Well, I am biting the bullet and ordering from Chocosphere.

I don't have a huge amount of money and want to get the best for my
buck. Alex...what do you suggest (I plan on some for tasting myself,
some to practice tempering and making truffles and chocolates, and
maybe some for blending/mixing).

I believe you mentioned Guittard's large blocks but was it the
L'Harmonie you were recommending? How about the larger 10lb blocks of
Old Dutch Milk Chocolate & their Gourmet Bittersweet? Are these good
too?

I will take any and all advice (from someone's fav chocolate, to what
they use in making chocolates).

Thanks again!

Stef C.

Fantastic! Thank you very much, Alex, for taking the time to give me
so much information. You have been so helpful!
I'll let you know what I get and what I think about them.

:-)

Stef C.

Hi
First, here's some other web sites where I've purchased chocolate in
bulk and have found their prices to often be better than Chocosphere

www.gourmail.com (limited selection but very good pricing)
www.chocolatesource.com (good pricing and very reliable)

Also, while I've not used the site, I've seen some good prices on
www.chocolateman.net

I'm a low-volume chocolatier (20-50 lbs per year), and while I've been
at this for about 5 years, there are tons of brands/varieties I have
not tasted. You've had some really good suggestions from others and
I'm looking forward to trying them myself!

Chocolate is so personal, it's hard to know what to recommend. For
example, lots of people like El Rey's smoky, earthy qualities, I don't.
Some people find Scharfen Berger is too harsh and acidy, I like it a
lot.

In some cases, I find the higher priced chocolate is worth it, in other
cases, I find that I can make people happy with some very good quality
but not over-the-top chocolate.

My 'go-to' brand is Callebaut. The 835 variety has a nice balanced
flavor that may be a bit bland for some, but the people who want my
chocolate like it. It's easy to temper, and is good for molding, hand
dipping, and panning. My only complaint is that the cocoa butter
content of 35% is a little below my prefered level of 38%, because I
like a very thin mold. But I can always add cocoa butter to produce a
thinner chocolate. If you buy a 5kg block, I've been able to find
prices in the $4.50-$5.25 per pound vacinity.

I really like Scharffen Berger, although it's generally twice as
expensive. Their semi-sweet is very intense, very smooth, and tempers
beautifully, making incredibly crisp shells that are thin yet sturdy.
Their bittersweet is actually too bitter for many people. If I were to
start with one, I'd start with the semi-sweet and see if you like it.
(Sold in 5lb blocks, about $9-$10 per pound, similar price range to
Valrhona)

I'll stop because you have had great suggestions from others. Best of
luck.

Bruce

Thank you very much Bruce! I found your comments very helpful. I
agree that people have different tastes and that's what makes it fun
and interesting. I, too, like Callebaut and enjoy using it. I think
the white chocolate is very smooth and buttery in flavor. I also love
El Rey's white, it's just a heavier, less creamy taste.

Can you give me any pointers on molding good crisp shells for fillings?
The one chocolate I adore is Joseph Schmidt's dark chocolate truffle.
It's a "dome" shaped, large chocolate with a lovely crisp, not too
thin/not too thick coating and filled with a wonderful soft liquor
chocolate ganache. I just guess I need to practice before I get the
hang of (1) making good shells for the outside, and (2) master the soft
inner filling and getting this soft filling sealed by the cover so that
it is completely encased.
I best keep working on it!

Thanks again to both of you!

Stef C.

at Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:16:29 GMT in <1106583389.030161.31210
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, (SC) wrote :

>Thank you very much Bruce! I found your comments very helpful. I
>agree that people have different tastes and that's what makes it fun
>and interesting. I, too, like Callebaut and enjoy using it. I think
>the white chocolate is very smooth and buttery in flavor. I also love
>El Rey's white, it's just a heavier, less creamy taste.
>
>Can you give me any pointers on molding good crisp shells for fillings?

The most important thing is to use a very high cocoa butter formulation.
This produces the crisp shells, and when melted will have a low viscosity,
so that it will flow into a thin shell rather than glob up, as it were.

A few posts ago I mentioned Guittard Coucher du Soleil at 44% cocoa butter,
and Chocovic Maragda at 43% cocoa butter, both of which are good choices.
Even higher in cocoa butter is Rapunzel Bittersweet 70% at 48% cocoa
butter. So there's no shortage of choices.

