In article >,
Prof Wonmug > wrote:

> On Sat, 01 May 2010 08:26:34 -0700, sf > wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 01 May 2010 10:11:38 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> > wrote:

> >>So how do you get the right amount into the insulated stainless steel
> >>coffee pot?
> >>
> >I'm still wondering why your aim is so bad.
>
> I would not want the job of cleaning the floor (and maybe the walls)
> in his bathroom...

How do you know that "J. Clarke" is male?

:-)

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:42:34 -0700 (PDT), sueb wrote:
> >
> > For the record, I don't know where my 2cup measures came from, in
> > spite of the fact that I've probably been using them for 30 years. I
> > don't remember buying them, they must have been in some house we lived
> > in. If only there had been a 1cup measure, I'd probably be a whole
> > different person.

> you're probably the larger person for it.

That's a bad joke. Really bad. I like it!

Speaking of bad jokes, where's Sheldon? I expected him to chime in by
now on exactly what Sue is supposed to measure using those "cups"!

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Sat, 1 May 2010 13:43:07 -0600, "graham" > wrote:

>
>"sf" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 14:08:42 -0600, "graham" > wrote:
>>
>>>But with scales, one never has these problems.
>>
>> We're not scientists and we don't need scales.
>>
>
>As Emeril, on Emeril Live, often used to say: "Baking is science! Get
>yourself some scales!"
>
>No serious baker uses cups. In fact arguably the best non-professional
>baking book published in the USA* recommends weighing as do the
>Williams-Sonoma books. Both give "bi-lingual" recipes for those stuck in the
>age of the covered wagon. All the serious bread-books for the home baker
>also push the weighing of ingredients.
>A cup of flour can weigh anywhere from ~100g to ~150g. If you are making a
>spongecake, that's the difference between a light, fluffy cake and a
>doorstop!
>

We're not "serious" bakers, we're home bakers and we don't pretend to
be professional. We don't bake in vast quantities for restaurants or
bakeries and we don't need no steenking scales. I can make a perfect
sponge cake without the use of one. Sheesh. You people don't cook,
you experiment. The secret of a good sponge cake is not in the flour,
it's in beating the egg.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Sat, 01 May 2010 13:53:33 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:

>In article >,
> blake murphy > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:42:34 -0700 (PDT), sueb wrote:
>> >
>> > For the record, I don't know where my 2cup measures came from, in
>> > spite of the fact that I've probably been using them for 30 years. I
>> > don't remember buying them, they must have been in some house we lived
>> > in. If only there had been a 1cup measure, I'd probably be a whole
>> > different person.
>
>> you're probably the larger person for it.
>
>That's a bad joke. Really bad. I like it!

Except, the term is "bigger person".
>
>Speaking of bad jokes, where's Sheldon?

Keerist almighty. You too?

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

"sf" > ha scritto nel messaggio

>>On Apr 30, 5:33 am, "J. Clarke" > wrote:
>>
>>> While scales are useful, you seldom find recipes with quantities
>>> given>>> by weight
>>
>>Not in Germany. Germans do everything by weight, very precise -- but>>then
>>their process directions are very sketchy.

> I would amend that to Europe in general... but not in the US.

Just like the metric system, change comes but very slowly. I am working on
the issue one student at a time. I also give scales as gifts to newer
cooks.

I write all recipes both ways nowadays.

On Sun, 2 May 2010 09:47:57 +0200, "Giusi" > wrote:

>I write all recipes both ways nowadays.
>
And I thank you for going to the extra effort!

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On 5/2/2010 3:02 AM, sf wrote:
> On Sat, 1 May 2010 13:43:07 -0600, > wrote:
>
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 14:08:42 -0600, > wrote:
>>>
>>>> But with scales, one never has these problems.
>>>
>>> We're not scientists and we don't need scales.
>>>
>>
>> As Emeril, on Emeril Live, often used to say: "Baking is science! Get
>> yourself some scales!"
>>
>> No serious baker uses cups. In fact arguably the best non-professional
>> baking book published in the USA* recommends weighing as do the
>> Williams-Sonoma books. Both give "bi-lingual" recipes for those stuck in the
>> age of the covered wagon. All the serious bread-books for the home baker
>> also push the weighing of ingredients.
>> A cup of flour can weigh anywhere from ~100g to ~150g. If you are making a
>> spongecake, that's the difference between a light, fluffy cake and a
>> doorstop!
>>
>
> We're not "serious" bakers, we're home bakers and we don't pretend to
> be professional. We don't bake in vast quantities for restaurants or
> bakeries and we don't need no steenking scales. I can make a perfect
> sponge cake without the use of one. Sheesh. You people don't cook,
> you experiment. The secret of a good sponge cake is not in the flour,
> it's in beating the egg.

Try a scale. You'll like it.

