For various reasons I've been thinking about extremely decadent chocolate
desserts recently (what - a REASON is necessary?) Anyway, I can't really
decide which among several possibilities would be best. The key thing is I
want it to be served warm, not cold (or even room temperature). So I'll put
it to the newsgroup : which one of these would you think would be the best
warm? I'm not asking you to identify the ones which would turn out better
served warm instead of cold - rather, taking the fact that they'd be warm
as a given, which would you most want? Please - "Yes" isn't an answer (or
at least, it isn't a very informative answer).

Chocolate Decadence: that dense, more-or-less flourless chocolate "cake" -
generally served in narrow wedges with raspberry sauce. Warm, this is a bit
like eating chocolate truffles that somehow have been made warm without
them melting.

Fallen Chocolate Cake : the one usually baked in individual ramekins and
served partly baked, so that the outside is like a cake but the center is
still liquid batter. Always served warm.

My "Hyper-Chocolatey Brownies" (see recipe posted on DejaNews). Warm, these
take on the characteristics of something of a cross between a steamed
chocolate pudding, a cake, and very potent chocolate fudge.

Chocolate Mousse cake : for a reference see Cook's Illustrated December
2002. This is like a fluffy version of Chocolate Decadence. I tweak the
recipe slightly, sugar going down to 1/2 cup, chocolate up to 14 oz. It
goes without saying that I use a much better chocolate than the Hershey's
Special Dark that CI recommends (what's with that!?). Warm, this is a bit
like an extremely dense souffle - as if it's the result of an happy
accident whereby something went terribly wrong with an ordinary souffle but
ended up creating something terribly right.

Fudge-Nut pie : straight out of the February/March 2004 issue of
Chocolatier. I'd use hazelnuts instead of walnuts, however, because I
happen to like hazelnuts much better, and on the glaze I see no reason to
use corn syrup or hot water in the glaze - it's basically a ganache. So I'd
just make a good firm ganache and leave it like that. Never tried this
recipe, but it looks awesome. The mag recommends serving warm.

Now I suppose I've started a mad dash for the kitchen...

--
Alex Rast

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

at Tue, 20 Apr 2004 07:41:05 GMT in
>, (Davida
Chazan) wrote :

>NOTE: My Correct Address is in my signature (just remove the spaces).
>On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 01:26:56 -0000,
>(Alex Rast) wrote:
>
>>For various reasons I've been thinking about extremely decadent
>>chocolate desserts recently (what - a REASON is necessary?) Anyway, I
>>can't really decide which among several possibilities would be best.
>>The key thing is I want it to be served warm, not cold (or even room
>>temperature). So I'll put it to the newsgroup : which one of these
>>would you think would be the best warm? I'm not asking you to identify
>>the ones which would turn out better served warm instead of cold -
>>rather, taking the fact that they'd be warm as a given, which would you
>>most want? ...
>>Fallen Chocolate Cake : the one usually baked in individual ramekins
>>and served partly baked, so that the outside is like a cake but the
>>center is still liquid batter. Always served warm.
>
>When this is cool, the center becomes almost solid. I'd say that it
>is better warm.

I'm sorry, but you exactly misinterpreted what I was asking for in
precisely the way I tried to clarify I was *not* asking for in hopes of
forestalling that kind of answer.

Again, I was not asking you to go, item by item, through *each* individual
choice and identify, in each separate case, whether the item in question
would be better served warm or cold.

Rather, I was asking, if one is to be served one of these items warm, which
specific one would be your preference?

In other words, pick one from the list.

How might I have worded this at the outset so that it was clear what I was
asking for in the first place? This kind of thing seems to happen to me all
the time with questions - that I manage to elicit exactly the type of
answer I was not looking for. I assume it must be something wrong with the
way I tend to frame questions.

