FoodBanter.com - View Single Post

at Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:32:17 GMT in
>, (JMF) wrote :

>
>"Alex Rast" > wrote in message
.. .
>> at Sun, 07 Nov 2004 13:50:08 GMT in
>> >, (JMF) wrote :
>>
>> I recommend that you cut down *drastically* on the butter and sugar,
>> and replace them with more chocolate. This will give a much better
>> flavour and probably a better texture as well. I'd try as a starting
>> point 400g chocolate, 125g butter, and 125 g sugar.
>
>One more question: suppose I were to use Lindt 85% (which I know you
>have a lot of respect for, and I can get very easily) as the chocolate.
>Would you still recommend the same proportions as above?
>
Not if you want to maintain the same flavour balance. If this were your
objective, then the proper ratios would be 270g chocolate, 205g sugar, and
195 g butter. The cake will be somewhat softer (because more of the fat is
as butter). If, OTOH, you're looking for higher chocolate intensity, then
you could leave the ratios as is. In that case, the cake would be a little
drier and more astringent (because of the lower sugar).

However, Lindt's 85% is another excellent chocolate that I wouldn't
recommend for Chocolate Decadence. It's got a very earthy flavour, and in a
decadence the result would be reminiscent of a mud cake. If you want to go
with an 85%, for Chocolate Decadence by far the first choice would be
Bernard Castelain Noir Extreme 85% - a perfect match. Another one that
would work well is Cote D'Or Brut 86%.

As a general rule, I will caution against considering a high rating I might
give to a chocolate as an endorsement of broad applicability. There are
many chocolates that are excellent for eating but which in a baking
application need careful consideration. It's easy to assume a chocolate
good for eating will translate into a good baking chocolate, and while
without doubt a good eating chocolate will make for a far better result
than one that's genuinely bad eaten straight, once you reach the ranks of
the good to excellent, it's much more subjective.

I think perhaps I also have a tendency to use far too nuanced descriptions.
For instance, you took my earlier remark "Chuao works best with things that
are supposed to be intense, dense, and heavy..." as indicative of it being
possibly suitable for Chocolate Decadence, only to have me respond "Amedei
Chuao, for a Decadence-like cake, is too powerful, dark, and brooding." The
key word that differentiates the cases is "heavy". While Chocolate
Decadence is undeniably intense and dense, the idea isn't that it's
supposed to be heavy, in the sense that it sits in your stomach and gives
you a warm, filled feeling. In fact, Chocolate Decadence is most
appropriate for summer, when that's the last thing you want. What it's
supposed to do is give you a strong "hit"- a powerful punch that may knock
you out, but doesn't weigh you down. I think, therefore, Chuao is best for
the truly heavy - brownies, steamed puddings, hot custards - where its
power and weight really shine: a "winter" chocolate.

The ones I've been recommending are what I'd call "summer" chocolates -
ones that hit fast and sharply: a Karate master as opposed to a Sumo
champion. Meanwhile, Lindt 85% is a "fall" chocolate, something mellow and
with very long duration, that lingers without becoming oppressive. No heavy
punch here, but a long, drawn-out push. Finally, there are the "spring"
chocolates, the ones that are light and fresh, exciting but which don't hit
you over the head. Chocolates like Domori Porcelana and Puertofino,
Guittard Colombian, and Valrhona Araguani are exemplars of this type.

However, such finely graded shades I suspect are lost on people, at least
over the Net where there's only so much you can convey in words. I think
that if I sat people down with a bunch of these chocolates side-by-side,
it'd be easy to see what I was talking about but it's virtually an
impossible task to do an unconfusing job in a posting.

--
Alex Rast

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