I would like to try Amedei Chuao chocolate in this recipe.

(Although that's also true, I wrote that mainly to catch the attention of
certain participants in this group ...)

Now to the real question:

I made a recipe for the first time a few days ago, and I'm trying to analyze
what happened, and I'm soliciting opinions.

I got the recipe from Germany.

Now, one reason I think I can get some opinions is that it's basically a
variation on your more or less classic flourless (or nearly so) chocolate
tortes, and so I think many of you will be familiar with the category and
something might catch your eye.

Here's the recipe:

1 20-cm. springform pan

200 g. bittersweet chocolate. I used 70%, so one question might be whether I
should have used a different one.

200 g. butter
250 g. sugar
5 eggs
1 tablespoon flour ("Essloeffel" in German)

Pre-heat the oven to 190 degrees Celsius. Melt butter and chocolate together
your favorite way - I did it in the microwave. Add the sugar, mix well, and
let the mixture cool somewhat. Add the eggs one by one, combining each
thoroughly before adding the next. Finally, add the flour and stir the
mixture until smooth.

Put into the form and bake for 22 minutes. The cake must still give when
gently touched in the middle with the forefinger. Take out of the oven,
immediately take out of the form, and let cool.

Okay, that's the recipe. As you can see, rather classic. In fact, it's
rather similar in general shape to my brownie recipe. And now, here's what
happened: at 22 minutes, the cake was still a great big mass of liquid. It
continued like that until finally at around 40 minutes, after even raising
the temperature a little bit in desperation, I finally felt I could take it
out.

And now the question: why did it take almost DOUBLE the time listed in the
recipe?

Before starting the discussion, I will add that the cake was pretty darned
good. So "all was well that ended well," in that sense. But I'd be very
interested in knowing why the recipe was seemingly so far off with respect
to timing.

Some considerations:

- the temperature? I measured the oven temperature with a thermometer, so I
*know* I was using the recommended temperature.

- the number of eggs? The mixture seemed awfully liquid after putting all
those eggs in there. It sure seems like a high number of eggs to me.

- the amount of flour? With one tablespoon of flour, this is nearly a
flourless cake. I wonder if that figured in it.

- I can't really believe the chocolate had anything to do with it. I used
the 70% from Novi. Nothing special, but it can't have affected the cooking
time so much.

- the stirring? In my brownie recipe, which I have remarked is similar, you
give the whole mixture a good strong 40 strokes with the wooden spoon at the
end before pouring into the form. I didn't do that here, and I suppose it
might have made some difference, but that much?

- something about the ratio of chocolate to butter?

Well, those are my thoughts. Anybody else like to venture an analysis?

John

P.S. And what about trying it with Amedei Chuao? ;-)

Size of eggs, possibly? Or were they supposed to be separated, and the yolk
beaten into the chocolate, with the whites beaten separately and folded in?

Oven temperature?

I'd have to go compare it to similar recipes to comment more specifically.
Which I am too lazy to do right now! <G>
--
Janet

Dear Artemesia! Poetry's a Sna/Bedlam has many Mansions:have a
ca/ Your Muse diverts you, makes the Reader sad:/ You think your
self inspir'd; He thinks you mad.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.786 / Virus Database: 532 - Release Date: 10/29/04

"Janet Puistonen" > wrote in message
news:VdSjd.111$Bj2.80@trndny01...
> Size of eggs, possibly? Or were they supposed to be separated, and the
yolk
> beaten into the chocolate, with the whites beaten separately and folded
in?

The eggs were large, that's true. But no, they weren't supposed to be
separated.

> Oven temperature?

Probably right - see Alex Rast's comment below.

> I'd have to go compare it to similar recipes to comment more specifically.
> Which I am too lazy to do right now! <G>

I think you got that right, too -- also see Alex Rast's comment.

John

at Sun, 07 Nov 2004 13:50:08 GMT in
>, (JMF) wrote :

>I would like to try Amedei Chuao chocolate in this recipe.
>
>(Although that's also true, I wrote that mainly to catch the attention
>of certain participants in this group ...)

If that's supposed to be me, don't worry - I'll always respond to questions
if I think I can provide valuable input.

>
>Now to the real question:
>
>I made a recipe for the first time...
>Now, one reason I think I can get some opinions is that it's basically a
>variation on your more or less classic flourless (or nearly so)
>chocolate tortes...