The other thing is very good tempering. Obviously, you've been practicing
this, and practice makes perfect. Investing in a tempering thermometer
would also help, and tempering works best with large batches, so try to
temper as much chocolate as practicable in one session.

>The one chocolate I adore is Joseph Schmidt's dark chocolate truffle.
>It's a "dome" shaped, large chocolate with a lovely crisp, not too
>thin/not too thick coating and filled with a wonderful soft liquor
>chocolate ganache.

Many chocolatiers these days opt for a 1:1 ganache or a 3:2 ganache instead
of the classic 2:1 ganache for truffles. 1:1 is the standard
filling/frosting ganache. 2:1, meanwhile, is a firm ganache - which will
hold its shape well without any kind of shell to support it. Personally, I
find the 1:1 and 3:2 ganaches too soft for truffles, and they don't deliver
the same chocolate intensity, but a lot of people prefer the very soft
mouthfeel of the lower ratio types. So this is probably what you're trying
to achieve. Experiment, therefore, with 3:2 ganache (3 parts chocolate to 2
parts cream) or even 1:1 ganache if you want a soft, more spreadable
texture.

These ratios, as I implied, don't hold their shape very well, and as a
result, can't easily be rolled and dipped in the same manner as 2:1. With
the softer ganaches, what you need to do is pre-mould the shells - mould a
top out of a hemispherical mould and make the bottom by spreading out
tempered chocolate in a thin layer and either cutting out discs to fit the
bottom or rolling small pieces of parchment into circles and setting them
end-on into the tempered chocolate after it's been spread out but before
it's cooled.

Then you make your ganache, wait until it cools, transfer to a pastry bag,
and pipe it into the shells. Be sure to fill the shells completely. If
you're careful, you can also chill the shells a bit, and wait 'till the
ganache has cooled to the point just before it starts to set. Then pour
this mix into the cooled shells and set them aside.

Once everything has cooled completely, warm the rims of the shells, both
top and bottom, by heating up one of the moulds (this is where metal moulds
are a big advantage) and pressing it against the shells. You don't get the
tops re-"cupped" in the shells - rather, you invert the mould only over the
bottom of the shell, so that as you're performing the process, you have a
spherical assembly, with the bottom half of the sphere being the chocolate
and the top the mould. Then quickly press the bottoms onto the tops and
chill again.

You can cover the seam with a thin layer of tempered chocolate once
everything's cool if you want perfect presentation. Note that these kinds
of truffles, which are becoming common at chocolate shops, are difficult to
make at home because of all the steps involved - which is perhaps one
reason why the chocolate shops favour them - it's easier to sell something
you can't easily duplicate at home. Another reason would be that this
process is more amenable to batch production techniques using candymaking
machines.

--
Alex Rast

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

I'll respond just along the lines of your "best for my buck" stipulation.
Below is my current list of the best chocolate (my opinion, all rated "1" on
a scale of 1-5) and their per-ounce price, based on my tasting notes of 150
different dark chocolates (still counting).

I know Pralus and Domori are pretty spendy, but both are truly in the
"awesome" category and are worth trying - though the risk is that your
definition of "excellent chocolate" will NEVER be the same.

Guittard "Gourmet Bittersweet 63%" $0.33
Guittard "Lever Du Soleil 61%" $0.50
Chocolove "Extra Strong Dark" $0.55
Chocovic "Unique Origin Varietal Guaranda 71%" $0.63
Santander "65% Bitter-Sweet Bar" $0.67
Valrhona "Le Noir Amer 71%" $0.71
Valor "Pure Dark Chocolate 70%" $0.77
Valrhona "Caraibe 66%" $0.77
Valrhona "Le Noir Gastronomie Dark Chocolate 61%" $0.82
Schokinag "Dark Chocolate Schokinag Bar 71%" $0.86
Michel Cluizel "Amer 60%" $0.88
Scharffen Berger "70% Bittersweet" $0.92
Pfister "Noir 70%" $0.98
Domori "Carenero Superior" $1.13
Galler "Fondant Parfait 60%" $1.14
Galler "Noir 70%" $1.14
Galler "Noir 85%" $1.14
A. Korkunov "Dark Chocolate 72%" $1.14
Valrhona "Gran Couva 64%" $1.47
Cuba Venchi "Cuor di Cacao 75%" $1.54
Cuba Venchi "Cuor di Cacao 85%" $1.67
Michel Cluizel "1er Cru de Plantation 'Los Ancones'" $1.70
Pralus' Colombie, Equateur, Java, Madagascar, Trinadad, Vanuatu, Venezuela,
Ghana $2.00
Domori "Granella" $2.06
Domori "Carupano" $2.12
Domori "Blend No. 1" $2.47
Domori "Break" $2.47
Domori "Porcelana 70%" $3.83
Amedei "1 Cru Venezuela" $5.31

