Today when I went grocery shopping, I wanted to get a couple of
packages of the Ghiradelli Double Chocolate chips. I couldn't find
them in their usual place, but instead there were packages of "60%
Cocoa Bittersweet Chocolate" chips, They were $2.89 per 11.5 oz.
package, the same price as the other chips. I bought two packages.
I also remembered that I could not get the double chocolate ones in
another store last week, but that one has a much smaller choice of
chocolate chips.

Have you heard of these new chips? If so, have you tried them? Are
they the same as the double chocolate ones, in a new package?

Thank you for any information you may give me. M

at Tue, 15 Nov 2005 17:14:12 GMT in >,
lid (Margaret Suran) wrote :

>Today when I went grocery shopping, I wanted to get a couple of
>packages of the Ghiradelli Double Chocolate chips. I couldn't find
>them in their usual place, but instead there were packages of "60%
>Cocoa Bittersweet Chocolate" chips,
>
>Have you heard of these new chips? If so, have you tried them? Are
>they the same as the double chocolate ones, in a new package?

No - they're the replacement for the Double Chocolate chips. Ghirardelli
has chosen to trade off improved flavour and mouthfeel for poorer shape
maintenance during baking. So a batch of cookies made with these new chips
will taste better, but the chips flatten dramatically more, and out of the
bag they're flatter to begin with, more like mini-discs than the familiar
"chip" profile. What they've done is to tinker with fat and sugar ratios -
it's something of a mixed blessing. I can't deny that the boost in flavour
is a *big* plus, but I also think the problems of flattening during baking
are a negative. I suspect Ghirardelli succumbed to the observation that an
increasing proportion of chocolate chips these days are used for general-
purpose baking and confectionery applications, (where typically bloc
couverture is used), not to mention eating out of the bag, and decided to
shift their chips to this model - it's basically bar chocolate in the shape
of chocolate chips. Is this an improvement? Depends on your POV.

--
Alex Rast

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

In article >,
Margaret Suran > wrote:

> Today when I went grocery shopping, I wanted to get a couple of
> packages of the Ghiradelli Double Chocolate chips. I couldn't find
> them in their usual place, but instead there were packages of "60%
> Cocoa Bittersweet Chocolate" chips, They were $2.89 per 11.5 oz.
> package, the same price as the other chips. I bought two packages.
> I also remembered that I could not get the double chocolate ones in
> another store last week, but that one has a much smaller choice of
> chocolate chips.
>
> Have you heard of these new chips? If so, have you tried them? Are
> they the same as the double chocolate ones, in a new package?
>
> Thank you for any information you may give me. M

I think perhaps you need to try them and submit samples to Quality
Control for comparison and evaluation. You have my address.,
-Barbara, always trying to be helpful
--
http://www.jamlady.eboard.com, updated 11-9-05 finishing in four
parts the trip report from our vacation time in San Francisco
for Nephew Pat's wedding last weekend.

"Alex Rast" > wrote in message
...
> at Tue, 15 Nov 2005 17:14:12 GMT in >,
> lid (Margaret Suran) wrote :
>
>>Today when I went grocery shopping, I wanted to get a couple of
>>packages of the Ghiradelli Double Chocolate chips. I couldn't find
>>them in their usual place, but instead there were packages of "60%
>>Cocoa Bittersweet Chocolate" chips,
>>
>>Have you heard of these new chips? If so, have you tried them? Are
>>they the same as the double chocolate ones, in a new package?
>
> No - they're the replacement for the Double Chocolate chips. Ghirardelli
> has chosen to trade off improved flavour and mouthfeel for poorer shape
> maintenance during baking. So a batch of cookies made with these new chips
> will taste better, but the chips flatten dramatically more, and out of the
> bag they're flatter to begin with, more like mini-discs than the familiar
> "chip" profile. What they've done is to tinker with fat and sugar ratios -
> it's something of a mixed blessing. I can't deny that the boost in flavour
> is a *big* plus, but I also think the problems of flattening during baking
> are a negative. I suspect Ghirardelli succumbed to the observation that an
> increasing proportion of chocolate chips these days are used for general-
> purpose baking and confectionery applications, (where typically bloc
> couverture is used), not to mention eating out of the bag, and decided to
> shift their chips to this model - it's basically bar chocolate in the
> shape
> of chocolate chips. Is this an improvement? Depends on your POV.
>
> --
> Alex Rast

Perhaps with the national interest in chocolate in percentages is also a
reason to change the packaging. I checked out a book from the library which
I read much of last night, Alice Medrich, author, of "Bitter Sweet ..
Recipes and Tale from a Life in Chocolate." She gives recipes many of which
include the variations for the different percentages of chocolate. I must
admit it looks very persuasive, given her creditentials.