>Here's the recipe:
>
>1 20-cm. springform pan
>
>200 g. bittersweet chocolate. I used 70%, so one question might be
>whether I should have used a different one.
>200 g. butter
>250 g. sugar
>5 eggs
>1 tablespoon flour ("Essloeffel" in German)
>
>Pre-heat the oven to 190 degrees Celsius. Melt butter and chocolate
>together your favorite way - I did it in the microwave. Add the sugar,
>mix well, and let the mixture cool somewhat. Add the eggs one by one,
>combining each thoroughly before adding the next. Finally, add the flour
>and stir the mixture until smooth.
>
>Put into the form and bake for 22 minutes. The cake must still give when
>gently touched in the middle with the forefinger. Take out of the oven,
>immediately take out of the form, and let cool.
>
>... here's
>what happened: at 22 minutes, the cake was still a great big mass of
>liquid. It continued like that until finally at around 40 minutes, after
>even raising the temperature a little bit in desperation, I finally felt
>I could take it out.
>
>And now the question: why did it take almost DOUBLE the time listed in
>the recipe?

That's a high ratio of butter and sugar in the recipe. IMHO, it's far too
much if going for the classic Chocolate Decadence cake. The sugars and the
butter will melt, and that fluid mass is going to keep the cake from
firming up until the eggs *really* cook. I think the end result would be
rather weak in chocolate flavour, fudgy, and very, very sweet, in addition
to the baking-time issues you've already mentioned.

Be aware furthermore that it's actually pretty safe to take out a Chocolate
Decadence long before it looks fully done. Even when the whole surface
seems to quiver, and bubbles in the oven, it is often ready to take out
(assuming enough time has passed that you're not dealing with something
you've just put in). It will firm up nicely as it cools. Remember that all
the ingredients other than eggs are solid at room temperature, and then
you'll realise that once the internal temperature is high enough to cook
the eggs, you can take out the cake safely, and, once cool, it will be
solid. If it starts to look solid in the oven, especially in the center,
you've probably overbaked because at that point the eggs have cooked to
rubbery consistency and your decadence, while it will still taste OK, will
have something of a gummy texture. The idea is to cook the eggs to the
point where they'd be appropriate for custard.

Also, virtually every recipe I've seen that calls for egg-stabilised cooked
fillings or centers or tortes seems to underestimate baking times
drastically, at least IMHO. You can account for some of this time by what
temperature your mix is at when it goes in the oven. If your mix is cool
(e.g. refrigerator temperature) then it may take longer than the recipe
suggests, if the recipe assumed the mix was at room temperature to begin
with. I also suspect that recipes may be off in timing because they've been
designed and tested in professional kitchens with commercial baking ovens
that are much larger and more solid than your typical home oven, thus
having far higher heat capacity and therefore much less tendency to sag in
temperature when the cake (or whatever else) goes in the oven or, for that
matter, later on in the baking process (there's always heat leaking out and
the oven cycles - a commercial oven doesn't cycle as much because it
doesn't lose heat as fast).

So to summarise, you were dealing with a combination of factors. First was
a recipe somewhat off in ratios. Second is the natural tendency of
Chocolate Decadence to look impossibly underbaked when it's ready. Third is
the possibility the timing was a little on the low side anyway.

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.

While I might tweak the baking time upwards a bit, it wouldn't be extreme.
25 minutes should be OK, and by 30 minutes you'll almost certainly be safe.
The real test for chocolate baking is the smell. When the chocolatey smell
hits its peak, and is really overwhelming, it's usually time to take it out
of the oven. Remember also that an underbaked chocolate decadence is better
than an overbaked one.

>P.S. And what about trying it with Amedei Chuao? ;-)

This would be the wrong choice because there is a chocolate that you MUST
use for Chocolate Decadence-like cakes: Amedei Trinidad. (at least insofar
as you're thinking of using an Amedei chocolate). Trinidad produces an
incomparable Chocolate Decadence with the perfect flavour. Another
excellent choice, if you're looking for options, is Michel Cluizel Hacienda
Concepcion.

Amedei Chuao, for a Decadence-like cake, is too powerful, dark, and
brooding. The result is a cake that has a heavy, overwhelming taste, like
being smothered in black velvet. Those familiar with my tastes will know
that I'm ultra-enthusiastic about Chuao but also that IMHO it isn't
completely general-purpose: it works well in some applications but for
others it overwhelms.

--
Alex Rast

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

"Alex Rast" > wrote in message
...
> at Sun, 07 Nov 2004 13:50:08 GMT in
> >, (JMF) wrote :
>
> That's a high ratio of butter and sugar in the recipe. IMHO, it's far too
> much if going for the classic Chocolate Decadence cake.