"sf" > ha scritto nel messaggio
...
> On Sun, 2 May 2010 09:47:57 +0200, "Giusi" > wrote:
>
>>I write all recipes both ways nowadays.
>>
> And I thank you for going to the extra effort!

Hey, once I've convinced all you Yanks to use a scale, I'm quitting with the
cups.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 1 May 2010 13:43:07 -0600, "graham" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"sf" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 14:08:42 -0600, "graham" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>But with scales, one never has these problems.
>>>
>>> We're not scientists and we don't need scales.
>>>
>>
>>As Emeril, on Emeril Live, often used to say: "Baking is science! Get
>>yourself some scales!"
>>
>>No serious baker uses cups. In fact arguably the best non-professional
>>baking book published in the USA* recommends weighing as do the
>>Williams-Sonoma books. Both give "bi-lingual" recipes for those stuck in
>>the
>>age of the covered wagon. All the serious bread-books for the home baker
>>also push the weighing of ingredients.
>>A cup of flour can weigh anywhere from ~100g to ~150g. If you are making
>>a
>>spongecake, that's the difference between a light, fluffy cake and a
>>doorstop!
>>
>
> We're not "serious" bakers, we're home bakers and we don't pretend to
> be professional.

Well I'm a home baker but I take it seriously, as did my Mother who was
known in her village as a fine baker. She even weighed the eggs as they came
straight from the farm and were not graded.
Using cups just leads to sloppiness.
Graham
Graham

On Sun, 2 May 2010 07:53:23 -0600, "graham" > wrote:

>
>"sf" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Sat, 1 May 2010 13:43:07 -0600, "graham" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"sf" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 14:08:42 -0600, "graham" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>But with scales, one never has these problems.
>>>>
>>>> We're not scientists and we don't need scales.
>>>>
>>>
>>>As Emeril, on Emeril Live, often used to say: "Baking is science! Get
>>>yourself some scales!"
>>>
>>>No serious baker uses cups. In fact arguably the best non-professional
>>>baking book published in the USA* recommends weighing as do the
>>>Williams-Sonoma books. Both give "bi-lingual" recipes for those stuck in
>>>the
>>>age of the covered wagon. All the serious bread-books for the home baker
>>>also push the weighing of ingredients.
>>>A cup of flour can weigh anywhere from ~100g to ~150g. If you are making
>>>a
>>>spongecake, that's the difference between a light, fluffy cake and a
>>>doorstop!
>>>
>>
>> We're not "serious" bakers, we're home bakers and we don't pretend to
>> be professional.
>
>Well I'm a home baker but I take it seriously, as did my Mother who was
>known in her village as a fine baker. She even weighed the eggs as they came
>straight from the farm and were not graded.
>Using cups just leads to sloppiness.

Using a kitchen scale really has nothing to do with sloppiness... it
has to do with practicality. There are so many ingredients that much
more easily lend themselves to measuring by weight rather than
volume... all one need do is look at how food producers sell
ingredients, all those sold by weight are because it's more practical
to do so... it's much more practical to sell dry ingredients like
grains, beans, flours, etc. by weight and so it is also more practical
for the folks who use those ingredients. When I want say a half pound
of pasta or white beans it's much more practical to weigh out the half
pound from a five pound package than to guess, even from a one pound
package weighing ensures I'll have a half pound remaining for next
time. I almost always weigh bulk ingredients, even frozen veggies are
more practical to weigh... sure I can eyeball half from a pound bag of
peas but it's more practical to weigh out half so that I know that
there is half remaining for next time. A scale is so much more
practical for dividing ingredients... imagine how much more difficult
if your butcher/deli sold meat by volume.... imagine a recipe for stew
with 1/2 gallon beef chuck, or a sandwich with a 1/2 pint of ham.
Sloppiness is a whole separate issue, slobs will be just as sloppy
with a cup as a scale... kitchen scales entail placing ingredients
into a container too. My 20 year old Polder (cost $4 then from a NYC
street vender) is accurate to within 1/4 ounce, I even use it to check
for postage.... takes no more space in the cupboard than a stack of
three cans of tuna... hardly a day passes I don't use it for
something.

On Sat, 01 May 2010 13:49:27 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:

>In article >,
> Prof Wonmug > wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 01 May 2010 08:26:34 -0700, sf > wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, 01 May 2010 10:11:38 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>> > wrote:
>
>> >>So how do you get the right amount into the insulated stainless steel
>> >>coffee pot?
>> >>
>> >I'm still wondering why your aim is so bad.
>>
>> I would not want the job of cleaning the floor (and maybe the walls)
>> in his bathroom...
>
>How do you know that "J. Clarke" is male?
>
>:-)

I don't know for sure, but based on his "temperament", the odds are
high. ;-)

In article >,
brooklyn1 > wrote:

> Using a kitchen scale really has nothing to do with sloppiness... it
> has to do with practicality. There are so many ingredients that much
> more easily lend themselves to measuring by weight rather than
> volume... all one need do is look at how food producers sell
> ingredients,

I wish they'd sell Ice Cream by weight rather than volume! That has
always been a pet peeve of mine. Paying for whipped air!

