Sometime in the near future, I was hoping to make some truffles and
other types of chocolates. In the past, I've been pretty much dealing
with mediocre brands, supplies, and even recipes for fondant and
ganache.

So does anyone have any good fondant or ganache recipes?

Also, what kind of brands do you prefer to make yours? (Premium
chocolates or specific creams... flavoring... syrups...)

Got any tips for making them come out the best possible?


Thanks in advance. =)
*Shan*

>So does anyone have any good fondant or ganache recipes?


Making fondant by hand cannot duplicate the quality of institutionally
made item, so
IMO I prefer to buy a pail of ready made fondant instead if I make a
lots of fondant containing chocolate centers.
Another option is to use the DryFond which makes a better textured
product than using powdered sugar fondant alternative.

Regarding Ganache, IMO it does not need the use of expensive good
tasting chocolatew which is better consumed IMO as is, by
eating.<grin>>.
If I make those filled ganache based chocolate confections.
I would improve tastes by adding certain liqueurs/ or flavors to the
formulations instead.

I would rather spend the money on procuring refined hazelnut paste (
as homemade paste is rather gritty ( 600-1000microns and cannnot
attain the desired particle range of 20-40 microns on that nut paste
processed through a three roll or even by a Macintye refiner conche.

>Got any tips for making them come out the best possible?
In your case I would recommend to understand the recipe and its
procedures before you even think of doing it yourself.< grin>. Then you
are likely to get a good product that you can be proud of. But it takes
a bit of practice and you better use less expensive ingredients
initially.

A lot of beginners are deluded into thinking that expensive
ingredients will result in excellent product which is not absolutely
true.;
Indeed good quality materials will reflect on the end product but its
better if you have already attained enough skill on chocolate
confectionery before you invest your money on such costly ingredients.
There are lots of chocolatiers( chocolate confectioners) who can
produce really good tasting products due to their skill and not due to
the ingredients they use.

at Tue, 13 Dec 2005 18:01:00 GMT in <1134496860.685904.10600
@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, (Chembake) wrote :

>>So does anyone have any good fondant or ganache recipes?
>
>Making fondant by hand cannot duplicate the quality of institutionally
>made item, so
>IMO I prefer to buy a pail of ready made fondant instead if I make a
>lots of fondant containing chocolate centers.
>Another option is to use the DryFond which makes a better textured
>product than using powdered sugar fondant alternative.

Although it must be said that making one's own fondant is instructive for
the same basic technique used to temper chocolate (at least the slab and
spatula method). Hand-making fondant is certainly labour-intensive so if
you want to minimise effort it would be better to buy it. There are 2
reasons to try making it at home: if you want to gain technique in making
fondant yourself, or if you have certain flavour and/or ingredient
specifications you can't find in something you can buy.

>Regarding Ganache, IMO it does not need the use of expensive good
>tasting chocolatew which is better consumed IMO as is, by
>eating.<grin>>.

IMHO ganache definitely benefits from using good-tasting chocolate, because
in a ganache the flavour of the chocolate really stands out and if you're
using one that doesn't taste good, it will be instantly apparent.

However, "good tasting" is not synonymous with "expensive". There are many
cheap chocolates that also taste good, e.g. Guittard Gourmet Bittersweet
and Ghirardelli Bittersweet. It's best, I think, to start with one of those
cheaper but still good-tasting chocolates while you get good at making the
ganache. Even when first starting out, though, I don't think it's a bad
idea to experiment with different brands at different price points, to get
an idea for what the range of flavours and handling characteristics are.

One vital point to understand about expensive chocolate is that more often
than not the difference is not in the basic taste but in how characteristic
it is. An expensive, varietal chocolate from a high-end manufacturer (think
Amedei Chuao or Domori Porcelana) is very specific in its flavour profile,
which means that although it might not taste any better than a cheaper but
still quality chocolate, you'll be able to identify signature
characteristics. Depending on what you want to achieve, this could be
either a plus or a minus. For instance, if your intent were to create a
truffle with good basic chocolate flavour, using something like Chuao might
disappoint because its signature taste would be so self-evident. But if you
wanted a truffle bursting with the sort of molasses/blueberry taste this
chocolate has, it would be a great choice. It's not going to be an
"average" taste though - which means that some people are likely to like it
more than others.

These same characteristics means that if you're making flavoured
chocolates, picking a good matching varietal can make or break your
chocolate. For instance, if you wanted a cinnamon chocolate, picking Domori
Porcelana as your chocolate base would be a disaster. The cinnamon would
completely overwhelm Porcelana's fine delicate flavour. But Domori Carenero
Superior would be a match made in heaven for the same piece, with a
powerful, assertive mix of fruit and spice that would really match the
cinnamon. Meanwhile, choosing a cheap and good, but less characteristic
chocolate like Guittard Gourmet Bittersweet would yield good results no
matter what the flavour choice, but they wouldn't be quite so inspired as a
well-matched varietal. This means that before using varietal chocolates for
confectionery, it's vital to taste and assess them carefully to understand
the flavour profile.