"SC" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Well, I am biting the bullet and ordering from Chocosphere.
>
> I don't have a huge amount of money and want to get the best for my
> buck. Alex...what do you suggest (I plan on some for tasting myself,
> some to practice tempering and making truffles and chocolates, and
> maybe some for blending/mixing).
>
> I believe you mentioned Guittard's large blocks but was it the
> L'Harmonie you were recommending? How about the larger 10lb blocks of
> Old Dutch Milk Chocolate & their Gourmet Bittersweet? Are these good
> too?
>
> I will take any and all advice (from someone's fav chocolate, to what
> they use in making chocolates).
>
> Thanks again!
>
> Stef C.
>

On 05-01-25 00:45:19, Alex Rast wrote:

> Once everything has cooled completely, warm the rims of the shells, both
> top and bottom, by heating up one of the moulds (this is where metal moulds
> are a big advantage) and pressing it against the shells. You don't get the
> tops re-"cupped" in the shells - rather, you invert the mould only over the
> bottom of the shell, so that as you're performing the process, you have a
> spherical assembly, with the bottom half of the sphere being the chocolate
> and the top the mould. Then quickly press the bottoms onto the tops and
> chill again.

It goes without saying, but just to make this explicit: One can use this
technique to combine two different fillings to create even more
explosive truffles.

(I'm booked for a truffle & chocolates one day workshop by a Valrhona
chef end of February and am already quite thrilled to go ;-)



--
http://lars.marowsky-bree.de/disclaimer.html
http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/wis...1YT8P9SMIUTDI/

"Lars Marowsky-Bree" > wrote in message
...
> On 05-01-25 00:45:19, Alex Rast wrote:
>
>> Once everything has cooled completely, warm the rims of the shells, both
>> top and bottom, by heating up one of the moulds (this is where metal
>> moulds
>> are a big advantage) and pressing it against the shells. You don't get
>> the
>> tops re-"cupped" in the shells - rather, you invert the mould only over
>> the
>> bottom of the shell, so that as you're performing the process, you have a
>> spherical assembly, with the bottom half of the sphere being the
>> chocolate
>> and the top the mould. Then quickly press the bottoms onto the tops and
>> chill again.
>
> It goes without saying, but just to make this explicit: One can use this
> technique to combine two different fillings to create even more
> explosive truffles.

But are they "truffles"? I'd say they are "chocolates." A truffle is by
definition a free-formed thing. I tend to think of molding two demispheres
then pressing them together as "cheating" <G>.

Janet Puistonen > wrote:

> But are they "truffles"? I'd say they are "chocolates." A truffle is by
> definition a free-formed thing. I tend to think of molding two demispheres
> then pressing them together as "cheating" <G>.

If you go to the original concept of truffles, which was
to mimic the look of the underground fungi, then any kind
chocolate coating is not very truffle-like. We have a
bittersweet truffle that is rolled in cocoa powder which
comes pretty close to looking like the fungi. But, we also
make a bunch of dipped ones that we call truffles, and I
have seen a lot of places calling filled molded chocolates
truffles. It's not an entirely correct usage, but certainly
common enough.

Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.

at Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:28:22 GMT in >,
wrote :

>Janet Puistonen > wrote:
>
>> But are they "truffles"? I'd say they are "chocolates." A truffle is
>> by definition a free-formed thing. I tend to think of molding two
>> demispheres then pressing them together as "cheating" <G>.
>
>If you go to the original concept of truffles, which was
>to mimic the look of the underground fungi, then any kind
>chocolate coating is not very truffle-like.

I have to agree. Personally, I think that the only chocolate that is really
a truffle as such is the one that is simply ganache rolled in cocoa. All
others I think *should* be called "chocolates".

