe and my taste, I did not miss any frosting, as I don't
really care for frosting on a cake, only perhaps a little glaze
occasionally.

I followed directions to the letter. The only problem I had was I think I
overdid it on the eggs whipping to a stiff peak. They came out in 4"
squares like pieces of snow. I don't know when to stop on beating eggs in
the Kitchen Aid in a copper bowl. If I had beaten them by hand, perhaps I
would have been able to judge better.

I baked it 45 minutes. It had barely a dark line around the cake indicating
that it might have gone a little too long. My oven was 350 and it was
tested recently for accuracy using an oven thermometer.

The cake was too dry, but had the chocolate taste I desire. I'm thinking
that next time I will whip my eggs by hand, and perhaps bake it 40-43
minutes.

Thanks for this great recipe.
Dee


"Elitsirk" > wrote in message
om...
> Thank you for the very in-depth answer! This is just the sort of
> information I was looking for. I am looking forward to trying your
> recipe--it definitely looks intriguing
>
> --Elit.
>
> (Alex Rast) wrote in message
>...
> > at Wed, 03 Dec 2003 21:52:56 GMT in
> > >,
> > (Elitsirk) wrote :
> >
> > >I've been on a hunt for a rich, moist chocolate cake recipe. At
> > >various restaurants, I've had rich, dark, moist cakes, but the closest
> > >home version I can find is a Duncan Hines devils' food cake.
> > >
> > >Does anyone have a from-scratch recipe?
> >
> > This recipe is for the cake portion of "Chocolate Death", my ultimate
> > chocolate cake recipe that I posted some time back. It's hard to go
wrong
> > with this one.
> >
> {snip}