We went to a living history Christmas event this weekend. The lady
doing the hearth cooking demonstration was telling us about an early
19th century cake recipe called a 1234 cake or poor man's pound cake.
The ingredients a

1 cup butter
2 cups sugar
3 cups flour
4 eggs

We didn't get any directions. Googling wasn't much help -- most of the
hits have milk, baking powder, etc. For mixing, I'm guessing you cream
the butter and sugar then add the flour and eggs (beat the eggs first?).
It sounded as though they had made it in a dutch oven. I know the
cooking time will vary depending on the diameter of the dutch oven and
the temperature of the coals. How long would you let it go before
starting to check for doneness. How do you detemine when it's done? I
found one site that says it's more of a cookie texture than a cake (
http://www.foodtimeline.org/foodcakes.html#1234cake ).

Any suggestions before we try this experiment. Himself is eager to go
play in his new firepit. :-)

TIA,
--Charlene


--
Euthanasia: Generally more proficient at math and science than
euthanamerica. -- Bayan, Rick; The Cynic's Dictionary, 2002


email perronnelle at earthlink . net

Charlene Charette wrote:
> We went to a living history Christmas event this weekend. The lady
> doing the hearth cooking demonstration was telling us about an early
> 19th century cake recipe called a 1234 cake or poor man's pound cake.
> The ingredients a
>
> 1 cup butter
> 2 cups sugar
> 3 cups flour
> 4 eggs
>
> We didn't get any directions. Googling wasn't much help -- most of the
> hits have milk, baking powder, etc. For mixing, I'm guessing you cream
> the butter and sugar then add the flour and eggs (beat the eggs first?).
> It sounded as though they had made it in a dutch oven. I know the
> cooking time will vary depending on the diameter of the dutch oven and
> the temperature of the coals. How long would you let it go before
> starting to check for doneness. How do you detemine when it's done? I
> found one site that says it's more of a cookie texture than a cake (
> http://www.foodtimeline.org/foodcakes.html#1234cake ).
>
> Any suggestions before we try this experiment. Himself is eager to go
> play in his new firepit. :-)
>
> TIA,
> --Charlene
>
>


It rises because of the air you beat into the butter. Cream the butter,
add the sugar and beat for a *long* time until it's light and fluffy.
(Now here's the part I'm not so sure about) Add the eggs one-at-a-time
and beat thoroughly after each one. Sift in the flour a little at a
time and beat it in lightly. Scrape the bowl and fold to make sure it
all gets mixed in.

Test it with a toothpick or piece of straw. It's so dense, it takes a
pretty long time to bake. I wouldn't want to bake one in a dutch oven.

HTH,
Bob

"Charlene Charette" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> We went to a living history Christmas event this weekend. The lady
> doing the hearth cooking demonstration was telling us about an early
> 19th century cake recipe called a 1234 cake or poor man's pound cake.
> The ingredients a
>
> 1 cup butter
> 2 cups sugar
> 3 cups flour
> 4 eggs
>
> We didn't get any directions. Googling wasn't much help -- most of the
> hits have milk, baking powder, etc. For mixing, I'm guessing you cream
> the butter and sugar then add the flour and eggs (beat the eggs first?).
> It sounded as though they had made it in a dutch oven. I know the
> cooking time will vary depending on the diameter of the dutch oven and
> the temperature of the coals. How long would you let it go before
> starting to check for doneness. How do you detemine when it's done? I
> found one site that says it's more of a cookie texture than a cake (
> http://www.foodtimeline.org/foodcakes.html#1234cake ).
>
> Any suggestions before we try this experiment. Himself is eager to go
> play in his new firepit. :-)
>
> TIA,
> --Charlene


Silly name for pound cake. There is nothing "poor" about this recipe - it's
how it's made and always has been made. A pound of butter, pound of flour,
pound of eggs and pound of sugar. In fact a pound cake was a pretty
luxurious dessert at one time seeing as how sugar was extremely expensive
once especially around WWII.

