"Alex Rast" > wrote in message
...
> at Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:28:22 GMT in >,
> wrote :
>
>>Janet Puistonen > wrote:
>>
>>> But are they "truffles"? I'd say they are "chocolates." A truffle is
>>> by definition a free-formed thing. I tend to think of molding two
>>> demispheres then pressing them together as "cheating" <G>.
>>
>>If you go to the original concept of truffles, which was
>>to mimic the look of the underground fungi, then any kind
>>chocolate coating is not very truffle-like.
>
> I have to agree. Personally, I think that the only chocolate that is
> really
> a truffle as such is the one that is simply ganache rolled in cocoa. All
> others I think *should* be called "chocolates".
>
> But success of the word, applied to a wide variety of confections, has
> eroded the term to the status of a generic. If another person refers to
> some chocolate that isn't really a truffle in conversation, you only add
> confusion by calling it something different, such as a chocolate. Indeed,
> another part of the problem is distinguishing between *chocolates* (small,
> bite-size confections made with chocolate) and *chocolate* (solid
> chocolate
> mass composed of chocolate liquor, cocoa butter, sugar, and vanilla, and
> possibly milk powder and a trace of soy lecithin). There's no generic term
> that refers to chocolates in the singular. So I think a lot of people
> adopted the term truffle to get around this problem. It's unfortunate that
> they should have chosen a term that refers so instantly and recognisably
> to
> a specific chocolate confection - after you've had a "real" chocolate
> truffle even once, you immediately understand why it has the name.
> Nonetheless, it's probably impossible to turn back the clock now and
> create
> another generic term.
Well, you're right. That's why I call mine "Fine Truffles and Chocolates." I
have my private opinion about which are which, but I'll let the purchaser
make up his or her own mind.