I am not a chocolate-recipe maker, but I have gathered my chocolate with
the thought in mind. I'm definitely not headed toward 'tempering'
chocolate, and she only refers to it in a rather small portion of her book.
I thinking of buying the book (as a pleasurable reference book, if nothing
else) because if I do make more chocolate recipes, I know of nothing like
this book -- do you have any opinion on this book, Alex, if you know it?
Thanks.
Dee Dee

Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> In article >,
> Margaret Suran > wrote:
>
>
>>Today when I went grocery shopping, I wanted to get a couple of
>>packages of the Ghiradelli Double Chocolate chips. I couldn't find
>>them in their usual place, but instead there were packages of "60%
>>Cocoa Bittersweet Chocolate" chips, They were $2.89 per 11.5 oz.
>>package, the same price as the other chips. I bought two packages.
>>I also remembered that I could not get the double chocolate ones in
>>another store last week, but that one has a much smaller choice of
>>chocolate chips.
>>
>>Have you heard of these new chips? If so, have you tried them? Are
>>they the same as the double chocolate ones, in a new package?
>>
>>Thank you for any information you may give me. M
>
>
> I think perhaps you need to try them and submit samples to Quality
> Control for comparison and evaluation. You have my address.,
> -Barbara, always trying to be helpful

Thank you. You are number 1 on the list. )

Alex Rast wrote:
> at Tue, 15 Nov 2005 17:14:12 GMT in >,
> lid (Margaret Suran) wrote :
>
>
>>Today when I went grocery shopping, I wanted to get a couple of
>>packages of the Ghiradelli Double Chocolate chips. I couldn't find
>>them in their usual place, but instead there were packages of "60%
>>Cocoa Bittersweet Chocolate" chips,
>>
>>Have you heard of these new chips? If so, have you tried them? Are
>>they the same as the double chocolate ones, in a new package?
>
>
> No - they're the replacement for the Double Chocolate chips. Ghirardelli
> has chosen to trade off improved flavour and mouthfeel for poorer shape
> maintenance during baking. So a batch of cookies made with these new chips
> will taste better, but the chips flatten dramatically more, and out of the
> bag they're flatter to begin with, more like mini-discs than the familiar
> "chip" profile. What they've done is to tinker with fat and sugar ratios -
> it's something of a mixed blessing. I can't deny that the boost in flavour
> is a *big* plus, but I also think the problems of flattening during baking
> are a negative. I suspect Ghirardelli succumbed to the observation that an
> increasing proportion of chocolate chips these days are used for general-
> purpose baking and confectionery applications, (where typically bloc
> couverture is used), not to mention eating out of the bag, and decided to
> shift their chips to this model - it's basically bar chocolate in the shape
> of chocolate chips. Is this an improvement? Depends on your POV.
>

Alex, Thank you. The people who get my baked stuff, will not care
about the thickness or height of the chips. As it is, I have tried
baking with some of the flat discs of some luxury chocolates (samples
from the Chocolate Show, to which I did not go this year) and the
cookies tasted good and the chips did not melt too much. I will try
the new chips as soon as I get around to baking. Today in New York,
the temperature is up in the 70's, not conducive to baking. The
building air conditioning is long turned off and only steam heat is
coming out of the radiators. (

Thank you for all the information. When I open the packages, I will
sample some of the chips. I assume that you already tasted them. M

In article >,
Margaret Suran > wrote:

> Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Margaret Suran > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Today when I went grocery shopping, I wanted to get a couple of
> >>packages of the Ghiradelli Double Chocolate chips. I couldn't find
> >>them in their usual place, but instead there were packages of "60%
> >>Cocoa Bittersweet Chocolate" chips, They were $2.89 per 11.5 oz.
> >>package, the same price as the other chips. I bought two packages.
> >>I also remembered that I could not get the double chocolate ones in
> >>another store last week, but that one has a much smaller choice of
> >>chocolate chips.
> >>
> >>Have you heard of these new chips? If so, have you tried them? Are
> >>they the same as the double chocolate ones, in a new package?
> >>
> >>Thank you for any information you may give me. M
> >
> >
> > I think perhaps you need to try them and submit samples to Quality
> > Control for comparison and evaluation. You have my address.,
> > -Barbara, always trying to be helpful
>
> Thank you. You are number 1 on the list. )

Why does that sound like a dubious honor? <=8-o)
--
http://www.jamlady.eboard.com, updated 11-9-05 finishing in four
parts the trip report from our vacation time in San Francisco
for Nephew Pat's wedding last weekend.

"Melba's Jammin'" > wrote in message
...
>
Oops: Mme Suran he

> > Thank you. You are number 1 on the list. )
>
> Why does that sound like a dubious honor? <=8-o)
> --

Margaret has my address too. What am I; Number 2? >:0

Charlie, Egad! Or even lower on the scale!

at Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:27:09 GMT in >,
(Dee Randall) wrote :

>
>"Alex Rast" > wrote in message
.. .
>> at Tue, 15 Nov 2005 17:14:12 GMT in >,
>> lid (Margaret Suran) wrote :
>>
>>>Today when I went grocery shopping, I wanted to get a couple of
>>>packages of the Ghiradelli Double Chocolate chips. ... instead there
>>>were packages of "60% Cocoa Bittersweet Chocolate" chips ...

>> ... they're the replacement for the Double Chocolate chips.
>> Ghirardelli has chosen to trade off improved flavour and mouthfeel for
>> poorer shape maintenance during baking.

<deletia>

>>Is this an improvement? Depends on your POV.
>> --
>> Alex Rast
>
>Perhaps with the national interest in chocolate in percentages is also a
>reason to change the packaging.

Yeah, but you could have done that without changing the formulation.

> I checked out a book from the library
>which I read much of last night, Alice Medrich, author, of "Bitter Sweet
> .. Recipes and Tale from a Life in Chocolate." She gives recipes many
>of which include the variations for the different percentages of
>chocolate. I must admit it looks very persuasive, given her
>creditentials.
>
Medrich is pretty good, overall. She has a very definite style, though. She
isn't interested in following "classic" recipes per se, and so if you want
a solid grounding in basic technique following the tried-and-true methods,
it isn't the best choice. She has recipes for the same *end products* -
thus you'll see recipes for truffles, brownies, etc..., but these recipes
follow her own conventions.

What this means is that they're somewhat more difficult to tinker with. One
of the nice things about basic classic recipes is that they give you a nice
reference point from which to experiment.

I get the feeling, too, that she tends to "fall in love" with recipes
without ever really investigating if they could be better. That is, she
finds or gets a recipe that elicits a strong positive reaction from her,
and then simply reproduces it without really experimenting. This would be
consistent with what I said earlier. So I find her recipes to be a mixed-
bag of ones which are great and ones that are merely good.

I also wonder how much research she does. At least one recipe she described
she described as an ultimate chocolate experience, without, it seems to me,
ever noticing that all she'd done is end up recreating Rigo Jancsi in a
slightly modified form. (It must be said, btw, that Rigo Jancsi *is* pretty
much the ultimate chocolate cake)

I know I've sounded somewhat negative here but actually I'm pretty positive
about her work - it's mostly a case of that there are only so many ways to
say "great", "awesome" etc... and small nitpicks are much more
multifarious.