Paul

On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 01:57:00 GMT, Charlene Charette
> wrote:

> We went to a living history Christmas event this weekend. The lady
> doing the hearth cooking demonstration was telling us about an early
> 19th century cake recipe called a 1234 cake or poor man's pound cake.
> The ingredients a
>
> 1 cup butter
> 2 cups sugar
> 3 cups flour
> 4 eggs
>
> We didn't get any directions. Googling wasn't much help -- most of the
> hits have milk, baking powder, etc. For mixing, I'm guessing you cream
> the butter and sugar then add the flour and eggs (beat the eggs first?).
> It sounded as though they had made it in a dutch oven. I know the
> cooking time will vary depending on the diameter of the dutch oven and
> the temperature of the coals. How long would you let it go before
> starting to check for doneness. How do you detemine when it's done? I
> found one site that says it's more of a cookie texture than a cake (
> http://www.foodtimeline.org/foodcakes.html#1234cake ).
>
> Any suggestions before we try this experiment. Himself is eager to go
> play in his new firepit. :-)

Here are the baking directions for my mom's recipe. Hers is just like
yours, but have flavorings added. This might help you get an idea,
anyway.

2. Divide batter into two 9 x 4 x 3-inch loaf pans, each lined with 2 or 3
thicknesses of paper.

3. Bake at 300-325F for 75-90 minutes. Cool about 10 minutes before
removing from pan.

Good luck with your experiment! Pound cake is wonderful!

Carol
--

http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/head_trollop/my_photos

zxcvbob wrote:

> It rises because of the air you beat into the butter. Cream the butter,
> add the sugar and beat for a *long* time until it's light and fluffy.
> (Now here's the part I'm not so sure about) Add the eggs one-at-a-time
> and beat thoroughly after each one. Sift in the flour a little at a
> time and beat it in lightly. Scrape the bowl and fold to make sure it
> all gets mixed in.

Thanks for the advice. It's been awhile since I've made a pound cake so
I misremembered when to add the eggs.

> Test it with a toothpick or piece of straw. It's so dense, it takes a
> pretty long time to bake. I wouldn't want to bake one in a dutch oven.

Well, the assumption is the original cook didn't have an oven, just a
fireplace. We may try putting the batter in a cake pan then baking in
the dutch oven. I'm in charge of mixing; he's in charge of baking.

Thanks,
--Charlene

--
Euthanasia: Generally more proficient at math and science than
euthanamerica. -- Bayan, Rick; The Cynic's Dictionary, 2002


email perronnelle at earthlink . net

Paul M. Cook wrote:

> Silly name for pound cake. There is nothing "poor" about this recipe - it's
> how it's made and always has been made. A pound of butter, pound of flour,
> pound of eggs and pound of sugar. In fact a pound cake was a pretty
> luxurious dessert at one time seeing as how sugar was extremely expensive
> once especially around WWII.

My thoughts, too. But since many of the Google hits used that name I
figured it best to mention it in case someone knew the recipe but not
the name "1234 cake".

--Charlene

--
Euthanasia: Generally more proficient at math and science than
euthanamerica. -- Bayan, Rick; The Cynic's Dictionary, 2002


email perronnelle at earthlink . net

Paul M. Cook wrote:
> "Charlene Charette" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>> We went to a living history Christmas event this weekend. The lady
>> doing the hearth cooking demonstration was telling us about an early
>> 19th century cake recipe called a 1234 cake or poor man's pound cake.
>> The ingredients a
>>
>> 1 cup butter
>> 2 cups sugar
>> 3 cups flour
>> 4 eggs
>>
>> TIA,
>> --Charlene
>
>
> Silly name for pound cake. There is nothing "poor" about this recipe
> cake was a pretty luxurious dessert at one time seeing as how sugar
> was extremely expensive once especially around WWII.
>
> Paul

Early 19th century wasn't anywhere near WWII. I suspect the ingredients (1,
2, 3, then 4) or a pound of each is a fairly apt description for the day it
was written.