Ah, so it would fall into the general category of the decadence cake. That
makes sense.

> The sugars and the
> butter will melt, and that fluid mass is going to keep the cake from
> firming up until the eggs *really* cook. I think the end result would be
> rather weak in chocolate flavour, fudgy, and very, very sweet, in addition
> to the baking-time issues you've already mentioned.

Yes, it was quite sweet.

> Be aware furthermore that it's actually pretty safe to take out a
Chocolate
> Decadence long before it looks fully done. Even when the whole surface
> seems to quiver, and bubbles in the oven, it is often ready to take out
> (assuming enough time has passed that you're not dealing with something
> you've just put in). It will firm up nicely as it cools. Remember that all
> the ingredients other than eggs are solid at room temperature, and then
> you'll realise that once the internal temperature is high enough to cook
> the eggs, you can take out the cake safely, and, once cool, it will be
> solid. If it starts to look solid in the oven, especially in the center,
> you've probably overbaked because at that point the eggs have cooked to
> rubbery consistency and your decadence, while it will still taste OK, will
> have something of a gummy texture. The idea is to cook the eggs to the
> point where they'd be appropriate for custard.

Interesting! Now I get the idea of how the eggs are supposed to work in all
this. I don't remember the cake being particularly rubbery, although maybe
around the outside a bit.

> Also, virtually every recipe I've seen that calls for egg-stabilised
cooked
> fillings or centers or tortes seems to underestimate baking times
> drastically, at least IMHO. You can account for some of this time by what
> temperature your mix is at when it goes in the oven. If your mix is cool
> (e.g. refrigerator temperature) then it may take longer than the recipe
> suggests, if the recipe assumed the mix was at room temperature to begin
> with. I also suspect that recipes may be off in timing because they've
been
> designed and tested in professional kitchens with commercial baking ovens
> that are much larger and more solid than your typical home oven, thus
> having far higher heat capacity and therefore much less tendency to sag in
> temperature when the cake (or whatever else) goes in the oven or, for that
> matter, later on in the baking process (there's always heat leaking out
and
> the oven cycles - a commercial oven doesn't cycle as much because it
> doesn't lose heat as fast).

Also very interesting! Sure, that makes sense, too. So even if I had the
"right" temperature, it's still not the same as a professional oven
experience.

> So to summarise, you were dealing with a combination of factors. First was
> a recipe somewhat off in ratios. Second is the natural tendency of
> Chocolate Decadence to look impossibly underbaked when it's ready. Third
is
> the possibility the timing was a little on the low side anyway.

I'll certainly look out for the "seemingly undercooked" phenomenon, which I
wasn't explicitly aware of with respect to the decadence category - although
as I said, it was hopelessly liquid at 22 minutes.

> 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.

Great! makes perfect sense. I'll give it a try. Nice fit, too, with the size
of European butter sticks at exactly 125 g.

> While I might tweak the baking time upwards a bit, it wouldn't be extreme.
> 25 minutes should be OK, and by 30 minutes you'll almost certainly be
safe.
> The real test for chocolate baking is the smell. When the chocolatey smell
> hits its peak, and is really overwhelming, it's usually time to take it
out
> of the oven. Remember also that an underbaked chocolate decadence is
better
> than an overbaked one.
>
> >P.S. And what about trying it with Amedei Chuao? ;-)
>
> This would be the wrong choice because there is a chocolate that you MUST
> use for Chocolate Decadence-like cakes: Amedei Trinidad. (at least insofar
> as you're thinking of using an Amedei chocolate). Trinidad produces an
> incomparable Chocolate Decadence with the perfect flavour. Another
> excellent choice, if you're looking for options, is Michel Cluizel
Hacienda
> Concepcion.
>
> Amedei Chuao, for a Decadence-like cake, is too powerful, dark, and
> brooding. The result is a cake that has a heavy, overwhelming taste, like
> being smothered in black velvet. Those familiar with my tastes will know
> that I'm ultra-enthusiastic about Chuao but also that IMHO it isn't
> completely general-purpose: it works well in some applications but for
> others it overwhelms.

Also very interesting. I had understood your earlier remarks on Chuao to
mean that it would be right for this cake. But it's great to have these
suggestions, too.

Thanks,

John

"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?

Thanks,

John

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.