>If I make those filled ganache based chocolate confections.
>I would improve tastes by adding certain liqueurs/ or flavors to the
>formulations instead.

I disagree sharply on the idea that adding a liqueur is an effective
default strategy to improving flavour. At least to me, alcohol and
chocolate tend to clash, and so most liqueurs end up diminishing the
chocolate flavour, making it taste inevitably somewhat boozy, and not
really showing their own flavours that well either. With *careful* choice
some liqueurs can be introduced, but only in the case where the objective
is to highlight the liqueur itself, not as a background flavour enhancer.
Some chocolates, ganache in particular, are quite perishable and so some
commercial chocolatiers use the liqueurs as a preservative, which again I
think isn't warranted for most situtations. Better to have realistic
expiration dates.

Adding other flavours is fine when you want that other flavour to be the
dominant note. However, when you want the chocolate to be the dominant
note, it's not warranted. For instance, some people add coffee in order to
"perk up" an otherwise uninspired chocolate flavour. If the idea is to have
a chocolatey flavour, IMHO that's better done by using a better chocolate,
rather than by resorting to enhancement agents. But again, if the piece
were intended to be a coffee chocolate, or a mocha chocolate, then of
course using coffee would be perfectly in order.

> I would rather spend the money on procuring refined hazelnut paste (
>as homemade paste is rather gritty ( 600-1000microns and cannnot
>attain the desired particle range of 20-40 microns on that nut paste
>processed through a three roll or even by a Macintye refiner conche.

Definitely worth the trouble to get the refined paste. There are no units
suitable for an in-home application that can do even a halfway decent job
at grinding nuts. I think it's a bit frustrating in this age of every
conceivable kitchen gadget that you can't buy a halfway decent grinder,
although I'm guessing that the reason for this is that the market is
microscopic.

>>>Got any tips for making them come out the best possible?

With ganache, there are some things you should know.

Just to revisit the basics, ganache is in its basic form chocolate combined
with hot cream and stirred into a smooth paste. There are 3 basic ratios of
chocolate to cream: 2:1 (firm ganache - good for truffles and chocolate
centres), 1:1 (soft ganache - good frosting/filling) and 1:2 (pouring
ganache - excellent sauce). Some chocolatiers have an intermediate ratio,
3:2, for their chocolate pieces, which makes for a very soft centre. It's
more difficult to work with, though.

I find it best to grate the chocolate using a box grater. You can't do this
with bar chocolate (i.e. tablets of eating proportions), so you need to get
either a bloc or break-up from the same. This is more economical anyway, so
I recommend doing so.

With bars, chips, discs, and other formats the only practical method is to
chop the chocolate very finely. It isn't quite as foolproof as the grating
method, in that the result sometimes isn't as smooth, but it takes much
less time, if that's a consideration.

I don't melt the chocolate before adding the cream. Everybody I've seen has
found that this method is too prone to problems and is highly sensitive.
The risk of getting broken ganache out of that method is high. It's better
to pour hot cream over your grated or chopped chocolate. As long as you've
got it fine enough, the heat of the cream will easily melt the chocolate.

Darker chocolate can take a hotter cream - very near boiling, but milk
chocolate and especially white chocolate requires a lower temperature.

I fold the chocolate into the cream using a spatula. This minimises the
amount of motion necessary to get it incorporated and produces the
smoothest results.

For 2:1 ganache, get the highest-fat cream you can find. I use 40% cream in
general, supplemented by 46% British double cream. For 1:1 you can relax
this restriction (36% "whipping cream" should be OK) and 1:2 will work
acceptably even with single cream or half-and-half, useful if you want a
very runny sauce.

See some of my earlier posts for a lengthy discussion of how to get various
flavours into ganache, including infusion methods, paste methods, and
direct addition methods.

>In your case I would recommend to understand the recipe and its
>procedures before you even think of doing it yourself.< grin>.

There is a risk of assuming that with the "magical" recipe you can produce
superb results effortlessly. Generally speaking this is not the case, and
even more crucially, the very best results typically demand the highest
level of skill and technique, while recipes that are closer to foolproof
are also closer to average in terms of result.

