So I have a brownie recipe, only my 213th to try (scientific purposes,
of course).

It calls for six ounces of semi-sweet chocolate, "chopped." I asume
that means the hard squares, in the box, and try to chop them up,
spill them all over the place, or else in my electric mini chopper and
burn out the motor again.

Then I think: "Here's a bag of Nestle's (or even Godiva, etc., etc.)
chocolate chips (or morsels), already in small size. I can measure
out 6 ounces out of a 12 ounce bag." And the price is a big
difference.

So my question: Is there a difference, if both are "semi-sweet,"
between the hard squares and the chips in a bag?

JimL wrote:

>So I have a brownie recipe, only my 213th to try (scientific purposes,
>of course).
>
>It calls for six ounces of semi-sweet chocolate, "chopped." I asume
>that means the hard squares, in the box, and try to chop them up,
>spill them all over the place, or else in my electric mini chopper and
>burn out the motor again.
>
>Then I think: "Here's a bag of Nestle's (or even Godiva, etc., etc.)
> chocolate chips (or morsels), already in small size. I can measure
>out 6 ounces out of a 12 ounce bag." And the price is a big
>difference.
>
>So my question: Is there a difference, if both are "semi-sweet," =20
>between the hard squares and the chips in a bag?
> =20
>
Of course there are differences, but the chips are useable for brownies.
Try to get Guittard double chocolate chips, they are quite good as=20
mass-market chips go.

Next time you need to break your large pieces into smaller ones, try=20
freezing and grating.

--=20
Grue$$e.

C=3D=A6-)=A7 H. W. Hans Kuntze, CMC, S.g.K. (_o_)
" Strive for excellence in your life & reject being a doormat to others. =
Serve God. "
http://www.cmcchef.com , chef[AT]cmcchef.com
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/=20

(JimL) writes:

>It calls for six ounces of semi-sweet chocolate, "chopped." I asume
>that means the hard squares, in the box, and try to chop them up,
>spill them all over the place, or else in my electric mini chopper and
>burn out the motor again.

Put the chilled chocolate squares in a storage bag (Ziploc, Baggie) and whack
them with a mallet or your wooden rolling pin. Pour out the pieces, throw away
the bag...or save it for the next batch of brownies.



Connie
************************************************** ***
My mind is like a steel...um, whatchamacallit.

"JimL" > wrote in message
om...
> So I have a brownie recipe, only my 213th to try (scientific purposes,
> of course).
>
> It calls for six ounces of semi-sweet chocolate, "chopped." I asume
> that means the hard squares, in the box, and try to chop them up,
> spill them all over the place, or else in my electric mini chopper and
> burn out the motor again.
>
> Then I think: "Here's a bag of Nestle's (or even Godiva, etc., etc.)
> chocolate chips (or morsels), already in small size. I can measure
> out 6 ounces out of a 12 ounce bag." And the price is a big
> difference.
>
> So my question: Is there a difference, if both are "semi-sweet,"
> between the hard squares and the chips in a bag?

If the chocolate is of the same brand and same percentage of cacao (semi
sweet is around 62% cacao), the chocolate should be the same and the chips
would be more convenient to melt. Melting a bar isn't a big deal, though.
It just takes a little longer than chopped bars or chips. You should
weigh the 6 oz. the same, regardless of the form. 6 oz. of chips weighs the
same as a 6 oz. bar.

More important is the quality of the chocolate than whether it comes in
chips, bars, discs or whatever form. Generally the chocolate that comes
from Venezuela and other latin countries is noticeably better than the
chocolate that comes from Africa. It's worth the extra money. i.e. if you
can find Sharffen Berger or El Rey or a similar quality chocolate, it will
improve your brownies when compared to using Hershey, Baker, Ghirardelli and
the like which are African chocolate.

Fred
The Good Gourmet
http://www.thegoodgourmet.com

at Sat, 24 Jan 2004 03:47:25 GMT in
>, (JimL)
wrote :

>So I have a brownie recipe, only my 213th to try (scientific purposes,
>of course).
>
>It calls for six ounces of semi-sweet chocolate, "chopped." I asume
>that means the hard squares, in the box, and try to chop them up,
>spill them all over the place, or else in my electric mini chopper and
>burn out the motor again.
>
>Then I think: "Here's a bag of Nestle's (or even Godiva, etc., etc.)
> chocolate chips (or morsels), already in small size. I can measure
>out 6 ounces out of a 12 ounce bag." And the price is a big
>difference.
>
>So my question: Is there a difference, if both are "semi-sweet,"
>between the hard squares and the chips in a bag?

Yes, there is a difference, but I'd advise you to use neither. Chocolate
chips are chocolate specifically formulated with a low cocoa butter
content, so that they don't melt as much in the oven, and keep their shape.
For most baking applications where you're going to melt the chocolate and
combine it with something, a high-cocoa-butter chocolate is preferable. In
a pinch, you can use chips, but the result will be drier and harder.

Meanwhile, the "hard squares, in the box" - i.e. "baking chocolate" are, as
far as I can tell, merely the industry's method of disposing of chocolate
of such poor quality that even the cheapest chocolate bar companies won't
use it. Baking chocolate is inevitably bottom-of-the-barrel, and will make
your chocolate desserts taste much worse than they could, lacking in
flavour, often stale. Usually baking chocolate in the squares is also low
cocoa butter.