NOTE: My Correct Address is in my signature (just remove the spaces).
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 01:26:56 -0000,
(Alex Rast) wrote:

>For various reasons I've been thinking about extremely decadent chocolate
>desserts recently (what - a REASON is necessary?) Anyway, I can't really
>decide which among several possibilities would be best. The key thing is I
>want it to be served warm, not cold (or even room temperature). So I'll put
>it to the newsgroup : which one of these would you think would be the best
>warm? I'm not asking you to identify the ones which would turn out better
>served warm instead of cold - rather, taking the fact that they'd be warm
>as a given, which would you most want? Please - "Yes" isn't an answer (or
>at least, it isn't a very informative answer).
>
>Chocolate Decadence: that dense, more-or-less flourless chocolate "cake" -
>generally served in narrow wedges with raspberry sauce. Warm, this is a bit
>like eating chocolate truffles that somehow have been made warm without
>them melting.
>
>Fallen Chocolate Cake : the one usually baked in individual ramekins and
>served partly baked, so that the outside is like a cake but the center is
>still liquid batter. Always served warm.

When this is cool, the center becomes almost solid. I'd say that it
is better warm.

>My "Hyper-Chocolatey Brownies" (see recipe posted on DejaNews). Warm, these
>take on the characteristics of something of a cross between a steamed
>chocolate pudding, a cake, and very potent chocolate fudge.

How do you warm it after baking?

>Chocolate Mousse cake : for a reference see Cook's Illustrated December
>2002. This is like a fluffy version of Chocolate Decadence. I tweak the
>recipe slightly, sugar going down to 1/2 cup, chocolate up to 14 oz. It
>goes without saying that I use a much better chocolate than the Hershey's
>Special Dark that CI recommends (what's with that!?).

My guess - ignorance.

>Warm, this is a bit
>like an extremely dense souffle - as if it's the result of an happy
>accident whereby something went terribly wrong with an ordinary souffle but
>ended up creating something terribly right.

Sounds like you'd need to bake it just prior to eating - no?

>Fudge-Nut pie : straight out of the February/March 2004 issue of
>Chocolatier. I'd use hazelnuts instead of walnuts, however, because I
>happen to like hazelnuts much better, and on the glaze I see no reason to
>use corn syrup or hot water in the glaze - it's basically a ganache. So I'd
>just make a good firm ganache and leave it like that. Never tried this
>recipe, but it looks awesome. The mag recommends serving warm.

Again, how would you warm it?

>Now I suppose I've started a mad dash for the kitchen...

Oh, yeah!

(Too bad I cut the tendons in my left hand and can't use it for at
least another month. Once again, my daughter will get a cooking
lesson!)

--
Davida Chazan (The Chocolate Lady)
<davidac AT jdc DOT org DOT il>
~*~*~*~*~*~
"What you see before you, my friend, is the result of a lifetime of
chocolate."
--Katharine Hepburn (May 12, 1907 - June 29, 2003)
~*~*~*~*~*~

NOTE: My Correct Address is in my signature (just remove the spaces).
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 07:15:28 -0000,
(Alex Rast) wrote:

>
>In other words, pick one from the list.

I got it but... um... can't I just have them all????

(Seriously, I think 1st choice would be the Fallen Chocolate Cake,
with the Chocolate Mousse cake running a close 2nd.)

--
Davida Chazan (The Chocolate Lady)
<davidac AT jdc DOT org DOT il>
~*~*~*~*~*~
"What you see before you, my friend, is the result of a lifetime of
chocolate."
--Katharine Hepburn (May 12, 1907 - June 29, 2003)
~*~*~*~*~*~

"Alex Rast" > wrote in message
...
> For various reasons I've been thinking about extremely decadent chocolate
> desserts recently (what - a REASON is necessary?) Anyway, I can't really
> decide which among several possibilities would be best. The key thing is I
> want it to be served warm, not cold (or even room temperature). So I'll
put
> it to the newsgroup : which one of these would you think would be the best
> warm? I'm not asking you to identify the ones which would turn out better
> served warm instead of cold - rather, taking the fact that they'd be warm
> as a given, which would you most want? Please - "Yes" isn't an answer (or
> at least, it isn't a very informative answer).
>
[snip list]

First place: Fallen Chocolate Cake
Second place: Chocolate Mousse cake

Regards,
Dean

None of the above....check out emeril lagassees recipe for hawaiin vintage
chocolate grand marnier souffles. Even if u end up making them with just a
good high quality dark chocolate. these things are great and right out of
the oven.