Jill

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
.. .
> Paul M. Cook wrote:
> > "Charlene Charette" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> >> We went to a living history Christmas event this weekend. The lady
> >> doing the hearth cooking demonstration was telling us about an early
> >> 19th century cake recipe called a 1234 cake or poor man's pound cake.
> >> The ingredients a
> >>
> >> 1 cup butter
> >> 2 cups sugar
> >> 3 cups flour
> >> 4 eggs
> >>
> >> TIA,
> >> --Charlene
> >
> >
> > Silly name for pound cake. There is nothing "poor" about this recipe
> > cake was a pretty luxurious dessert at one time seeing as how sugar
> > was extremely expensive once especially around WWII.
> >
> > Paul
>
> Early 19th century wasn't anywhere near WWII. I suspect the ingredients
(1,
> 2, 3, then 4) or a pound of each is a fairly apt description for the day
it
> was written.
>

Duh! WWII a hundred years later. Thanks for the clarification I was so
confused about centuries and stuff. Seeing as how butter, eggs sugar and
flour were all tightly rationed in WWII I figured you'd make the connection
between the use of "poor" and the reality of what was a very popular recipe
during that period of time despite the ingredients being scarce and
expensive.

Paul

In article <dYEnf.12899$Ea6.11345@trnddc08>,
"Paul M. Cook" > wrote:

>
> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > Paul M. Cook wrote:
> > > "Charlene Charette" > wrote in message
> > > nk.net...
> > >> We went to a living history Christmas event this weekend. The lady
> > >> doing the hearth cooking demonstration was telling us about an early
> > >> 19th century cake recipe called a 1234 cake or poor man's pound cake.
> > >> The ingredients a
> > >>
> > >> 1 cup butter
> > >> 2 cups sugar
> > >> 3 cups flour
> > >> 4 eggs
> > >>
> > >> TIA,
> > >> --Charlene
> > >
> > >
> > > Silly name for pound cake. There is nothing "poor" about this recipe
> > > cake was a pretty luxurious dessert at one time seeing as how sugar
> > > was extremely expensive once especially around WWII.
> > >
> > > Paul
> >
> > Early 19th century wasn't anywhere near WWII. I suspect the ingredients
> (1,
> > 2, 3, then 4) or a pound of each is a fairly apt description for the day
> it
> > was written.
> >
>
> Duh! WWII a hundred years later. Thanks for the clarification I was so
> confused about centuries and stuff. Seeing as how butter, eggs sugar and
> flour were all tightly rationed in WWII I figured you'd make the connection
> between the use of "poor" and the reality of what was a very popular recipe
> during that period of time despite the ingredients being scarce and
> expensive.

WWII wasn't in the early 19th century. Since the original recipe
was an early 19th century, your commentary on rations and WWII, while
interesting, are irrelevant.

Regards,
Ranee

Remove do not & spam to e-mail me.

"She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13

http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/
http://talesfromthekitchen.blogspot.com/

"Ranee Mueller" > wrote in message
...
> In article <dYEnf.12899$Ea6.11345@trnddc08>,
> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
>
> >
> > "jmcquown" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> > > Paul M. Cook wrote:
> > > > "Charlene Charette" > wrote in message
> > > > nk.net...
> > > >> We went to a living history Christmas event this weekend. The lady
> > > >> doing the hearth cooking demonstration was telling us about an
early
> > > >> 19th century cake recipe called a 1234 cake or poor man's pound
cake.
> > > >> The ingredients a
> > > >>
> > > >> 1 cup butter
> > > >> 2 cups sugar
> > > >> 3 cups flour
> > > >> 4 eggs
> > > >>
> > > >> TIA,
> > > >> --Charlene
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Silly name for pound cake. There is nothing "poor" about this
recipe
> > > > cake was a pretty luxurious dessert at one time seeing as how sugar
> > > > was extremely expensive once especially around WWII.
> > > >
> > > > Paul
> > >
> > > Early 19th century wasn't anywhere near WWII. I suspect the
ingredients
> > (1,
> > > 2, 3, then 4) or a pound of each is a fairly apt description for the
day
> > it
> > > was written.
> > >
> >
> > Duh! WWII a hundred years later. Thanks for the clarification I was so
> > confused about centuries and stuff. Seeing as how butter, eggs sugar
and
> > flour were all tightly rationed in WWII I figured you'd make the
connection
> > between the use of "poor" and the reality of what was a very popular
recipe
> > during that period of time despite the ingredients being scarce and
> > expensive.
>
> WWII wasn't in the early 19th century. Since the original recipe
> was an early 19th century, your commentary on rations and WWII, while
> interesting, are irrelevant.