--
Alex Rast

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

"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

I am new to the group and fascinate by the nomenclature you are using
to describe chocolates. Is there a definitive text, similar to the
ones that wine enthusiasts use, to teach newbies the "language of
chocolate?"

Thanks,

Poloista

Luxury Dossier, Life at a Gallop
Polo :: Luxury Travel :: Adventure Sport :: Exuberant Living
www.luxurydossier.com

Chocolate Standards

In the Unites States, a set of federal regulations, called the Standards of
Identity, govern the composition and nomenclature of chocolate.

The following standards apply to all chocolates:

a.. Cocoa butter and milk fat are the only fats allowed in chocolate.
b.. Chocolate-flavored coatings and pastel coatings, called compounds, are
made with vegetable fats like palm kernel, cottonseed, and soybean oils.
c.. A specific type of chocolate must meet the requirements set by the
Standards of Identity in order to earn its name.
d.. Unsweetened Chocolate - Also called chocolate liquor, unsweetened
chocolate is the finely ground roasted cocoa nibs.
e.. Can be natural or dutch (alkalized).
f.. Bittersweet/Semi-Sweet Chocolate - Contains at least 35% unsweetened
chocolate and less than 12% milk solids.
g.. Bittersweet chocolate often has an unsweetened chocolate content of
50% or more. semi-sweet chocolate generally contains 35-45% unsweetened
chocolate.
h.. Sweet Chocolate (Dark) - Contains at least 15% unsweetened chocolate
and less than 12% milk solids.
i.. Milk Chocolate - Contains at least 10% unsweetened chocolate and 12%
milk solids.
j.. White Chocolate - No official Standard of Identity exists yet for
white chocolate.
k.. Typically made with cocoa butter (unsweetened chocolate with the cocoa
solids removed), milk solids, sugar and flavorings
"Luxury Dossier, Life at a Gallop" > wrote in
message oups.com...
> I am new to the group and fascinate by the nomenclature you are using
> to describe chocolates. Is there a definitive text, similar to the
> ones that wine enthusiasts use, to teach newbies the "language of
> chocolate?"
>
> Thanks,
>
> Poloista
>
> Luxury Dossier, Life at a Gallop
> Polo :: Luxury Travel :: Adventure Sport :: Exuberant Living
> www.luxurydossier.com
>

"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?

Thanks,

John

at Sun, 07 Nov 2004 13:50:08 GMT in
>, (JMF) wrote :

>I would like to try Amedei Chuao chocolate in this recipe.
>
>(Although that's also true, I wrote that mainly to catch the attention
>of certain participants in this group ...)

If that's supposed to be me, don't worry - I'll always respond to questions
if I think I can provide valuable input.

>
>Now to the real question:
>
>I made a recipe for the first time...
>Now, one reason I think I can get some opinions is that it's basically a
>variation on your more or less classic flourless (or nearly so)
>chocolate tortes...

>Here's the recipe:
>
>1 20-cm. springform pan
>
>200 g. bittersweet chocolate. I used 70%, so one question might be
>whether I should have used a different one.
>200 g. butter
>250 g. sugar
>5 eggs
>1 tablespoon flour ("Essloeffel" in German)
>
>Pre-heat the oven to 190 degrees Celsius. Melt butter and chocolate
>together your favorite way - I did it in the microwave. Add the sugar,
>mix well, and let the mixture cool somewhat. Add the eggs one by one,
>combining each thoroughly before adding the next. Finally, add the flour
>and stir the mixture until smooth.
>
>Put into the form and bake for 22 minutes. The cake must still give when
>gently touched in the middle with the forefinger. Take out of the oven,
>immediately take out of the form, and let cool.
>
>... here's
>what happened: at 22 minutes, the cake was still a great big mass of
>liquid. It continued like that until finally at around 40 minutes, after
>even raising the temperature a little bit in desperation, I finally felt
>I could take it out.
>
>And now the question: why did it take almost DOUBLE the time listed in
>the recipe?

That's a high ratio of butter and sugar in the recipe. IMHO, it's far too
much if going for the classic Chocolate Decadence cake. The sugars and the
butter will melt, and that fluid mass is going to keep the cake from
firming up until the eggs *really* cook. I think the end result would be
rather weak in chocolate flavour, fudgy, and very, very sweet, in addition
to the baking-time issues you've already mentioned.