>A lot of beginners are deluded into thinking that expensive
>ingredients will result in excellent product which is not absolutely
>true.;

That being said the number of beginners who are frustrated with their
results after multiple attempts is large, and often it's traceable to
starting with a poor initial recipe or really low-quality ingredients. It
does little good to try to refine technique if the basic recipe itself is
way off base, because then even with the greatest amount of skill in the
world you will get nowhere. Similarly if you go bottom-of-the-barrel on
ingredient choices (think Baker's) the effect of these may mask
improvements in skill, or worse still, create unnecessary workarounds or
"tricks" in order to boost the flavour and/or handling properties which the
beginner then naively applies to all his creations, never understanding
that it's something that only works or is indeed necessary because he was
using less-than-quality ingredients.

--
Alex Rast

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

Alex Rast wrote
>Although it must be said that making one's own fondant is instructive for
>the same basic technique used to temper chocolate (at least the slab and
>spatula method). Hand-making fondant is certainly labour-intensive so if
>you want to minimise effort it would be better to buy it. There are 2
>reasons to try making it at home: if you want to gain technique in making
>fondant yourself, or if you have certain flavour and/or ingredient
>specifications you can't find in something you can buy.

.... A base fondant is supposed to be neutral not flavored .... besides
what ingredients specification in particular would you expect from an
institutionally made fondant.?
Its just sugar, glucose and enough water cooked to a certain
temperature , then cooled to the right temperature then agitated to
create the required sugar crystals size responsible for its desirable
qualities in confections.

>IMHO ganache definitely benefits from using good-tasting chocolate, because
>in a ganache the flavour of the chocolate really stands out and if you're
>using one that doesn't taste good, it will be instantly apparent.


Well if a certain chocolatier is not experienced or skilled enough
that he will plunge into using ersatz chocolate then that will be the
case.; but that is unlikely for a competent chocolate craftsman as the
first qualification of his craftsmanship is to be able to understand
what a good chocolate as based on his experience but it does not mean
that its necessarily expensive.

>However, "good tasting" is not synonymous with "expensive". There are many
>cheap chocolates that also taste good, e.g. Guittard Gourmet Bittersweet
>and Ghirardelli Bittersweet. It's best, I think, to start with one of those
>cheaper but still good-tasting chocolates while you get good at making the
>ganache. Even when first starting out, though, I don't think it's a bad
>idea to experiment with different brands at different price points, to get
>?an idea for what the range of flavours and handling characteristics are.

If you have the money to spare for such venture why not?
the bottom line of chocolate confectionery business is that you earn a
margin out of your efforts to sustain your business not to be doing
Santa Claus <grin>..
However if you are just a chocolate lover and had a money to splurge to
satisfy for a certain chocolate cravings .... Then go for it!

>One vital point to understand about expensive chocolate is that more often
>than not the difference is not in the basic taste but in how characteristic
>it is. An expensive, varietal chocolate from a high-end manufacturer (think
>Amedei Chuao or Domori Porcelana) is very specific in its flavour profile,
>which means that although it might not taste any better than a cheaper but
>still quality chocolate, you'll be able to identify signature
>characteristics.
\
I never had any attachment to any chocolate brands as I leave those
notions to t people who can't make the chocolate( for themselves)
from the raw materials.
It just chocolate chemistry and technology....pure and simple ....not
esoteric names that has nothing to do with chocolates but only to
improve its packaging value.
Besides only those People who don't understand the chemistry of
chocolates are likely to be emotionally attached to any fancy sounding
names.<grin>.

So the essence of chocolate is not based on the b rand name but what
type of cocoa beans being used , the degree of roast, the degree of
grinding and refining as well as not to be forgotten the extent its
subjected to conching and other equally important parameters in
chocolate manufacture.
. In the end the cost of the raw materials the prestige of the
manufacturer , the quantity being made and the variation and
uniqueness in processing will reflect on its price.
Consumers might disagree..... they say....we are willing to pay the
price but how large is the market and will the demand sustain the
investment for a widespread manufacture of expensive chocolates ?
Besides the supply of well flavored cacao beans used to attain this
well flavored chocolates is scarcer or produced in least quantity
compared to the bulk beans.

>Depending on what you want to achieve, this could be
>either a plus or a minus. For instance, if your intent were to create a
>truffle with good basic chocolate flavour, using something like Chuao might
>disappoint because its signature taste would be so self-evident. But if you
>wanted a truffle bursting with the sort of molasses/blueberry taste this
>chocolate has, it would be a great choice. It's not going to be an
>"average" taste though - which means that some people are likely to like it
>more than others.

Chocolate taste from the consumer panel is a subjective matter in many
cases... erroneous and does not reflect the true quality of the
chocolate . The marketing people are shrewdly exploiting the naivety of
the normal consumer<grin>.
Therefore I never rely on that.
I never rely on that...
..I leave that area to the objective assessment of the trained taste
panel (who are setting aside their emotion ) to give me reliable
scientific and statistics based information as a basis for a
particular new chocolate formulations.
The scientifically trained taste panel report coupled with rigorous
statistical analysis carries more weight than what a hordes of
individuals from the consumer panel says....