Well it was bloody expensive back then too when sugar was so costly it was
only for the wealthy. Pardon me for choosing an example of modern times
that made the point a little more clearly. This is America where most
people can't recall last week let alone something 200 years ago.

Paul

On Tue 13 Dec 2005 03:51:10p, Thus Spake Zarathustra, or was it Paul M.
Cook?

>
> "Ranee Mueller" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article <dYEnf.12899$Ea6.11345@trnddc08>,
>> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > "jmcquown" > wrote in message
>> > .. .
>> > > Paul M. Cook wrote:
>> > > > "Charlene Charette" > wrote in message
>> > > > nk.net...
>> > > >> We went to a living history Christmas event this weekend. The
lady
>> > > >> doing the hearth cooking demonstration was telling us about an
>> > > >> early 19th century cake recipe called a 1234 cake or poor man's
>> > > >> pound cake. The ingredients a
>> > > >>
>> > > >> 1 cup butter
>> > > >> 2 cups sugar
>> > > >> 3 cups flour
>> > > >> 4 eggs
>> > > >>
>> > > >> TIA,
>> > > >> --Charlene
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Silly name for pound cake. There is nothing "poor" about this
>> > > > recipe cake was a pretty luxurious dessert at one time seeing as
how
>> > > > sugar was extremely expensive once especially around WWII.
>> > > >
>> > > > Paul
>> > >
>> > > Early 19th century wasn't anywhere near WWII. I suspect the
>> > > ingredients (1, 2, 3, then 4) or a pound of each is a fairly apt
>> > > description for the day it was written.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Duh! WWII a hundred years later. Thanks for the clarification I was
so
>> > confused about centuries and stuff. Seeing as how butter, eggs sugar
>> > and flour were all tightly rationed in WWII I figured you'd make the
>> > connection between the use of "poor" and the reality of what was a
very
>> > popular recipe during that period of time despite the ingredients
being
>> > scarce and expensive.
>>
>> WWII wasn't in the early 19th century. Since the original recipe
>> was an early 19th century, your commentary on rations and WWII, while
>> interesting, are irrelevant.
>
>
> Well it was bloody expensive back then too when sugar was so costly it
was
> only for the wealthy. Pardon me for choosing an example of modern times
> that made the point a little more clearly. This is America where most
> people can't recall last week let alone something 200 years ago.
>
> Paul

TWISI, you can either discuss recipes, ingredients, cooking conditions,
etc., of the 19th century OR during the period of WWII. One has absolutely
nothing to do with the other.

--
Wayne Boatwright *¿*
_____________________________________________

A chicken in every pot is a *LOT* of chicken!