"Alex Rast" > wrote in message
...
> For various reasons I've been thinking about extremely decadent chocolate
> desserts recently (what - a REASON is necessary?) Anyway, I can't really
> decide which among several possibilities would be best. The key thing is I
> want it to be served warm, not cold (or even room temperature). So I'll
put
> it to the newsgroup : which one of these would you think would be the best
> warm? I'm not asking you to identify the ones which would turn out better
> served warm instead of cold - rather, taking the fact that they'd be warm
> as a given, which would you most want? Please - "Yes" isn't an answer (or
> at least, it isn't a very informative answer).
>
> Chocolate Decadence: that dense, more-or-less flourless chocolate "cake" -
> generally served in narrow wedges with raspberry sauce. Warm, this is a
bit
> like eating chocolate truffles that somehow have been made warm without
> them melting.
>
> Fallen Chocolate Cake : the one usually baked in individual ramekins and
> served partly baked, so that the outside is like a cake but the center is
> still liquid batter. Always served warm.
>
> My "Hyper-Chocolatey Brownies" (see recipe posted on DejaNews). Warm,
these
> take on the characteristics of something of a cross between a steamed
> chocolate pudding, a cake, and very potent chocolate fudge.
>
> Chocolate Mousse cake : for a reference see Cook's Illustrated December
> 2002. This is like a fluffy version of Chocolate Decadence. I tweak the
> recipe slightly, sugar going down to 1/2 cup, chocolate up to 14 oz. It
> goes without saying that I use a much better chocolate than the Hershey's
> Special Dark that CI recommends (what's with that!?). Warm, this is a bit
> like an extremely dense souffle - as if it's the result of an happy
> accident whereby something went terribly wrong with an ordinary souffle
but
> ended up creating something terribly right.
>
> Fudge-Nut pie : straight out of the February/March 2004 issue of
> Chocolatier. I'd use hazelnuts instead of walnuts, however, because I
> happen to like hazelnuts much better, and on the glaze I see no reason to
> use corn syrup or hot water in the glaze - it's basically a ganache. So
I'd
> just make a good firm ganache and leave it like that. Never tried this
> recipe, but it looks awesome. The mag recommends serving warm.
>
> Now I suppose I've started a mad dash for the kitchen...
>
> --
> Alex Rast
>
> (remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)

at Wed, 21 Apr 2004 01:28:09 GMT in
>,
wrote :

>None of the above....check out emeril lagassees recipe for hawaiin
>vintage chocolate grand marnier souffles. Even if u end up making them
>with just a good high quality dark chocolate. these things are great
>and right out of the oven.
>
Doesn't sound like my kind of thing. I personally don't think alcohol and
chocolate combine together very well - the taste of alcohol is too much of
a distraction from the taste of chocolate. Furthermore, I hate oranges. So
bad that *any* food which has even been near oranges is inedible to me.
It's clear that oranges and chocolate appear to be a classic combination
but I can't attest to that personally thanks to my extreme dislike for
oranges.

So it's pretty much a given that adding Grand Marnier to anything chocolate
would for me be the swiftest way to ruin it. What's so wrong, anyway, with
a souffle that just tastes of pure chocolate?

As for Hawaiian Vintage chocolate, it's got nothing that other chocolates
don't have, and there are far, far better chocolates out there. IMHO in any
case a souffle would be best made with cocoa rather than chocolate, because
the essence of a souffle is lightness and if you use chocolate, it's going
to be heavier and denser.

Speaking of which, I'm noticing, at least so far, a decided preference for
the lighter, less dense options when served warm. It would seem that
something really quite heavy doesn't go down well with most people made
warm. Anyone care to elaborate?