>These same characteristics means that if you're making flavoured
>chocolates, picking a good matching varietal can make or break your
>chocolate. For instance, if you wanted a cinnamon chocolate, picking Domori
>Porcelana as your chocolate base would be a disaster. The cinnamon would
>completely overwhelm Porcelana's fine delicate flavour. But Domori Carenero
>Superior would be a match made in heaven for the same piece, with a
>powerful, assertive mix of fruit and spice that would really match the
>cinnamon. Meanwhile, choosing a cheap and good, but less characteristic
>chocolate like Guittard Gourmet Bittersweet would yield good results no
>matter what the flavour choice, but they wouldn't be quite so inspired as a
>well-matched varietal. This means that before using varietal chocolates for
>confectionery, it's vital to taste and assess them carefully to understand
>the flavour profile.

Those fancy names never excite me...If supposing I am one of the panel
personnel .I would rather have those items titled under a code name so
that it will not excite the tasters nor influence their decision
making.
Fancy sounding chocolate names may delude an ordinary American
consumers but may fail to gain appreciation from overseas consumers.
Therefore those ideas based on brand influence
Those ideas might be true in the United States and the surrounding
areas but Europe and other developed countries have a different
perspective that is meant by a good chocolate



>I disagree sharply on the idea that adding a liqueur is an effective
>default strategy to improving flavour. At least to me, alcohol and
>chocolate tend to clash, and so most liqueurs end up diminishing the
>chocolate flavour, making it taste inevitably somewhat boozy, and not
>really showing their own flavours that well either.

That is only your personal and incidentally a subjective assessment.
There are many exceptions such for some Belgian and even Swiss type
filled chocolates the use of good quality liqueurs is common and if
used properly these spirits enhanced the taste of chocolates not
overpower them.
It also depends on the skill of the chocolatier, and the use of alcohol
of spirits in chocolate is an art in itself ,

>With *careful* choice
>some liqueurs can be introduced, but only in the case where the objective
>is to highlight the liqueur itself, not as a background flavour enhancer.
>Some chocolates, ganache in particular, are quite perishable and so some
>commercial chocolatiers use the liqueurs as a preservative, which again I
>think isn't warranted for most situtations. Better to have realistic
>expiration dates.

Preservative action of liqueurs is based on its ability of ethanol to
lower water activity of the fillings and there are other means to
attain that in the industry not strictly relying in dairy cream but in
combinations also on industrial fractionated butter fat and sometimes
the use of glycerin and sorbitol to confer the same water activity
lowering..
The chocolate confectionery manufacturer who uses ganache then had
many options to improve the shelf life of the product while still
retaining the characteristics of dairy cream in terms of sensory
qualities .
If you are just a chef you may seldom or even will never had the
opportunity to experience such unique ingredient application.

>Adding other flavours is fine when you want that other flavour to be the
>dominant note. However, when you want the chocolate to be the dominant
>note, it's not warranted. For instance, some people add coffee in order to
>"perk up" an otherwise uninspired chocolate flavour. If the idea is to have
>a chocolatey flavour, IMHO that's better done by using a better chocolate,
>rather than by resorting to enhancement agents. But again, if the piece
>were intended to be a coffee chocolate, or a mocha chocolate, then of
>course using coffee would be perfectly in order.

Chocolate consumes in every region throughout the world have varying
perception about flavors so its not right to conclude that what is good
in your area is good for the rest of the world.



>Definitely worth the trouble to get the refined paste. There are no units
>suitable for an in-home application that can do even a halfway decent job
>at grinding nuts. I think it's a bit frustrating in this age of every
>conceivable kitchen gadget that you can't buy a halfway decent grinder,
>although I'm guessing that the reason for this is that the market is
>microscopic.

Well many consumers don't understand the importance of nut paste in
chocolates and being difficult to improvise its preparation then it
will never be a part of an ordinary chocolate connoisseur repertoire
of chocolate confection preparation .
..

at Thu, 15 Dec 2005 06:49:35 GMT in
.com>,
(Chembake) wrote :

>Alex Rast wrote
>>Although it must be said that making one's own fondant is instructive
>>for the same basic technique used to temper chocolate (at least the
>>slab and spatula method). Hand-making fondant is certainly
>>labour-intensive so if you want to minimise effort it would be better
>>to buy it. There are 2 reasons to try making it at home: if you want to
>>gain technique in making fondant yourself, or if you have certain
>>flavour and/or ingredient specifications you can't find in something
>>you can buy.
>
>... A base fondant is supposed to be neutral not flavored .... besides
>what ingredients specification in particular would you expect from an
>institutionally made fondant.?