"Wayne Boatwright" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue 13 Dec 2005 03:51:10p, Thus Spake Zarathustra, or was it Paul M.
> Cook?
>
> >
> > "Ranee Mueller" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> In article <dYEnf.12899$Ea6.11345@trnddc08>,
> >> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "jmcquown" > wrote in message
> >> > .. .
> >> > > Paul M. Cook wrote:
> >> > > > "Charlene Charette" > wrote in message
> >> > > > nk.net...
> >> > > >> We went to a living history Christmas event this weekend. The
> lady
> >> > > >> doing the hearth cooking demonstration was telling us about an
> >> > > >> early 19th century cake recipe called a 1234 cake or poor man's
> >> > > >> pound cake. The ingredients a
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> 1 cup butter
> >> > > >> 2 cups sugar
> >> > > >> 3 cups flour
> >> > > >> 4 eggs
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> TIA,
> >> > > >> --Charlene
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Silly name for pound cake. There is nothing "poor" about this
> >> > > > recipe cake was a pretty luxurious dessert at one time seeing as
> how
> >> > > > sugar was extremely expensive once especially around WWII.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Paul
> >> > >
> >> > > Early 19th century wasn't anywhere near WWII. I suspect the
> >> > > ingredients (1, 2, 3, then 4) or a pound of each is a fairly apt
> >> > > description for the day it was written.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > Duh! WWII a hundred years later. Thanks for the clarification I was
> so
> >> > confused about centuries and stuff. Seeing as how butter, eggs sugar
> >> > and flour were all tightly rationed in WWII I figured you'd make the
> >> > connection between the use of "poor" and the reality of what was a
> very
> >> > popular recipe during that period of time despite the ingredients
> being
> >> > scarce and expensive.
> >>
> >> WWII wasn't in the early 19th century. Since the original recipe
> >> was an early 19th century, your commentary on rations and WWII, while
> >> interesting, are irrelevant.
> >
> >
> > Well it was bloody expensive back then too when sugar was so costly it
> was
> > only for the wealthy. Pardon me for choosing an example of modern times
> > that made the point a little more clearly. This is America where most
> > people can't recall last week let alone something 200 years ago.
> >
> > Paul
>
> TWISI, you can either discuss recipes, ingredients, cooking conditions,
> etc., of the 19th century OR during the period of WWII. One has
absolutely
> nothing to do with the other.


TWISI?

Archduke Franz Ferdinand would have disagreed on the latter.

I raise you one ROFLPIMP.

Paul

On Tue 13 Dec 2005 04:27:25p, Thus Spake Zarathustra, or was it Paul M.
Cook?

>
> "Wayne Boatwright" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue 13 Dec 2005 03:51:10p, Thus Spake Zarathustra, or was it Paul M.
>> Cook?
>>
>> >
>> > "Ranee Mueller" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> In article <dYEnf.12899$Ea6.11345@trnddc08>,
>> >> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > "jmcquown" > wrote in message
>> >> > .. .
>> >> > > Paul M. Cook wrote:
>> >> > > > "Charlene Charette" > wrote in message
>> >> > > > nk.net...
>> >> > > >> We went to a living history Christmas event this weekend. The
>> >> > > >> lady doing the hearth cooking demonstration was telling us
about
>> >> > > >> an early 19th century cake recipe called a 1234 cake or poor
>> >> > > >> man's pound cake. The ingredients a
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> 1 cup butter
>> >> > > >> 2 cups sugar
>> >> > > >> 3 cups flour
>> >> > > >> 4 eggs
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> TIA,
>> >> > > >> --Charlene
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Silly name for pound cake. There is nothing "poor" about this
>> >> > > > recipe cake was a pretty luxurious dessert at one time seeing
as
>> >> > > > how sugar was extremely expensive once especially around WWII.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Paul
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Early 19th century wasn't anywhere near WWII. I suspect the
>> >> > > ingredients (1, 2, 3, then 4) or a pound of each is a fairly apt
>> >> > > description for the day it was written.
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> > Duh! WWII a hundred years later. Thanks for the clarification I
was
>> >> > so confused about centuries and stuff. Seeing as how butter, eggs
>> >> > sugar and flour were all tightly rationed in WWII I figured you'd
>> >> > make the connection between the use of "poor" and the reality of
what
>> >> > was a very popular recipe during that period of time despite the
>> >> > ingredients being scarce and expensive.
>> >>
>> >> WWII wasn't in the early 19th century. Since the original recipe
>> >> was an early 19th century, your commentary on rations and WWII, while
>> >> interesting, are irrelevant.
>> >
>> >
>> > Well it was bloody expensive back then too when sugar was so costly it
>> > was only for the wealthy. Pardon me for choosing an example of modern
>> > times that made the point a little more clearly. This is America
where
>> > most people can't recall last week let alone something 200 years ago.
>> >
>> > Paul
>>
>> TWISI, you can either discuss recipes, ingredients, cooking conditions,
>> etc., of the 19th century OR during the period of WWII. One has
>> absolutely nothing to do with the other.
>
>
> TWISI?

