Bunny McElwee wrote:
> Correct, I am using generally things such as Almond Bark or Candy
> Coating or plain chips from a bag. I use high quailty chocolate for my
> Chocolate fountain which is 38% cocoa butter and I do NOT add oils to it.
> The recommened use of chips is what you normally add oil to, however, the
> ratio of oil to chocolate did not seem like it would make a very tasty or
> eye pleasing sort of chocolate that I would dip anything into. SO I go to
> Whole Foods and buy huge chunks of GOOD chocolate (I can't think of the name
> of it) and melt and pour into the fountain. Works great and tastes a heck of
> a lot better than anything I could use that was thinned with oil.
>
> But, for dipping, I use inexpensive candy coating or chips (when called
> for) and I'm pleased with the results.
>
> >
> > You aren't using "plain" chocolate, you are using "summer coating" or
> > "candy melts" or "compound chocolate"--whatever you want to call
> > it--which, as a professional candy maker told me years ago before I became
> > a professional, isn't really chocolate.
> >
> > You DEFINITELY don't want to try using couverture in a chocolate fountain.
> > Chocolate fountains are designed to use inexpensive thinned "chocolate" of
> > the type you are already using--and they aren't thinning it with cocoa
> > butter because then it would be really expensive. Every chocolate sold
> > for fountains that I've seen is a thinner-when-melted version of candy
> > melts.
> >
> > If you are going to use candy melts, it seems to be generally agreed that
> > Merckens has far and away the best taste.
> >
> > As to equipment, one inexpensive setup that works well if tempering is not
> > an issue is putting a heating pad inside a larger bowl, making a warm nest
> > for a metal bowl containing the melted candy melts. If the heating pad has
> > heating controls, so much the better.
> >
You would be sooo much happier with couverture, altho it needs to be
tempered. The flavor and appearance are much better. I used to work in
a bakery that used chocolate chips for making ganache, which worked
most of the time, but sometimes not. Chips are made to keep their shape
in cookies. Couverture has no added crap to it, and results in a far
superior product.

Yes, I now I probably would, but I do not want to mess with tempering it
and my wallet would rather I us Almond bark I rarely if ever use chips,
unless they go INTO the batter/dough/candy. I never use them to coat, as I
don't think they work as well as Almond Bark does. I've used couverture
before for truffles, and yes, it is better, but the cost for me is just not
wht I want to do for stuff that I eat little to none of! Most of the candy
making I do is for gifts for friends neighbors and some family for
Christmas. They seem happy, so I will stick with what works.

> You would be sooo much happier with couverture, altho it needs to be
> tempered. The flavor and appearance are much better. I used to work in
> a bakery that used chocolate chips for making ganache, which worked
> most of the time, but sometimes not. Chips are made to keep their shape
> in cookies. Couverture has no added crap to it, and results in a far
> superior product.
>