That's kind of the point, isn't it? The idea would be that your
requirements need to be pretty exotic in order for making it at home to be
useful from a *specifications* POV. But there are people who want certain
things done in a certain way. So there's no harm in experimenting to see if
you can meet your objectives with the DIY approach.

>>IMHO ganache definitely benefits from using good-tasting chocolate,
>>because in a ganache the flavour of the chocolate really stands out and
>>if you're using one that doesn't taste good, it will be instantly
>>apparent.
>
>Well if a certain chocolatier is not experienced or skilled enough
>that he will plunge into using ersatz chocolate then that will be the
>case.; but that is unlikely for a competent chocolate craftsman as the
>first qualification of his craftsmanship is to be able to understand
>what a good chocolate as based on his experience but it does not mean
>that its necessarily expensive.

Unfortunately, for people in a home setting, quite often they really
haven't tasted enough chocolate to know right away that changing the
chocolate itself may be necessary. They can readily identify the
difference, and will instantly know that one chocolate is good and another
bad when you have them try it, but they might be mystified as to why a
given recipe or item isn't turning out as well as what they can get from a
professional. I've seen a lot of people have a tendency to lump things into
very broad categories, so that chocolate is chocolate (or perhaps they make
the distinction between dark and milk and that's as far as they go), they
use something truly bad in a truffle or other sensitive confection, and
then are puzzled as to what to do to improve it. They then embark on a lot
of ill-fated ventures that achieve nothing, sometimes giving up in
frustration. That's why it's worth it when starting out to try at least a
variety of chocolates and also not to go only for the cheapest brands.

>>Even when first starting out, though, I
>>don't think it's a bad idea to experiment with different brands at
>>different price points, to get ?an idea for what the range of flavours
>>and handling characteristics are.
>
>If you have the money to spare for such venture why not?
>the bottom line of chocolate confectionery business is that you earn a
>margin out of your efforts to sustain your business not to be doing
>Santa Claus <grin>..

Well, the key point here is that in a professional setting, you want to
have enough margin in your core business to afford some small-scale
experimentation. Most of this will be stuff that never reaches the shelf or
display case. You're just trying out a variant to see what you can do.
That, in any case, shouldn't be very expensive, because you're not actually
making this on a production scale. Sometimes if an experiment is
particularly successful you would do a small production run to test-market
and see what the reception was. It might then make it to full-scale
production if the results of the test market showed that it could sustain a
profit.

>However if you are just a chocolate lover and had a money to splurge to
>satisfy for a certain chocolate cravings .... Then go for it!

Meanwhile on the home level that kind of experimentation tends to be more
sporadic but every now and then it's worth it - just so long as you're not
planning on making the results a critical piece for, say, a dinner where
the boss is coming over, or a wedding reception, or some other encounter
where you need to be certain of your outcome.

>>One vital point to understand about expensive chocolate is that more
>>often than not the difference is not in the basic taste but in how
>>characteristic it is....
>
>I never had any attachment to any chocolate brands as I leave those
>notions to t people who can't make the chocolate( for themselves)
>from the raw materials.

Generally, that's the majority of both consumers and confectioners. As you
know the number of actual chocolate producers themselves is small and so by
and large you must choose some suppliers.

>It just chocolate chemistry and technology....pure and simple ....not
>esoteric names that has nothing to do with chocolates but only to
>improve its packaging value.

The esoteric name by itself means very little but if a chocolate
manufacturer can establish a strong brand identity and style then it can
mean something. For instance, I can know that a Cluizel chocolate is likely
to be very balanced and refined, that a Scharffen Berger chocolate is
likely to be strongly fruity, and that an Hachez chocolate will have
superiour texture but mild flavour. I can also know that, as a general
rule, Cluizel is somewhat better, overall, than Hachez, which in turn is
somewhat better, overall, than Hershey's. These are broad categorisations
but they help put each brand into a position. Some larger companies,
however - e.g. Callebaut and Lindt, have a very wide array of different
formulations with different flavours, so you can't pin them down. They're
good as primary sources because they tend to be cheap and you can usually
find a chocolate that matches the style you're looking for, unlike the
"higher-end" chocolatiers where the style they choose is the style you get.

....
> . In the end the cost of the raw materials the prestige of the
>manufacturer , the quantity being made and the variation and
>uniqueness in processing will reflect on its price.