"The way I see it"

> Archduke Franz Ferdinand would have disagreed on the latter.

Archduke Franz Ferdinand is dead. Do we care? <g>


> I raise you one ROFLPIMP.

<vbg>

--
Wayne Boatwright *¿*
_____________________________________________

A chicken in every pot is a *LOT* of chicken!

Paul M. Cook wrote:
>
> I raise you one ROFLPIMP.
>
> Paul
>
>

What the hell is a roflpimp??? tell me or I'm going to start call people
roflpimps tomorrow!!


roflpimp...ha

--
..:Heather:.
www.velvet-c.com

Paul M. Cook wrote:
> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>> "Charlene Charette" > wrote in message
>>> nk.net...
>>>> We went to a living history Christmas event this weekend. The lady
>>>> doing the hearth cooking demonstration was telling us about an
>>>> early 19th century cake recipe called a 1234 cake or poor man's
>>>> pound cake. The ingredients a
>>>>
>>>> 1 cup butter
>>>> 2 cups sugar
>>>> 3 cups flour
>>>> 4 eggs
>>>>
>>>> TIA,
>>>> --Charlene
>>>
>>>
>>> Silly name for pound cake. There is nothing "poor" about this
>>> recipe cake was a pretty luxurious dessert at one time seeing as
>>> how sugar was extremely expensive once especially around WWII.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>
>> Early 19th century wasn't anywhere near WWII. I suspect the
>> ingredients (1, 2, 3, then 4) or a pound of each is a fairly apt
>> description for the day it was written.
>>
>
> Duh! WWII a hundred years later. Thanks for the clarification I was
> so confused about centuries and stuff. Seeing as how butter, eggs
> sugar and flour were all tightly rationed in WWII I figured you'd
> make the connection between the use of "poor" and the reality of what
> was a very popular recipe during that period of time despite the
> ingredients being scarce and expensive.
>
> Paul

I am sure you know the ingredients were scarce and expensive in the early
19th century, even though those ingredients were staples in the home.

I suppose you also helped young women during WWII draw seams up the back of
their legs because silk stockings weren't available. Hrrrrm.

Jill

"The Bubbo" > wrote

> What the hell is a roflpimp??? tell me or I'm going to start call people
> roflpimps tomorrow!!

Oh no, now we have people peeing.

The Bubbo wrote:
> Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>
>> I raise you one ROFLPIMP.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>
> What the hell is a roflpimp??? tell me or I'm going to start call
> people roflpimps tomorrow!!
>
>
> roflpimp...ha

I think he meant Rumtoff A holiday rum drink

Jill

Nancy Young wrote:
>
> "The Bubbo" > wrote
>
>> What the hell is a roflpimp??? tell me or I'm going to start call people
>> roflpimps tomorrow!!
>
> Oh no, now we have people peeing.
>
>

OH!!!!
ha! that's great.
I think I'm still calling people roflpimps just for fun, in the tradition of
calling people roflcopters
http://members.cox.net/pimpbot9000/roflcopter.htm

--
..:Heather:.
www.velvet-c.com

In article <vu5nf.13390$Wo2.1916@trnddc04>,
Paul M. Cook > wrote:

>Silly name for pound cake. There is nothing "poor" about this
>recipe - it's how it's made and always has been made.