Be aware furthermore that it's actually pretty safe to take out a Chocolate
Decadence long before it looks fully done. Even when the whole surface
seems to quiver, and bubbles in the oven, it is often ready to take out
(assuming enough time has passed that you're not dealing with something
you've just put in). It will firm up nicely as it cools. Remember that all
the ingredients other than eggs are solid at room temperature, and then
you'll realise that once the internal temperature is high enough to cook
the eggs, you can take out the cake safely, and, once cool, it will be
solid. If it starts to look solid in the oven, especially in the center,
you've probably overbaked because at that point the eggs have cooked to
rubbery consistency and your decadence, while it will still taste OK, will
have something of a gummy texture. The idea is to cook the eggs to the
point where they'd be appropriate for custard.

Also, virtually every recipe I've seen that calls for egg-stabilised cooked
fillings or centers or tortes seems to underestimate baking times
drastically, at least IMHO. You can account for some of this time by what
temperature your mix is at when it goes in the oven. If your mix is cool
(e.g. refrigerator temperature) then it may take longer than the recipe
suggests, if the recipe assumed the mix was at room temperature to begin
with. I also suspect that recipes may be off in timing because they've been
designed and tested in professional kitchens with commercial baking ovens
that are much larger and more solid than your typical home oven, thus
having far higher heat capacity and therefore much less tendency to sag in
temperature when the cake (or whatever else) goes in the oven or, for that
matter, later on in the baking process (there's always heat leaking out and
the oven cycles - a commercial oven doesn't cycle as much because it
doesn't lose heat as fast).

So to summarise, you were dealing with a combination of factors. First was
a recipe somewhat off in ratios. Second is the natural tendency of
Chocolate Decadence to look impossibly underbaked when it's ready. Third is
the possibility the timing was a little on the low side anyway.

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.

While I might tweak the baking time upwards a bit, it wouldn't be extreme.
25 minutes should be OK, and by 30 minutes you'll almost certainly be safe.
The real test for chocolate baking is the smell. When the chocolatey smell
hits its peak, and is really overwhelming, it's usually time to take it out
of the oven. Remember also that an underbaked chocolate decadence is better
than an overbaked one.

>P.S. And what about trying it with Amedei Chuao? ;-)

This would be the wrong choice because there is a chocolate that you MUST
use for Chocolate Decadence-like cakes: Amedei Trinidad. (at least insofar
as you're thinking of using an Amedei chocolate). Trinidad produces an
incomparable Chocolate Decadence with the perfect flavour. Another
excellent choice, if you're looking for options, is Michel Cluizel Hacienda
Concepcion.

Amedei Chuao, for a Decadence-like cake, is too powerful, dark, and
brooding. The result is a cake that has a heavy, overwhelming taste, like
being smothered in black velvet. Those familiar with my tastes will know
that I'm ultra-enthusiastic about Chuao but also that IMHO it isn't
completely general-purpose: it works well in some applications but for
others it overwhelms.