NOTE: My Correct Address is in my signature (just remove the spaces).
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 07:17:08 -0000,
(Alex Rast) wrote:

>at Wed, 21 Apr 2004 01:28:09 GMT in
>,
wrote :
>
>>None of the above....check out emeril lagassees recipe for hawaiin
>>vintage chocolate grand marnier souffles. Even if u end up making them
>>with just a good high quality dark chocolate. these things are great
>>and right out of the oven.
>>
>Doesn't sound like my kind of thing. I personally don't think alcohol and
>chocolate combine together very well - the taste of alcohol is too much of
>a distraction from the taste of chocolate.

I tend to agree. However, Cluizel's 99% tastes of alcohol to me, but
I still like it. Wonderful grated onto a good Tiramisu.

>Furthermore, I hate oranges. So
>bad that *any* food which has even been near oranges is inedible to me.
>It's clear that oranges and chocolate appear to be a classic combination
>but I can't attest to that personally thanks to my extreme dislike for
>oranges.

Interesting. Not much into orange myself but it can be nice with
chocolate - if its not too overpowering.

>So it's pretty much a given that adding Grand Marnier to anything chocolate
>would for me be the swiftest way to ruin it. What's so wrong, anyway, with
>a souffle that just tastes of pure chocolate?

Absolutely nothing, of course! If I was making a chocolate souffle
that was supposed to have an additional flavor added to it, my first
choice would be coffee, followed by nuts (almonds or hazelnuts,
preferred), and after that mint or caramel.

>As for Hawaiian Vintage chocolate, it's got nothing that other chocolates
>don't have, and there are far, far better chocolates out there. IMHO in any
>case a souffle would be best made with cocoa rather than chocolate, because
>the essence of a souffle is lightness and if you use chocolate, it's going
>to be heavier and denser.
>
>Speaking of which, I'm noticing, at least so far, a decided preference for
>the lighter, less dense options when served warm. It would seem that
>something really quite heavy doesn't go down well with most people made
>warm. Anyone care to elaborate?

I'm thinking that the idea is that it should melt into your mouth
rather than having too chewy a consistency. That's why the pie and
brownies aren't getting picked, if you ask me.

--
Davida Chazan (The Chocolate Lady)
<davidac AT jdc DOT org DOT il>
~*~*~*~*~*~
"What you see before you, my friend, is the result of a lifetime of
chocolate."
--Katharine Hepburn (May 12, 1907 - June 29, 2003)
~*~*~*~*~*~

at Wed, 21 Apr 2004 09:29:48 GMT in
>, (Davida
Chazan) wrote :

>On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 07:17:08 -0000,
>(Alex Rast) wrote:
....
>>Speaking of which, I'm noticing, at least so far, a decided preference
>>for the lighter, less dense options when served warm. It would seem
>>that something really quite heavy doesn't go down well with most people
>>made warm. Anyone care to elaborate?
>
>I'm thinking that the idea is that it should melt into your mouth
>rather than having too chewy a consistency. That's why the pie and
>brownies aren't getting picked, if you ask me.
>

Possibly, but that wouldn't explain the non-interest in the Chocolate
Decadence option, which will have by far the most melt-in-your-mouth
consistency (by virtue of highest chocolate content, and minimum egg and
flour content).

It's worth noting that the brownies, served warm, aren't going to be
especially chewy. However, they won't exactly melt in the mouth, either -
they're soft and moist.

I agree that something with a decidedly chewy consistency wouldn't really
be particularly good warm - although Pane Alla Cioccolata fresh out of the
oven is really, really good. That's an exception, however.