No. The "poor" comes from not having a device to weigh the
ingredients, I think. The idea in that recipe is to eliminate the
weights and substitute volumes in an easy way to remember, 1 cup
butter, 2 cups sugar, 3 cups flour, 4 eggs. That's not how it's
always been made; although the volumes may each approximate a pound.

>A pound of butter, pound of flour, pound of eggs and pound of
>sugar.

Adding a pound of chopped nuts is nice. Substituting a pound of
honey starts you out with more liquid and makes the mixing easier.

....and if you're adventurous, try adding a pound of baking powder
along with a pound of cream. :-)

-A

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
.. .
> Paul M. Cook wrote:
> > "jmcquown" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> >> Paul M. Cook wrote:
> >>> "Charlene Charette" > wrote in message
> >>> nk.net...
> >>>> We went to a living history Christmas event this weekend. The lady
> >>>> doing the hearth cooking demonstration was telling us about an
> >>>> early 19th century cake recipe called a 1234 cake or poor man's
> >>>> pound cake. The ingredients a
> >>>>
> >>>> 1 cup butter
> >>>> 2 cups sugar
> >>>> 3 cups flour
> >>>> 4 eggs
> >>>>
> >>>> TIA,
> >>>> --Charlene
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Silly name for pound cake. There is nothing "poor" about this
> >>> recipe cake was a pretty luxurious dessert at one time seeing as
> >>> how sugar was extremely expensive once especially around WWII.
> >>>
> >>> Paul
> >>
> >> Early 19th century wasn't anywhere near WWII. I suspect the
> >> ingredients (1, 2, 3, then 4) or a pound of each is a fairly apt
> >> description for the day it was written.
> >>
> >
> > Duh! WWII a hundred years later. Thanks for the clarification I was
> > so confused about centuries and stuff. Seeing as how butter, eggs
> > sugar and flour were all tightly rationed in WWII I figured you'd
> > make the connection between the use of "poor" and the reality of what
> > was a very popular recipe during that period of time despite the
> > ingredients being scarce and expensive.
> >
> > Paul
>
> I am sure you know the ingredients were scarce and expensive in the early
> 19th century, even though those ingredients were staples in the home.

Yes of course and they were quite treasured even into the mid-20th century
which was my point. I just found the name "poor" to be silly in referring
to a cake that was considered a rare luxury as little as 60 years ago.

Paul

Paul M. Cook wrote:

> Yes of course and they were quite treasured even into the mid-20th century
> which was my point. I just found the name "poor" to be silly in referring
> to a cake that was considered a rare luxury as little as 60 years ago.

At one time in Maine lobsters were considered trash food fit only for
servants. Some servants had agreements that they wouldn't be served
lobster more than three times a week. Now it's considered a luxury.

--Charlene


--
Euthanasia: Generally more proficient at math and science than
euthanamerica. -- Bayan, Rick; The Cynic's Dictionary, 2002


email perronnelle at earthlink . net

"Charlene Charette" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Paul M. Cook wrote:
>
> > Yes of course and they were quite treasured even into the mid-20th
century
> > which was my point. I just found the name "poor" to be silly in
referring
> > to a cake that was considered a rare luxury as little as 60 years ago.
>
> At one time in Maine lobsters were considered trash food fit only for
> servants. Some servants had agreements that they wouldn't be served
> lobster more than three times a week. Now it's considered a luxury.


Some would consider it a necessity.

Paul

jmcquown wrote:

> Paul M. Cook wrote:
>
>>"Charlene Charette" > wrote in message
link.net...
>>
>>>We went to a living history Christmas event this weekend. The lady
>>>doing the hearth cooking demonstration was telling us about an early
>>>19th century cake recipe called a 1234 cake or poor man's pound cake.
>>>The ingredients a
>>>
>>>1 cup butter
>>>2 cups sugar
>>>3 cups flour
>>>4 eggs
>>>
>>>TIA,
>>>--Charlene
>>
>>
>>Silly name for pound cake. There is nothing "poor" about this recipe
>>cake was a pretty luxurious dessert at one time seeing as how sugar
>>was extremely expensive once especially around WWII.
>>
>>Paul
>
>
> Early 19th century wasn't anywhere near WWII. I suspect the ingredients (1,
> 2, 3, then 4) or a pound of each is a fairly apt description for the day it
> was written.
>
> Jill
>
>
BUT a pound of eggs was (and is?) 8-10 eggs, not 4....