--
Alex Rast

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

We do not use flour at all in our flourless chocolate torte:
We only use
Dark Chocolate
Butter
Sugar
Eggs
And Vanilla
1. We melt the chocolate and the butter together
2. Mix the chocolate and butter with the sugar on slow speed
3. Add vanilla and eggs, mix well.
4.Grease and line 9" round pans
5. Pour mixture in 3/4 way up
6. Bake at 250 deg. for 2 hours in a water bath
7. Remove and completely cool down
8. Cover with chocolate qunache.
"JMF" > wrote in message
...
> I would like to try Amedei Chuao chocolate in this recipe.
>
> (Although that's also true, I wrote that mainly to catch the attention of
> certain participants in this group ...)
>
> Now to the real question:
>
> I made a recipe for the first time a few days ago, and I'm trying to
analyze
> what happened, and I'm soliciting opinions.
>
> I got the recipe from Germany.
>
> Now, one reason I think I can get some opinions is that it's basically a
> variation on your more or less classic flourless (or nearly so) chocolate
> tortes, and so I think many of you will be familiar with the category and
> something might catch your eye.
>
> Here's the recipe:
>
> 1 20-cm. springform pan
>
> 200 g. bittersweet chocolate. I used 70%, so one question might be whether
I
> should have used a different one.
>
> 200 g. butter
> 250 g. sugar
> 5 eggs
> 1 tablespoon flour ("Essloeffel" in German)
>
> Pre-heat the oven to 190 degrees Celsius. Melt butter and chocolate
together
> your favorite way - I did it in the microwave. Add the sugar, mix well,
and
> let the mixture cool somewhat. Add the eggs one by one, combining each
> thoroughly before adding the next. Finally, add the flour and stir the
> mixture until smooth.
>
> Put into the form and bake for 22 minutes. The cake must still give when
> gently touched in the middle with the forefinger. Take out of the oven,
> immediately take out of the form, and let cool.
>
> Okay, that's the recipe. As you can see, rather classic. In fact, it's
> rather similar in general shape to my brownie recipe. And now, here's what
> happened: at 22 minutes, the cake was still a great big mass of liquid. It
> continued like that until finally at around 40 minutes, after even raising
> the temperature a little bit in desperation, I finally felt I could take
it
> out.
>
> And now the question: why did it take almost DOUBLE the time listed in the
> recipe?
>
> Before starting the discussion, I will add that the cake was pretty darned
> good. So "all was well that ended well," in that sense. But I'd be very
> interested in knowing why the recipe was seemingly so far off with respect
> to timing.
>
> Some considerations:
>
> - the temperature? I measured the oven temperature with a thermometer, so
I
> *know* I was using the recommended temperature.
>
> - the number of eggs? The mixture seemed awfully liquid after putting all
> those eggs in there. It sure seems like a high number of eggs to me.
>
> - the amount of flour? With one tablespoon of flour, this is nearly a
> flourless cake. I wonder if that figured in it.
>
> - I can't really believe the chocolate had anything to do with it. I used
> the 70% from Novi. Nothing special, but it can't have affected the cooking
> time so much.
>
> - the stirring? In my brownie recipe, which I have remarked is similar,
you
> give the whole mixture a good strong 40 strokes with the wooden spoon at
the
> end before pouring into the form. I didn't do that here, and I suppose it
> might have made some difference, but that much?
>
> - something about the ratio of chocolate to butter?
>
> Well, those are my thoughts. Anybody else like to venture an analysis?
>
> John
>
> P.S. And what about trying it with Amedei Chuao? ;-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Interesting, especially the 2 hour baking time in a water bath. What are the
ingredient proportions that you use?

Thanks,

John

"Chef R. W. Miller" > wrote in message
. com...
> We do not use flour at all in our flourless chocolate torte:
> We only use
> Dark Chocolate
> Butter
> Sugar
> Eggs
> And Vanilla
> 1. We melt the chocolate and the butter together
> 2. Mix the chocolate and butter with the sugar on slow speed
> 3. Add vanilla and eggs, mix well.
> 4.Grease and line 9" round pans
> 5. Pour mixture in 3/4 way up
> 6. Bake at 250 deg. for 2 hours in a water bath
> 7. Remove and completely cool down
> 8. Cover with chocolate qunache.
> "JMF" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I would like to try Amedei Chuao chocolate in this recipe.
> >
> > (Although that's also true, I wrote that mainly to catch the attention
of
> > certain participants in this group ...)
> >
> > Now to the real question:
> >
> > I made a recipe for the first time a few days ago, and I'm trying to
> analyze
> > what happened, and I'm soliciting opinions.
> >
> > I got the recipe from Germany.
> >
> > Now, one reason I think I can get some opinions is that it's basically a
> > variation on your more or less classic flourless (or nearly so)
chocolate
> > tortes, and so I think many of you will be familiar with the category
and
> > something might catch your eye.
> >
> > Here's the recipe:
> >
> > 1 20-cm. springform pan
> >
> > 200 g. bittersweet chocolate. I used 70%, so one question might be
whether
> I
> > should have used a different one.
> >
> > 200 g. butter
> > 250 g. sugar
> > 5 eggs
> > 1 tablespoon flour ("Essloeffel" in German)
> >
> > Pre-heat the oven to 190 degrees Celsius. Melt butter and chocolate
> together
> > your favorite way - I did it in the microwave. Add the sugar, mix well,
> and
> > let the mixture cool somewhat. Add the eggs one by one, combining each
> > thoroughly before adding the next. Finally, add the flour and stir the
> > mixture until smooth.
> >
> > Put into the form and bake for 22 minutes. The cake must still give when
> > gently touched in the middle with the forefinger. Take out of the oven,
> > immediately take out of the form, and let cool.
> >
> > Okay, that's the recipe. As you can see, rather classic. In fact, it's
> > rather similar in general shape to my brownie recipe. And now, here's
what
> > happened: at 22 minutes, the cake was still a great big mass of liquid.
It
> > continued like that until finally at around 40 minutes, after even
raising
> > the temperature a little bit in desperation, I finally felt I could take
> it
> > out.
> >
> > And now the question: why did it take almost DOUBLE the time listed in
the
> > recipe?
> >
> > Before starting the discussion, I will add that the cake was pretty
darned
> > good. So "all was well that ended well," in that sense. But I'd be very
> > interested in knowing why the recipe was seemingly so far off with
respect
> > to timing.
> >
> > Some considerations:
> >
> > - the temperature? I measured the oven temperature with a thermometer,
so
> I
> > *know* I was using the recommended temperature.
> >
> > - the number of eggs? The mixture seemed awfully liquid after putting
all
> > those eggs in there. It sure seems like a high number of eggs to me.
> >
> > - the amount of flour? With one tablespoon of flour, this is nearly a
> > flourless cake. I wonder if that figured in it.
> >
> > - I can't really believe the chocolate had anything to do with it. I
used
> > the 70% from Novi. Nothing special, but it can't have affected the
cooking
> > time so much.
> >
> > - the stirring? In my brownie recipe, which I have remarked is similar,
> you
> > give the whole mixture a good strong 40 strokes with the wooden spoon at
> the
> > end before pouring into the form. I didn't do that here, and I suppose
it
> > might have made some difference, but that much?
> >
> > - something about the ratio of chocolate to butter?
> >
> > Well, those are my thoughts. Anybody else like to venture an analysis?
> >
> > John
> >
> > P.S. And what about trying it with Amedei Chuao? ;-)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Interesting, especially the 2 hour baking time in a water bath. What are the
ingredient proportions that you use?