Which can be a plus or a minus. A high-priced chocolate from a boutique
manufacturer can end up being only average, in which case you've blown a
lot of money for a chocolate you could just as readily have gotten
anywhere. But a recognisable chocolate of extreme quality from such a
manufacturer might be able to justify its cost - even if it's only in the
marketing value of bringing customers in the door. Amedei Chuao is my
favourite example of that. A 1kg bloc isn't cheap - indeed, it's
sufficiently expensive that you have to ask seriously whether this is
justified. No doubt they're making a pretty hefty margin on their brand
name. But the chocolate is supreme - one of the best anywhere - and it's
got strong brand- and type- identification, enough that it will both bring
people in the door and have them coming back for more.

From a home standpoint, again, such a chocolate is worth it for specific
occasions because yes, it's expensive, but it delivers the goods. But you
could just as easily end up spending far too much for Dagoba Conacado and
be stuck with what is really a very poor chocolate indeed. It's vital not
to buy into a brand name.

>Consumers might disagree..... they say....we are willing to pay the
>price but how large is the market and will the demand sustain the
>investment for a widespread manufacture of expensive chocolates ?

Well, to judge by the emergence of multiple boutique chocolatiers within
the last few years, the answer to that would seem to be "yes", at least
from a standpoint of overall market. If, OTOH, you're thinking of starting
your own business to get in on the action, you really have to find some
sort of unique sales position because otherwise you'll probably be
competing with a host of other, equally talented, people.

>Besides the supply of well flavored cacao beans used to attain this
>well flavored chocolates is scarcer or produced in least quantity
>compared to the bulk beans.

It must be said that this is one reason why you can advance at least some
rationale for the belief in brand names. A smaller chocolate manufacturer
can afford to be more selective with supply, and thus potentially create
better chocolate. However, the end result isn't a given. Dagoba Conacado
and Domori Chacao Absolute get beans from the same source, but where the
first is abysmal, the second is divine - which goes to show you that source
material isn't enough by itself.

>>Depending on what you want to achieve, this could be
>>either a plus or a minus....It's not going to be an "average" taste
>> though - which means
>>that some people are likely to like it more than others.
>
>Chocolate taste from the consumer panel is a subjective matter in many
>cases... erroneous and does not reflect the true quality of the
>chocolate .

I disagree strongly. If "quality" is such an esoteric concept that it can
only be understood by a few initiates, then of what value is it? In the
final analysis, a quality chocolate should taste good. From my POV the only
realistic criterion for tasting good that makes sense is that there would
be broad consensus among the people who tried it that their reaction was
positive. So if a relatively inexperienced person tried a chocolate and was
put off by it, that chocolate isn't as good as it's made out to be. And
just as the danger of excessive brand identification is strong with the
novice, the danger of overintellectualising the experience is strong with
the cognoscenti. People with lots of experience and jaded palates get led
into believing that something unusual or exotic is good and pronounce it a
resounding success - and this distinction is lost on the common man who
quite plainly observes that it's bad - usually just plain wierd. Hopefully
a tasting panel can be conducted so as to minimise either preconceived
notions or the presence of bias.

> The marketing people are shrewdly exploiting the naivety of
>the normal consumer<grin>.

Here I do unfortunately have to agree. It's a sad reality that all too many
"tastings" are conducted not to *form* an opinion but to *justify* one.
They've set up the tasting so as to lead the tasters to a predetermined
conclusion, one that exhalts the value of their product. That's not an
accurate or scientific study, nor, do I think, is it in the best interest
of the company. A company learns nothing if it produces an only so-so
product and conducts "surveys" intended to prove its superiority. In that
case they're willfully blind to their own mediocrity and will find out
their error when sales in the market are tepid (or no better than the
competition). Unfortunately by that point they may already have too much
invested into their product line to be able to change, something that could
easily have been done to produce a more acceptable product that would have
garnered greater market share had it been done earlier in the process.

>.I leave that area to the objective assessment of the trained taste
>panel (who are setting aside their emotion ) to give me reliable
>scientific and statistics based information as a basis for a
>particular new chocolate formulations.
> The scientifically trained taste panel report coupled with rigorous
>statistical analysis carries more weight than what a hordes of
>individuals from the consumer panel says....

As I point out, even the "best-trained" panel can come in with
preconceptions, or at least be jaded. You definitely want to be rigourous
in your analysis, however, I think you want to do that with statistics
drawn at least in part from common consumers whenever you can.

>>These same characteristics means that if you're making flavoured
>>chocolates, picking a good matching varietal can make or break your
>>chocolate. For instance, if you wanted a cinnamon chocolate, picking
>>Domori Porcelana as your chocolate base would be a disaster. The
>>cinnamon would completely overwhelm Porcelana's fine delicate flavour.
>>But Domori Carenero Superior would be a match made in heaven for the
>>same piece...
>
>Those fancy names never excite me...If supposing I am one of the panel
>personnel .I would rather have those items titled under a code name so
>that it will not excite the tasters nor influence their decision
>making.