--
Jean B.

"Jean B." > wrote in message
...
> jmcquown wrote:
>
> > Paul M. Cook wrote:
> >
> >>"Charlene Charette" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> >>
> >>>We went to a living history Christmas event this weekend. The lady
> >>>doing the hearth cooking demonstration was telling us about an early
> >>>19th century cake recipe called a 1234 cake or poor man's pound cake.
> >>>The ingredients a
> >>>
> >>>1 cup butter
> >>>2 cups sugar
> >>>3 cups flour
> >>>4 eggs
> >>>
> >>>TIA,
> >>>--Charlene
> >>
> >>
> >>Silly name for pound cake. There is nothing "poor" about this recipe
> >>cake was a pretty luxurious dessert at one time seeing as how sugar
> >>was extremely expensive once especially around WWII.
> >>
> >>Paul
> >
> >
> > Early 19th century wasn't anywhere near WWII. I suspect the ingredients
(1,
> > 2, 3, then 4) or a pound of each is a fairly apt description for the day
it
> > was written.
> >
> > Jill
> >
> >
> BUT a pound of eggs was (and is?) 8-10 eggs, not 4....


Not sure. Eggs from hens raised in real farms with comfy nests and plenty
of high quality food produce much larger eggs than I see in the stores. 8
average sized store eggs just might equal 4 maybe 5 eggs from champion
egg-layers.

Paul

Paul M. Cook wrote:

> "Jean B." > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>jmcquown wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Charlene Charette" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>We went to a living history Christmas event this weekend. The lady
>>>>>doing the hearth cooking demonstration was telling us about an early
>>>>>19th century cake recipe called a 1234 cake or poor man's pound cake.
>>>>>The ingredients a
>>>>>
>>>>>1 cup butter
>>>>>2 cups sugar
>>>>>3 cups flour
>>>>>4 eggs
>>>>>
>>>>>TIA,
>>>>>--Charlene
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Silly name for pound cake. There is nothing "poor" about this recipe
>>>>cake was a pretty luxurious dessert at one time seeing as how sugar
>>>>was extremely expensive once especially around WWII.
>>>>
>>>>Paul
>>>
>>>
>>>Early 19th century wasn't anywhere near WWII. I suspect the ingredients
>
> (1,
>
>>>2, 3, then 4) or a pound of each is a fairly apt description for the day
>
> it
>
>>>was written.
>>>
>>>Jill
>>>
>>>
>>
>>BUT a pound of eggs was (and is?) 8-10 eggs, not 4....
>
>
>
> Not sure. Eggs from hens raised in real farms with comfy nests and plenty
> of high quality food produce much larger eggs than I see in the stores. 8
> average sized store eggs just might equal 4 maybe 5 eggs from champion
> egg-layers.
>
> Paul
>
Well, that comment was based on charts in old cookbooks.

--
Jean B.

In article <%A0pf.4916$eI5.1821@trnddc05>,
"Paul M. Cook" > wrote:

> Not sure. Eggs from hens raised in real farms with comfy nests and plenty
> of high quality food produce much larger eggs than I see in the stores. 8
> average sized store eggs just might equal 4 maybe 5 eggs from champion
> egg-layers.

You are talking about modern eggs. Eggs at the beginning on the 19th
century were not as large, generally, as the ones you see in stores
which come from chickens that were bred to be production layers and make
uniform eggs.

Regards,
Ranee (raising chickens this year)

Remove do not & spam to e-mail me.

"She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13

http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/
http://talesfromthekitchen.blogspot.com/