--
Alex Rast

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

(Please NOTE: My correct e-mail address is in my Signature) On Wed, 21
Apr 2004 22:45:26 -0000, during the rec.food.chocolate Community News
Flash (Alex Rast) reported:

>at Wed, 21 Apr 2004 09:29:48 GMT in
>, (Davida
>Chazan) wrote :
>
>>On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 07:17:08 -0000,
>>(Alex Rast) wrote:
>...
>>>Speaking of which, I'm noticing, at least so far, a decided preference
>>>for the lighter, less dense options when served warm. It would seem
>>>that something really quite heavy doesn't go down well with most people
>>>made warm. Anyone care to elaborate?
>>
>>I'm thinking that the idea is that it should melt into your mouth
>>rather than having too chewy a consistency. That's why the pie and
>>brownies aren't getting picked, if you ask me.
>
>Possibly, but that wouldn't explain the non-interest in the Chocolate
>Decadence option, which will have by far the most melt-in-your-mouth
>consistency (by virtue of highest chocolate content, and minimum egg and
>flour content).

Perhaps that can be blamed on your description - the consistency of a
truffle sounds a tad on the chewy side to me.

>It's worth noting that the brownies, served warm, aren't going to be
>especially chewy. However, they won't exactly melt in the mouth, either -
>they're soft and moist.

Remember too that many people automatically think that a brownie will
have walnuts in it - that might be what's keeping them away from that
option.

>I agree that something with a decidedly chewy consistency wouldn't really
>be particularly good warm - although Pane Alla Cioccolata fresh out of the
>oven is really, really good. That's an exception, however.

See, now, I've never cared for the combination of bread and chocolate.
Don't know why, actually. I do make a yeast cake with a chocolate
filling that's OK, but its not my favorite. Perhaps I've never had or
made one that's so great it wow's me.

(I hated cheesecake until I moved to Israel where the cheese we use
for our cheesecakes is much less salty and much smoother with a far
lower fat content.)

--
Davida Chazan (The Chocolate Lady)
<davidac AT jdc DOT org DOT il>
~*~*~*~*~*~
"What you see before you, my friend, is the result of a lifetime of
chocolate."
--Katharine Hepburn (May 12, 1907 - June 29, 2003)
~*~*~*~*~*~
Links to my published poetry - http://davidachazan.homestead.com/
~*~*~*~*~*~

at Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:37:57 GMT in
>, (Davida
Chazan) wrote :

>(Please NOTE: My correct e-mail address is in my Signature) On Wed, 21
>Apr 2004 22:45:26 -0000, during the rec.food.chocolate Community News
>Flash (Alex Rast) reported:
>
>>at Wed, 21 Apr 2004 09:29:48 GMT in
>,
>><(Davida
>>Chazan) wrote :
>>
>>>On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 07:17:08 -0000,
>>>(Alex Rast) wrote:
>>...
>>>>Speaking of which, I'm noticing, at least so far, a decided
>>>>preference for the lighter, less dense options when served warm. ...
>>>
>>>I'm thinking that the idea is that it should melt into your mouth
>>>rather than having too chewy a consistency. ...

>>Possibly, but that wouldn't explain the non-interest in the Chocolate
>>Decadence option, which will have by far the most melt-in-your-mouth
>>consistency (by virtue of highest chocolate content, and minimum egg
>>and flour content).
>
>Perhaps that can be blamed on your description - the consistency of a
>truffle sounds a tad on the chewy side to me.

Are you thinking of something different from what I am? A chocolate truffle
is simply pure ganache - chocolate and cream mixed together. It's really
hard to imagine anything chocolate that melts in the mouth quite so ideally
- good truffles have the texture and melt of butter. In fact, its luxurious
texture is one of the major things that makes it generally considered to be
the very best chocolate confection of all. *Any* truffle that was chewy in
even the slightest way I'd consider so poor as to throw it out.

>>It's worth noting that the brownies, served warm, aren't going to be
>>especially chewy. ...
>>- they're soft and moist.
>
>Remember too that many people automatically think that a brownie will
>have walnuts in it - that might be what's keeping them away from that
>option.