--
Alex Rast

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

"Alex Rast" > wrote in message
...
> at Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:27:09 GMT in >,
> (Dee Randall) wrote :
>
>>
>>"Alex Rast" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> at Tue, 15 Nov 2005 17:14:12 GMT in >,
>>> lid (Margaret Suran) wrote :
>>>
>>>>Today when I went grocery shopping, I wanted to get a couple of
>>>>packages of the Ghiradelli Double Chocolate chips. ... instead there
>>>>were packages of "60% Cocoa Bittersweet Chocolate" chips ...
>
>>> ... they're the replacement for the Double Chocolate chips.
>>> Ghirardelli has chosen to trade off improved flavour and mouthfeel for
>>> poorer shape maintenance during baking.
>
> <deletia>
>
>>>Is this an improvement? Depends on your POV.
>>> --
>>> Alex Rast
>>
>>Perhaps with the national interest in chocolate in percentages is also a
>>reason to change the packaging.
>
> Yeah, but you could have done that without changing the formulation.
>
>> I checked out a book from the library
>>which I read much of last night, Alice Medrich, author, of "Bitter Sweet
>> .. Recipes and Tale from a Life in Chocolate." She gives recipes many
>>of which include the variations for the different percentages of
>>chocolate. I must admit it looks very persuasive, given her
>>creditentials.
>>
> Medrich is pretty good, overall. She has a very definite style, though.
> She
> isn't interested in following "classic" recipes per se, and so if you want
> a solid grounding in basic technique following the tried-and-true methods,
> it isn't the best choice. She has recipes for the same *end products* -
> thus you'll see recipes for truffles, brownies, etc..., but these recipes
> follow her own conventions.
>
> What this means is that they're somewhat more difficult to tinker with.
> One
> of the nice things about basic classic recipes is that they give you a
> nice
> reference point from which to experiment.
>
> I get the feeling, too, that she tends to "fall in love" with recipes
> without ever really investigating if they could be better. That is, she
> finds or gets a recipe that elicits a strong positive reaction from her,
> and then simply reproduces it without really experimenting. This would be
> consistent with what I said earlier. So I find her recipes to be a mixed-
> bag of ones which are great and ones that are merely good.
>
> I also wonder how much research she does. At least one recipe she
> described
> she described as an ultimate chocolate experience, without, it seems to
> me,
> ever noticing that all she'd done is end up recreating Rigo Jancsi in a
> slightly modified form. (It must be said, btw, that Rigo Jancsi *is*
> pretty
> much the ultimate chocolate cake)
>
> I know I've sounded somewhat negative here but actually I'm pretty
> positive
> about her work - it's mostly a case of that there are only so many ways to
> say "great", "awesome" etc... and small nitpicks are much more
> multifarious.
>
>
> --
> Alex Rast

Alex, you say,
That is, she
> finds or gets a recipe that elicits a strong positive reaction from her,
> and then simply reproduces it without really experimenting.

Hmm, Alex, now I'm really confused. In most of her recipes in this book,
she has given a recipe - and this may be the point you are making - the
recipe she has given, I'm not sure if it is a 'tried and true recipe' in the
baking world, or not - then she gives variations in that recipe of it being
made with 62% choc, 70% choc, 99%, etc. That would appear that she has
experimented with the recipe. A big reasoning for her book is that she HAS
experimened with recipes, doesn't believe in cream, but prefers WATER to
bring out the taste of the chocolate, and this is a result of a lifetime of
work and experimentation. And then shows you what her experimentation with
different percentages can produce in the particular recipes (formulas) she
is giving.
I must admit that I was a bit alarmed when I read something to the effect
that she had given recipes 'somewhere' (books, newspapaers or what, I can't
recall) which she hadn't tried, and said it a bit cavalierly, IMO. Perhaps I
took her words wrong, but she was probably referring to her past
transgressions, I don't know.

The point of the book for me was that aaah! here is a book at last that
deals with a recipe using different percentages of chocolate and it's time
has come. However, I am not a chocolate recipe-book collector, so I don't
know, but I don't recall other recipes saying, "use this percentage of
chocolate, and if you change it to another percentage, deduct this amount of
...." etc.

I've got a bit of stored chocolate with percentages on them, and I'm wanting
to try a bit -- perhaps I should concentrate on how to make a good truffle,
chocolate sauce with it; basically this is what I was hoping for with her
book. I was a bit *astounded* - tee hee -- by the attention to the
percentages and her knowledge about it passed on to readers. This is the
sort of thing, that I feel that sometimes authors of cookbooks have maybe an
idea about, but don't for whatever reason let their readers know about.