One more (of many) good reasons to purchase Haagen Dasz. ;-d
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
Only Irish coffee provides in a single glass all four essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar and fat. --Alex Levine

On May 1, 12:43*pm, "graham" > wrote:
> "sf" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 14:08:42 -0600, "graham" > wrote:
>
> >>But with scales, one never has these problems.
>
> > We're not scientists and we don't need scales.
>
> As Emeril, on Emeril Live, often used to say: "Baking is science! *Get
> yourself some scales!"
>
> No serious baker uses cups. In fact arguably the best non-professional
> baking book published in the USA* recommends weighing as do the
> Williams-Sonoma books. Both give "bi-lingual" recipes for those stuck in the
> age of the covered wagon. *All the serious bread-books for the home baker
> also push the *weighing of ingredients.
> A cup of flour can weigh anywhere from ~100g to ~150g. *If you are making a
> spongecake, that's the difference between a light, fluffy cake and a
> doorstop!
>

Tell me, how does a professional baker tell when a yeast dough has
"doubled in bulk" -- with a scale?

The weight of a cup of flour depends on the humidity. When baking,
measurements just get you in the ballpark -- you have to add liquid
and/or flour to get the desired consistency. Only if you're making
baked goods to sell by weight does the weight of the ingredients
matter.

"spamtrap1888" > wrote in message
...
On May 1, 12:43 pm, "graham" > wrote:
> "sf" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 14:08:42 -0600, "graham" > wrote:
>
> >>But with scales, one never has these problems.
>
> > We're not scientists and we don't need scales.
>
> As Emeril, on Emeril Live, often used to say: "Baking is science! Get
> yourself some scales!"
>
> No serious baker uses cups. In fact arguably the best non-professional
> baking book published in the USA* recommends weighing as do the
> Williams-Sonoma books. Both give "bi-lingual" recipes for those stuck in
> the
> age of the covered wagon. All the serious bread-books for the home baker
> also push the weighing of ingredients.
> A cup of flour can weigh anywhere from ~100g to ~150g. If you are making a
> spongecake, that's the difference between a light, fluffy cake and a
> doorstop!
>

>Tell me, how does a professional baker tell when a yeast dough has
>"doubled in bulk" -- with a scale?

>The weight of a cup of flour depends on the humidity.

That's only a very, very minor factor. If you scoop flour out of the bag
you are compacting it and there will be significantly more than if you spoon
it into the cup.

>When baking,
>measurements just get you in the ballpark

Rubbish!!! Watch Emeril Live and listen to what he says!

>-- you have to add liquid
>and/or flour to get the desired consistency.

And what is that? Knowing what the correct consistency is can only come
from experience. Follow a weight-based recipe and you will end up with the
right consistency.

>Only if you're making
>baked goods to sell by weight does the weight of the ingredients
>matter.

No! Only if you don't care about the result!

Graham

In article
>,
spamtrap1888 > wrote:


> Tell me, how does a professional baker tell when a yeast dough has
> "doubled in bulk" -- with a scale?

Nah. They hack it up and measure it in little cups.

:-)


> The weight of a cup of flour depends on the humidity. When baking,
> measurements just get you in the ballpark -- you have to add liquid
> and/or flour to get the desired consistency. Only if you're making
> baked goods to sell by weight does the weight of the ingredients
> matter.

That last part doesn't make any sense to me. When you bake, the heat
drives off some of the moisture. The weight of the ingredients is *not*
the weight of the finished baked good.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

graham wrote:

>
> Well I'm a home baker but I take it seriously, as did my Mother who was
> known in her village as a fine baker. She even weighed the eggs as they came
> straight from the farm and were not graded.
> Using cups just leads to sloppiness.

> Graham
>
>



I'd guess just the opposite--using a measuring device of any kind
leads to more accurate measure.

I was about to post that if it takes this many replies to decide on a
measuring cup, God help us all when we need a saucepan!

gloria p

On Sun, 02 May 2010 16:08:16 -0600, "gloria.p" >
wrote:

>graham wrote:
>
>>
>> Well I'm a home baker but I take it seriously, as did my Mother who was
>> known in her village as a fine baker. She even weighed the eggs as they came
>> straight from the farm and were not graded.
>> Using cups just leads to sloppiness.
>
>> Graham
>>
>>
>
>
>
>I'd guess just the opposite--using a measuring device of any kind
>leads to more accurate measure.
>
>I was about to post that if it takes this many replies to decide on a
>measuring cup, God help us all when we need a saucepan!
>
>gloria p

Oh My heavens girl, don't even go there.

koko
--

There is no love more sincere than the love of food
George Bernard Shaw

www.kokoscornerblog.com
updated 04/30/10