Thanks,

John

"Chef R. W. Miller" > wrote in message
. com...
> We do not use flour at all in our flourless chocolate torte:
> We only use
> Dark Chocolate
> Butter
> Sugar
> Eggs
> And Vanilla
> 1. We melt the chocolate and the butter together
> 2. Mix the chocolate and butter with the sugar on slow speed
> 3. Add vanilla and eggs, mix well.
> 4.Grease and line 9" round pans
> 5. Pour mixture in 3/4 way up
> 6. Bake at 250 deg. for 2 hours in a water bath
> 7. Remove and completely cool down
> 8. Cover with chocolate qunache.
> "JMF" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I would like to try Amedei Chuao chocolate in this recipe.
> >
> > (Although that's also true, I wrote that mainly to catch the attention
of
> > certain participants in this group ...)
> >
> > Now to the real question:
> >
> > I made a recipe for the first time a few days ago, and I'm trying to
> analyze
> > what happened, and I'm soliciting opinions.
> >
> > I got the recipe from Germany.
> >
> > Now, one reason I think I can get some opinions is that it's basically a
> > variation on your more or less classic flourless (or nearly so)
chocolate
> > tortes, and so I think many of you will be familiar with the category
and
> > something might catch your eye.
> >
> > Here's the recipe:
> >
> > 1 20-cm. springform pan
> >
> > 200 g. bittersweet chocolate. I used 70%, so one question might be
whether
> I
> > should have used a different one.
> >
> > 200 g. butter
> > 250 g. sugar
> > 5 eggs
> > 1 tablespoon flour ("Essloeffel" in German)
> >
> > Pre-heat the oven to 190 degrees Celsius. Melt butter and chocolate
> together
> > your favorite way - I did it in the microwave. Add the sugar, mix well,
> and
> > let the mixture cool somewhat. Add the eggs one by one, combining each
> > thoroughly before adding the next. Finally, add the flour and stir the
> > mixture until smooth.
> >
> > Put into the form and bake for 22 minutes. The cake must still give when
> > gently touched in the middle with the forefinger. Take out of the oven,
> > immediately take out of the form, and let cool.
> >
> > Okay, that's the recipe. As you can see, rather classic. In fact, it's
> > rather similar in general shape to my brownie recipe. And now, here's
what
> > happened: at 22 minutes, the cake was still a great big mass of liquid.
It
> > continued like that until finally at around 40 minutes, after even
raising
> > the temperature a little bit in desperation, I finally felt I could take
> it
> > out.
> >
> > And now the question: why did it take almost DOUBLE the time listed in
the
> > recipe?
> >
> > Before starting the discussion, I will add that the cake was pretty
darned
> > good. So "all was well that ended well," in that sense. But I'd be very
> > interested in knowing why the recipe was seemingly so far off with
respect
> > to timing.
> >
> > Some considerations:
> >
> > - the temperature? I measured the oven temperature with a thermometer,
so
> I
> > *know* I was using the recommended temperature.
> >
> > - the number of eggs? The mixture seemed awfully liquid after putting
all
> > those eggs in there. It sure seems like a high number of eggs to me.
> >
> > - the amount of flour? With one tablespoon of flour, this is nearly a
> > flourless cake. I wonder if that figured in it.
> >
> > - I can't really believe the chocolate had anything to do with it. I
used
> > the 70% from Novi. Nothing special, but it can't have affected the
cooking
> > time so much.
> >
> > - the stirring? In my brownie recipe, which I have remarked is similar,
> you
> > give the whole mixture a good strong 40 strokes with the wooden spoon at
> the
> > end before pouring into the form. I didn't do that here, and I suppose
it
> > might have made some difference, but that much?
> >
> > - something about the ratio of chocolate to butter?
> >
> > Well, those are my thoughts. Anybody else like to venture an analysis?
> >
> > John
> >
> > P.S. And what about trying it with Amedei Chuao? ;-)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