But success of the word, applied to a wide variety of confections, has
eroded the term to the status of a generic. If another person refers to
some chocolate that isn't really a truffle in conversation, you only add
confusion by calling it something different, such as a chocolate. Indeed,
another part of the problem is distinguishing between *chocolates* (small,
bite-size confections made with chocolate) and *chocolate* (solid chocolate
mass composed of chocolate liquor, cocoa butter, sugar, and vanilla, and
possibly milk powder and a trace of soy lecithin). There's no generic term
that refers to chocolates in the singular. So I think a lot of people
adopted the term truffle to get around this problem. It's unfortunate that
they should have chosen a term that refers so instantly and recognisably to
a specific chocolate confection - after you've had a "real" chocolate
truffle even once, you immediately understand why it has the name.
Nonetheless, it's probably impossible to turn back the clock now and create
another generic term.


--
Alex Rast

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

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

Well, you're right. That's why I call mine "Fine Truffles and Chocolates." I
have my private opinion about which are which, but I'll let the purchaser
make up his or her own mind.

Perhaps this "definition" of truffles should be added to the FAQ to this
group, to avoid confusion.

--
Wendy
http://griffinsflight.com/Quilting/quilt1.htm
de-fang email address to reply

I'm not able to get here often, so my reply is probably late.
Producing crisp shells is really an art and science, I've learned. I
am in no way an expert, but I've done a lot of experimenting and a lot
of reading on the science of chocolate (I'm trained in science, so
things like crystalization curves are actually interesting to me.)
What is amazing is that you really have to take into account a lot of
variables that will be unique, depending on where you live and your
environment: temperature and humidy being two critical factors, as well
as where you will be "cooling" the chocolate, and whether you will be
cooling molds or coated chocolates. I'm very fortunate to live in a
very arrid environment with mild winters, so often, I can keep a room
in my house at 50 degrees, or use my patio as a "refrigerator" if my
refrigerator is full.

What works for me is a combination of factors, and frankly, if even one
of them is off a little, I get a less-than-perfect product. First is
the chocolate itself. High cocoa butter content is important. Then,
the molds. Even though they are 10 times the cost than the flexible
plastic molds you can get anywhere, I use polycarbonate molds. They
are much easier to work with, and the shine they produce is wonderful.
Keeping them absolutely clean and dry is the key to them, I've found.
And when working with them, they should be at room temperature. Next
variable is the "temper." I spent several years experimenting with
different ways to temper by hand. While I got pretty good at it, I
found that eventually I was making so many pieces I ended up springing
for a tempering machine. (I now own three). The brand I have
(Chocovision) frankly does a better job than I ever did.

For a long time, what I didn't realize was that the cooling is
critical. After you fill your molds, then drain the chocolate, then
scrape them clean (about the time the chocolate is just at the point
where it is like clay), there is an amazing science to cooling that
involves not only temperature, but humidity and air-flow. I'm just an
amateur, so I can't control those factors. I basically can either use
a cool room or a refrigerator, and most of the time, that works. If I
use the refrigerator, I try to just use it for a few minutes at a time;
I want the chocolate to crystalize and set, but not to get so cold it
risks condensation.

What I've found can cause problems is one of two conditions: the
chocolate was at too cool a working temperature when it was poured (not
so much a problem with a machine-controlled temperature) or the
chocolate was allowed to cool too slowly. In both those cases, the
chocolate blooms on the inside, and the outside is not nearly as shiny,
or it may actually show bloom too.

So, that's been my experience for getting crisp shells from molds, as a
self-taught chocolatier. Good chocolate, good temper, keeping the
chocolate at a proper working temperature (87-89 F), clean
polycarbonate molds, proper cooling - produces a shiny, crisp shell 95%
of the time.

Oh. And another factor is the filling. There is a whole science to
this, too, because the fat content and water content of the filling
determine a number of factors, such as shelf-life (how long until there
is risk of bacteria and, more commonly, mold), and fat "migration" that
will eventually alter the texture of the chocolate. This is one reason
I'm glad I'm an amateur! There is a LOT to know. But the basic thing
I've learned is that some fillings last longer than others, and some
end up causing imperfections sooner than others. Fortunately, my
chocolates are pretty good (blushing) so people eat them rather
quickly. But I don't trust mine to be good for more than two weeks if
I've used a ganache-type filling.

-Bruce