What you really want is quality "couverture" chocolate, which has a high
cocoa butter content. The term sounds technical but virtually all chocolate
sold as solid chocolate bars, intended for straight eating, is couverture.
The other way you'll find couverture is as large, irregular, broken-up
chunks from a much bigger slab. It's common to see this in bulk bins.

As for brands, in the USA, Ghirardelli is the most commonly available
quality choice. They sell good chocolate in 4 oz bars, and they even call
it in some cases "baking chocolate" - but you won't find it in a box
wrapped in paper squares, it's in bars, which BTW are also good to eat
straight. Callebaut and Guittard, meanwhile, dominate the broken chunks
market - and both are excellent. You can use even more prestigious, high-
end chocolate bars, packaged for straight eating, from companies like
Valrhona and Michel Cluizel, and your results will be superb, albeit at
pretty exorbitant cost. Even Hershey's Special Dark will be a huge
improvement over the baking squares.

A nice advantage of using bar chocolate is that it's easy to chop - they're
thin enough that a knife will make quick work of them. Using a food
processor, incidentally, is risky because it's easy for the processor to
overheat and thus melt the chocolate. The result is a sticky, ugly mess
inside your food processor. Chopping with a knife is more reliable.
--
Alex Rast

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

THanks all for your replies.

So, among all of this, and since I never mentioned any brands, I am
guessing the consensus is that the chips are the same as the squares.
I just save the labor of chopping.

at Wed, 28 Jan 2004 05:50:24 GMT in <d99f69d7.0401272150.69423db0
@posting.google.com>, (JimL) wrote :

>THanks all for your replies.
>
>So, among all of this, and since I never mentioned any brands, I am
>guessing the consensus is that the chips are the same as the squares.
>I just save the labor of chopping.

I would conclude the consensus seems to be as follows: that chips are NOT
the same as squares, but that the differences are subtle and only important
if you're interested in the finest possible quality in your finished items.
So you *can* substitute, with reservations: the results may not be exactly
the same, but they're unlikely to be inedibly different, either. Meanwhile
if you're interested in high quality, it's worth a few hours to research
quality brands of chocolate and know enough to make some reasonable
choices.
--
Alex Rast

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

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 23:04:52 +0000, Alex Rast wrote:

> I would conclude the consensus seems to be as follows: that chips are NOT
> the same as squares, but that the differences are subtle and only
> important if you're interested in the finest possible quality in your
> finished items.

The OP wanted chocolate for brownies. You can put a nun in the finest
silks of the world and crown her with an amazing habit.

But she's still a nun.

--
-Brian James Macke
"In order to get that which you wish for, you must first get that which
builds it." -- Unknown

Brian Macke wrote:

>On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 23:04:52 +0000, Alex Rast wrote:
>
> =20
>
>>I would conclude the consensus seems to be as follows: that chips are N=
OT
>>the same as squares, but that the differences are subtle and only
>>important if you're interested in the finest possible quality in your
>>finished items.=20
>> =20
>>
>
>The OP wanted chocolate for brownies. You can put a nun in the finest
>silks of the world and crown her with an amazing habit.
>
>But she's still a nun.
>
Yes..........but, Brian. And Alex will argue he want's nun of it.
Personally, for me, a baker who melts great eating chocolate to=20
incorporate it into a batter, should be shot with hot, green chicken=20
sh.............
Maybe I'll forgive him/her for big, unmelted chunks in the batter.

--=20
Grue$$e.

C=3D=A6-)=A7 H. W. Hans Kuntze, CMC, S.g.K. (_o_)
" Strive for excellence in your life & reject being a doormat to others. =
Serve God. "
http://www.cmcchef.com , chef[AT]cmcchef.com
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/=20

at Thu, 29 Jan 2004 05:41:43 GMT in
> ,
(Brian Macke) wrote :

>On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 23:04:52 +0000, Alex Rast wrote:
>
>> I would conclude the consensus seems to be as follows: that chips are
>> NOT the same as squares, but that the differences are subtle and only
>> important if you're interested in the finest possible quality in your
>> finished items.
>
>The OP wanted chocolate for brownies. You can put a nun in the finest
>silks of the world and crown her with an amazing habit.
>
>But she's still a nun.
>

While on the one hand I have my own definite opinions, I was actually
trying to summarize what had been posted in reply. The general tone of what
I saw was as I outlined above.

However, if you are rather claiming that using high-quality chocolate will
have no impact on whether or not brownies are "the finest possible
quality", I beg to differ. I believe you would notice the difference right
away between 2 versions of my brownie recipe (see "Hyper-chocolatey brownie
recipe" on DejaNews) - one made with a "typical" unsweetened chocolate like
Guittard, and another made with Michel Cluizel Noir Infini (which is what I
usually do). If you then made the same recipe with a "consumer" baking
chocolate like Baker's, I believe the difference would be even more stark.

Now, it's very easy, using quality chocolate, to overbake things, and erase
all differences between it and the cheapest chocolate on the market, but as
long as you don't ruin it by overbaking, (or carelessly melting,
imprecisely mixing, etc.) it'll taste better. However, this requires
obsessive monitoring, and care every step of the way. Basically, unless
you're dedicated to making your chocolate baking project the subject of
your total focus the entire time you're doing it, the risk is large it's
not going to be any better if you use quality chocolate. Hence my term
"finest possible quality". I literally meant the best possible, in other
words a level even above what quality professional bakers produce for sale.
--
Alex Rast

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