Well, I did specify that it would be my own recipe - which definitely does
not specify walnuts. I've never considered walnuts to be automatic in
brownies - some have them, some don't. It's a bit like raisins in cinnamon
rolls: same thing: some have them, some don't. I don't get the impression
many people think walnuts are default in brownies. Those that do I imagine
are people who prefer it that way. I'm with you - I'm not fond of walnuts
in brownies - tends to distract from the chocolate.

>>I agree that something with a decidedly chewy consistency wouldn't
>>really be particularly good warm - although Pane Alla Cioccolata fresh
>>out of the oven is really, really good. That's an exception, however.
>
>See, now, I've never cared for the combination of bread and chocolate.
>Don't know why, actually. I do make a yeast cake with a chocolate
>filling that's OK, but its not my favorite.

Actually, Pane Alla Cioccolata isn't bread with a chocolate filling. It's a
bread that's actually chocolate through and through. You make a yeast dough
with a fair whack of cocoa to substitute for some of the flour, and bake at
a somewhat lower temperature than a regular bread.

As for bread and chocolate as a combination, it can be good - such as, for
instance, chocolate spread on toast (you need to have a good brand, such as
Dilettante's Ephemere Bittersweet), but by and large I do agree that it
isn't as good as some other chocolate and... combinations could be.

OK, so my initial guess about why the early votes were swinging one way
seems to have been incorrect. From what you're saying, the problem is that
people are inserting their own added assumptions about the nature of the
items. This is an issue I wrestle with all the time. When asking for
someone's opinion, how do you forestall them interpolating their own
preconceived notions on the subject, if those preconceived notions deal
with contingencies that won't apply in your situation? In other words, how
do you solicit an honest opinion rather than a knee-jerk reaction? (to put
the question somewhat brutally)



--
Alex Rast

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

(Please NOTE: My correct e-mail address is in my Signature) On Thu, 22
Apr 2004 21:27:21 -0000, during the rec.food.chocolate Community News
Flash (Alex Rast) reported:

>Actually, Pane Alla Cioccolata isn't bread with a chocolate filling. It's a
>bread that's actually chocolate through and through. You make a yeast dough
>with a fair whack of cocoa to substitute for some of the flour, and bake at
>a somewhat lower temperature than a regular bread.

Yes, I know - I've only tried it once and was under-whelmed.

>From what you're saying, the problem is that
>people are inserting their own added assumptions about the nature of the
>items. This is an issue I wrestle with all the time. When asking for
>someone's opinion, how do you forestall them interpolating their own
>preconceived notions on the subject, if those preconceived notions deal
>with contingencies that won't apply in your situation? In other words, how
>do you solicit an honest opinion rather than a knee-jerk reaction? (to put
>the question somewhat brutally)

Precisely! Not your fault, really. We're on usenet, not in your
kitchen. If we could get into your kitchen, and try your options, you
might get totally different answers. In any case, when it comes to
opinions about food, even at a tasting, the reactions will still be
knee-jerk to a good extent - our first reactions are always immediate
and physical. Only after the second or third taste can we put our
reactions into words.

I spend most of my usenet time on a group where writers get together
to chew the fat (so to speak, although we have been known to meet up
and do that literally, as well). We talk about anything you can
imagine, and one learns very fast just how easy it is for a reader to
take ones words and turn them into something else altogether.

What you have here is doubly problematic, since you have the words as
well as the sense of taste which is so individual. For instance, when
you said 'truffle' I didn't think or picture 'pure ganache' but rather
'the items in the fancy boxes which are covered in a coating of
chocolate'. Gotta bite into those! And oy vey if you end up with the
yucky one with the cherry inside!

See what I mean? Words may deceive you, but watching people take a
bite off your plate is truth!


--
Davida Chazan (The Chocolate Lady)
<davidac AT jdc DOT org DOT il>
~*~*~*~*~*~
"What you see before you, my friend, is the result of a lifetime of
chocolate."
--Katharine Hepburn (May 12, 1907 - June 29, 2003)
~*~*~*~*~*~
Links to my published poetry - http://davidachazan.homestead.com/
~*~*~*~*~*~