It's not the brand name that counts but the profile of the chocolates
involved. Domori's Porcelana and Carenero Superior make for a particularly
instructive comparison in this case because their characteristics are
clear-cut within the stylistic choices of a particular manufacturer, but
that they are from Domori is material only insofar as the particular style
Domori uses makes these chocolates a good or a bad fit for a particular
application. In a tasting setting, however, yes, you'd want to mask the
brand as much as possible. Unfortunately, since most brands come in readily
identifiable formats (often their logo is moulded into the chocolate
piece), that's hard.

>Fancy sounding chocolate names may delude an ordinary American
>consumers but may fail to gain appreciation from overseas consumers.

Right there I think is an example of a bias based on ethicity - the
assumption that U.S. audiences are more easily duped. I think it's probably
the same everywhere - that populations in every country you care to name
are about as easily influenced by marketing tactics as any other.

>Those ideas might be true in the United States and the surrounding
>areas but Europe and other developed countries have a different
>perspective that is meant by a good chocolate

I wouldn't assume that Europeans are any more sophisticated than Americans,
at least not when devising a survey. It's very, very difficult to design a
scientific study to measure sophistication - because what is meant by that
is itself variable. There are probably national preferences as to basic
chocolate flavour, but I don't think one can conclude anything as to what
that implies about their perception of quality.

>>I disagree sharply on the idea that adding a liqueur is an effective
>>default strategy to improving flavour. At least to me, alcohol and
>>chocolate tend to clash...
>
>That is only your personal and incidentally a subjective assessment.

Definitely.

I point it out to illustrate that, given that subjective tastes vary,
adding liqueur isn't a good *default* strategy - i.e. one that you apply
semi-automatically, with the belief that it is going to be an overall
improvement to the general population.

....

>>With *careful* choice
>>some liqueurs can be introduced, but only in the case where the
>>objective is to highlight the liqueur itself, not as a background
>>flavour enhancer. Some chocolates, ganache in particular, are quite
>>perishable and so some commercial chocolatiers use the liqueurs as a
>>preservative, which again I think isn't warranted for most situtations.
>>Better to have realistic expiration dates.
>
>Preservative action of liqueurs is based on its ability of ethanol to
>lower water activity of the fillings and there are other means to
>attain that in the industry not strictly relying in dairy cream but in
>combinations also on industrial fractionated butter fat and sometimes
>the use of glycerin and sorbitol to confer the same water activity
>lowering..

Yeah, you sometimes see that as well. Techniques which have less impact on
the flavour I tend to prefer. The use of alchohol is one that on an
ingredient list doesn't stand out quite so obviously because people tend
not to think of it as an "additive" in the same way. It's a prime
illustration of the underlying point - the concept of an "additive" as such
is a vague term. Really, *any* ingredient in a recipe is technically an
"additive".

....
>
>>Definitely worth the trouble to get the refined paste. There are no
>>units suitable for an in-home application that can do even a halfway
>>decent job at grinding nuts. I think it's a bit frustrating in this age
>>of every conceivable kitchen gadget that you can't buy a halfway decent
>>grinder, although I'm guessing that the reason for this is that the
>>market is microscopic.
>
>Well many consumers don't understand the importance of nut paste in
>chocolates and being difficult to improvise its preparation then it
>will never be a part of an ordinary chocolate connoisseur repertoire
>of chocolate confection preparation .

I would like to see a greater availability (or at least visibility) of
certain things for the home user. Part of the difficulty facing such an
individual is his inability, unless he goes to extraordinary lengths, to
get and/or indeed even know about certain key components, tools, etc. etc.
On this NG you regularly get people asking how they can make chocolate from
scratch at home, and then you have to explain to them the ins and outs of
the industrial process and how unless they're willing to make a hefty
investment they're not going to be able to do it. And yet there's no
reason, *a priori* that this should be impossible - it's just that the
equipment-makers aren't building anything for low-volume output.

--
Alex Rast

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

>Alex Rast wrote
..

>... A base fondant is supposed to be neutral not flavored .... besides
>what ingredients specification in particular would you expect from an
>institutionally made fondant.?



>That's kind of the point, isn't it? The idea would be that your
>requirements need to be pretty exotic in order for making it at home to be
>useful from a *specifications* POV. But there are people who want certain
>things done in a certain way. So there's no harm in experimenting to see if
>you can meet your objectives with the DIY approach.

