"Laura" ) writes:
> "Merryb" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> On Apr 8, 12:41 pm, "JimL" > wrote:
>>> What kind of chocolate, and method, should I use to make a simple
>>> chocolate to drizzle on top of otherwise plain sugar cookies? I've
>>> tried melting Nestle's chips in a double boiler, added some powdered
>>> sugar, and then a bit of cornstaarch to try to thicken it. It was too
>>> runny, and when cooled still didn't harden enouch -- cookies in a jar
>>> would stick to each other. Is there a cerain kind of chocolate for
>>> melting and then hardening?
>>
>> Couverature, but that needs tempering. Try your chips again, and be
>> sure not to overheat. Also, don't add other stuff to it to try to
>> thicken. Or if flavor isn't too important to you, then I would
>> recommend bark, also.
>>
>
> why not leave the chips unadulterated. melt and drizzle on cookie, let harden.
> should be firm like the chips but not rock break teeth breaking hard. That's
> what I do when i want to dip the ends of biscotti in chocolate and it is good.
>
I think because the original poster is not satisfied with the state of the
chocolate after melting.

This is subjective, but it seems after making thousands of chocolate chip
cookies over a decade, some brands of chocolate chips are better at reverting
to their "natural" state. I tended to buy the cheapest, and then decided
the chips were staying too "gooey". It seems better with a more expensive
brand.

I'm also willing to believe it might not be the chips, but something else
in the process that is providing some variant, though I couldn't say
what. I've made the same recipe enough that the variants that I used
to see are long gone.

Commercial chocolate chip cookies have a relatively firm chip, and
they generally don't melt too badly in your fingers while you eat them.

I think that's what the poster is asking about, because after melting
the chocolate chips, they stay too soft and thus it's too messy in your
hands.

Michael