Written to much, as you can see it's somewhat confusing -- just like the
subject of bread - I WANT SOME ANSWERS! Boo hoo.
Dee Dee

In article >,
"Charles Gifford" > wrote:

> "Melba's Jammin'" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> Oops: Mme Suran he
>
> > > Thank you. You are number 1 on the list. )
> >
> > Why does that sound like a dubious honor? <=8-o)
> > --
>
> Margaret has my address too. What am I; Number 2? >:0

Honey, I believe the correct term is "chopped liver."
>
> Charlie, Egad! Or even lower on the scale!
--
http://www.jamlady.eboard.com, updated 11-9-05 finishing in four
parts the trip report from our vacation time in San Francisco
for Nephew Pat's wedding last weekend.

Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> In article >,
> "Charles Gifford" > wrote:
>
>
>>"Melba's Jammin'" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>Oops: Mme Suran he
>>
>>
>>>>Thank you. You are number 1 on the list. )
>>>
>>>Why does that sound like a dubious honor? <=8-o)
>>>--
>>
>>Margaret has my address too. What am I; Number 2? >:0
>
>
> Honey, I believe the correct term is "chopped liver."
>
>>Charlie, Egad! Or even lower on the scale!


Barbara, you are always Number One on every list. Nobody would dare
to give that spot to someone else.

Charlie, your Number Two is secure. That's all the chopped liver that
got in touch. I mean, all the other friends that contacted me.

Hugs, M

at Thu, 17 Nov 2005 14:08:20 GMT in >,
(Dee Randall) wrote :

>
>"Alex Rast" > wrote in message
.. .

<lots of deletia>

>> I get the feeling, too, that she tends to "fall in love" with recipes
>> without ever really investigating if they could be better. That is,
>> she finds or gets a recipe that elicits a strong positive reaction
>> from her, and then simply reproduces it without really experimenting.

....

>Hmm, Alex, now I'm really confused. In most of her recipes in this
>book, she has given a recipe - and this may be the point you are making
>- the recipe she has given, I'm not sure if it is a 'tried and true
>recipe' in the baking world, or not - then she gives variations in that
>recipe of it being made with 62% choc, 70% choc, 99%, etc. That would
>appear that she has experimented with the recipe. A big reasoning for
>her book is that she HAS experimened with recipes, doesn't believe in
>cream, but prefers WATER to bring out the taste of the chocolate, and
>this is a result of a lifetime of work and experimentation.

Trying different percentages is, I suppose, in the strictest sense
experimenting, but it doesn't cover the sort of wholesale experimentation
I'm thinking of. What I'm saying is that I don't get the impression that
she tries to make radical departures from recipes she likes, just to see
what the results might be. And that having found a recipe she does like,
she's content to tinker with it in minor ways instead of looking at
entirely different recipes for the same item altogether.

>The point of the book for me was that aaah! here is a book at last that
>deals with a recipe using different percentages of chocolate and it's
>time has come. However, I am not a chocolate recipe-book collector, so
>I don't know, but I don't recall other recipes saying, "use this
>percentage of chocolate, and if you change it to another percentage,
>deduct this amount of ..." etc.

Well, what you really want is a book that explains the underlying
principles of *all* ingredients in the baking process. That's a
professional baking book. These are hefty tomes which are filled with all
sorts of techical charts and diagrams, and which really take the time to
explain the principles behind the process. I wish such things would find
their way into more home-baker oriented books, but most home bakers don't
really have the time or the inclination to experiment - they want a tried
and true recipe that they can just use verbatim.

>I was a bit *astounded* - tee hee -- by the
>attention to the percentages and her knowledge about it passed on to
>readers. This is the sort of thing, that I feel that sometimes authors
>of cookbooks have maybe an idea about, but don't for whatever reason let
>their readers know about.

Any good professional will know a lot of technical details. IMHO any
serious home baker should also know such details. However, they're rarely
given because consumer interest is low and if you present too many facts,
many people end up more confused than enlightened.

--
Alex Rast

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

"Margaret Suran" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Charles Gifford" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Melba's Jammin'" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>Oops: Mme Suran he
> >>
> >>
> >>>>Thank you. You are number 1 on the list. )
> >>>
> >>>Why does that sound like a dubious honor? <=8-o)
> >>>--
> >>
> >>Margaret has my address too. What am I; Number 2? >:0
> >
> >
> > Honey, I believe the correct term is "chopped liver."
> >
> >>Charlie, Egad! Or even lower on the scale!
>
>
> Barbara, you are always Number One on every list. Nobody would dare
> to give that spot to someone else.