We do not use flour at all in our flourless chocolate torte:
We only use
Dark Chocolate
Butter
Sugar
Eggs
And Vanilla
1. We melt the chocolate and the butter together
2. Mix the chocolate and butter with the sugar on slow speed
3. Add vanilla and eggs, mix well.
4.Grease and line 9" round pans
5. Pour mixture in 3/4 way up
6. Bake at 250 deg. for 2 hours in a water bath
7. Remove and completely cool down
8. Cover with chocolate qunache.
"JMF" > wrote in message
...
> I would like to try Amedei Chuao chocolate in this recipe.
>
> (Although that's also true, I wrote that mainly to catch the attention of
> certain participants in this group ...)
>
> Now to the real question:
>
> I made a recipe for the first time a few days ago, and I'm trying to
analyze
> what happened, and I'm soliciting opinions.
>
> I got the recipe from Germany.
>
> Now, one reason I think I can get some opinions is that it's basically a
> variation on your more or less classic flourless (or nearly so) chocolate
> tortes, and so I think many of you will be familiar with the category and
> something might catch your eye.
>
> Here's the recipe:
>
> 1 20-cm. springform pan
>
> 200 g. bittersweet chocolate. I used 70%, so one question might be whether
I
> should have used a different one.
>
> 200 g. butter
> 250 g. sugar
> 5 eggs
> 1 tablespoon flour ("Essloeffel" in German)
>
> Pre-heat the oven to 190 degrees Celsius. Melt butter and chocolate
together
> your favorite way - I did it in the microwave. Add the sugar, mix well,
and
> let the mixture cool somewhat. Add the eggs one by one, combining each
> thoroughly before adding the next. Finally, add the flour and stir the
> mixture until smooth.
>
> Put into the form and bake for 22 minutes. The cake must still give when
> gently touched in the middle with the forefinger. Take out of the oven,
> immediately take out of the form, and let cool.
>
> Okay, that's the recipe. As you can see, rather classic. In fact, it's
> rather similar in general shape to my brownie recipe. And now, here's what
> happened: at 22 minutes, the cake was still a great big mass of liquid. It
> continued like that until finally at around 40 minutes, after even raising
> the temperature a little bit in desperation, I finally felt I could take
it
> out.
>
> And now the question: why did it take almost DOUBLE the time listed in the
> recipe?
>
> Before starting the discussion, I will add that the cake was pretty darned
> good. So "all was well that ended well," in that sense. But I'd be very
> interested in knowing why the recipe was seemingly so far off with respect
> to timing.
>
> Some considerations:
>
> - the temperature? I measured the oven temperature with a thermometer, so
I
> *know* I was using the recommended temperature.
>
> - the number of eggs? The mixture seemed awfully liquid after putting all
> those eggs in there. It sure seems like a high number of eggs to me.
>
> - the amount of flour? With one tablespoon of flour, this is nearly a
> flourless cake. I wonder if that figured in it.
>
> - I can't really believe the chocolate had anything to do with it. I used
> the 70% from Novi. Nothing special, but it can't have affected the cooking
> time so much.
>
> - the stirring? In my brownie recipe, which I have remarked is similar,
you
> give the whole mixture a good strong 40 strokes with the wooden spoon at
the
> end before pouring into the form. I didn't do that here, and I suppose it
> might have made some difference, but that much?
>
> - something about the ratio of chocolate to butter?
>
> Well, those are my thoughts. Anybody else like to venture an analysis?
>
> John
>
> P.S. And what about trying it with Amedei Chuao? ;-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>