I suppose she has to be "kept" in my Number One position too. I owe her big
time!

> Charlie, your Number Two is secure. That's all the chopped liver that
> got in touch. I mean, all the other friends that contacted me.
>
> Hugs, M

Thank you dear Margaret! The cookies were excellent! Chopped liver is a good
thing!

Hugs returned, Charlie

Alex, I made the Chocolate Chip cookies, with Ghiradelli's 60% chips
last week. The chocolate was really good, just as you said and I kept
tasting it and except for a slightly too sweet taste, it reminded me
of European dark chocolate, the kind I ate as a child.

You were right about something else. While it did not matter that the
chips were not as high as the one Hershey's or Nestle's makes, the
chocolate, soft in the cookie when they came out of the oven, would
not harden. I had to put the cookies into the refrigerator to get the
melted chocolate to firm up.

As I was trying to get the cookies into boxes, rush them to the Post
Office to get them out while still very fresh and send then to the
volunteer tasters, I completely forgot to taste one. (

Two of the three volunteers have tasted them. They were received
within forty eight hours of being baked.

One said he liked them very much. He is very polite and wouldn't hurt
me, so I do not really know.

One said they taste the same way as any other ones I make. She would
like nothing better than hurt my feelings, so they had to be at least
marginally edible.

The third one received the cookies on Wednesday, too, but has not
bothered to open the box, so far. He has tasted my baking before, so
that may be the reason he has yet to try the cookies. (

Thank you for your help. Next time I will remember to eat one of the
cookies. M

"Margaret Suran" > wrote in message
...
> Alex, I made the Chocolate Chip cookies, with Ghiradelli's 60% chips
> last week. The chocolate was really good, just as you said and I kept
> tasting it and except for a slightly too sweet taste, it reminded me
> of European dark chocolate, the kind I ate as a child.
>
> You were right about something else. While it did not matter that the
> chips were not as high as the one Hershey's or Nestle's makes, the
> chocolate, soft in the cookie when they came out of the oven, would
> not harden. I had to put the cookies into the refrigerator to get the
> melted chocolate to firm up.
>
> As I was trying to get the cookies into boxes, rush them to the Post
> Office to get them out while still very fresh and send then to the
> volunteer tasters, I completely forgot to taste one. (
>
> Two of the three volunteers have tasted them. They were received
> within forty eight hours of being baked.
>
> One said he liked them very much. He is very polite and wouldn't hurt
> me, so I do not really know.
>
> One said they taste the same way as any other ones I make. She would
> like nothing better than hurt my feelings, so they had to be at least
> marginally edible.
>
> The third one received the cookies on Wednesday, too, but has not
> bothered to open the box, so far. He has tasted my baking before, so
> that may be the reason he has yet to try the cookies. (
>
> Thank you for your help. Next time I will remember to eat one of the
> cookies. M

I think you ought to send your cookies to me Margaret)

I will test them for you)

Ophelia
Scotland

Ophelia wrote:
> "Margaret Suran" > wrote in message

>>
>>As I was trying to get the cookies into boxes, rush them to the Post
>>Office to get them out while still very fresh and send them to the
>>volunteer tasters, I completely forgot to taste one. (
>>
>>Two of the three volunteers have tasted them. They were received
>>within forty eight hours of being baked.
>>
>>One said he liked them very much. He is very polite and wouldn't hurt
>>me, so I do not really know.
>>
>>One said they taste the same way as any other ones I make. She would
>>like nothing better than hurt my feelings, so they had to be at least
>>marginally edible.
>>
>>The third one received the cookies on Wednesday, too, but has not
>>bothered to open the box, so far. He has tasted my baking before, so
>>that may be the reason he has yet to try the cookies. (
>>
>>Thank you for your help. Next time I will remember to eat one of the
>>cookies. M
>
>
> I think you ought to send your cookies to me Margaret)
>
> I will test them for you)
>
> Ophelia
> Scotland

Ophelia, Unfortunately, by the time they would get to Scotland, they
would be petrified. (

However, email your address to msuran at em eye em eff dot com (spell
as you would pronounce the address) and perhaps some day I will make
something that can be sent overseas. Anything is possible.

Margaret