Well, doing things in small scale is the beginning of any project to
check the feasibility if it works,..... but often the results does not
comes out similarly when its scaled up using an equipment suited for
such purpose.
In the past I made fondant from half a kilogram to 5 kilogram batch
where in the latter I used a big wooden paddle/oar to stir the mass
on a water cooled cooling table. It's a lot of work and even with the
care of the operation I still can't come identical to the
characteristics to the fondant made institutionally.
The only importance for such operation is its instructional value so
that anyone can get a feel how the sugar mass gradually become opaque
due to the agitation and formation of very fine sugar crystals.
In those cases I made it using the low dextrose equivalents syrups such
as DE ( 36-43 )and high DE( 55-63) glucose syrup but the results are
not that different.
Now as the regular standard grade glucose was the norm( 42-43 DE) then
I never bothered to use the 63 DE for that reason again.
Now if you use the sugar cubes and granulated sugar, I did not see
much difference either the end products become opaque when manipulated
to attain the fondant desired qualities .


>>One vital point to understand about expensive chocolate is that more
>>often than not the difference is not in the basic taste but in how
>>characteristic it is....

>I never had any attachment to any chocolate brands as I leave those
>notions to t people who can't make the chocolate( for themselves)
>from the raw materials.



Generally, that's the majority of both consumers and confectioners. As
you
know the number of actual chocolate producers themselves is small and
so by
and large you must choose some suppliers.


>It just chocolate chemistry and technology....pure and simple ....not
>esoteric names that has nothing to do with chocolates but only to
>improve its packaging value.


>The esoteric name by itself means very little but if a chocolate
>manufacturer can establish a strong brand identity and style then it can
>mean something. For instance, I can know that a Cluizel chocolate is likely
>to be very balanced and refined, that a Scharffen Berger chocolate is
>likely to be strongly fruity, and that an Hachez chocolate will have
>superiour texture but mild flavour. I can also know that, as a general
>rule, Cluizel is somewhat better, overall, than Hachez, which in turn is
>somewhat better, overall, than Hershey's. These are broad categorisations
>but they help put each brand into a position. Some larger companies,
>however - e.g. Callebaut and Lindt, have a very wide array of different
>formulations with different flavours, so you can't pin them down. They're
>good as primary sources because they tend to be cheap and you can usually
>find a chocolate that matches the style you're looking for, unlike the
>"higher-end" chocolatiers where the style they choose is the style you get.

....I thinks this selections of different chocolate brands as raw
materials for their confections is true to small cholatiers but rare
for large manufacturers.



>However, the end result isn't a given. Dagoba Conacado
>and Domori Chacao Absolute get beans from the same source, but where the
>first is abysmal, the second is divine - which goes to show you that source
>material isn't enough by itself.

Beans from the same source does not mean that cocoa beans bought by two
manufacturers are used in equally the same manufacturer.
A chocolate formulation is not as simple as :
Cocoa beans, sugar milk etc... but there are specific bean blends for
every chocolate types made by them.
Besides Most of these institution don't buy from one supplier but
from a wide lot. Then they blend the beans according to its attributes
as dictated by their formulation requirements and in the end it will
never be the same for two manufacturers
It's the same with the bakery, large bakeries can get the same flour
from the same source ( and uses the same branded name) but the bakery
product come out with different tastes and other qualities .!



>I disagree strongly. If "quality" is such an esoteric concept that it can
>only be understood by a few initiates, then of what value is it? In the
>final analysis, a quality chocolate should taste good. From my POV the only
>realistic criterion for tasting good that makes sense is that there would
>be broad consensus among the people who tried it that their reaction was
>positive. So if a relatively inexperienced person tried a chocolate and was
>put off by it, that chocolate isn't as good as it's made out to be. And
>just as the danger of excessive brand identification is strong with the
>novice, the danger of overintellectualising the experience is strong with
>the cognoscenti. People with lots of experience and jaded palates get led
>into believing that something unusual or exotic is good and pronounce it a
>resounding success - and this distinction is lost on the common man who
>quite plainly observes that it's bad - usually just plain wierd. Hopefully
>a tasting panel can be conducted so as to minimise either preconceived
>notions or the presence of bias.

In many product development based sensory analysis the consumer panel
is just taken secondarily and is always done by the marketing people to
measure if the product is liked by the consumers before the eve put in
their marketing programs .
The developers already had in mind what the customers wants and the
consumer panel is used often for confirmatory purposes.
..



>.I leave that area to the objective assessment of the trained taste
>panel (who are setting aside their emotion ) to give me reliable
>scientific and statistics based information as a basis for a
>particular new chocolate formulations.
> The scientifically trained taste panel report coupled with rigorous
>statistical analysis carries more weight than what a hordes of
>individuals from the consumer panel says....


>As I point out, even the "best-trained" panel can come in with
>preconceptions, or at least be jaded. You definitely want to be rigourous
>in your analysis, however, I think you want to do that with statistics
>drawn at least in part from common consumers whenever you can.

Indeed decision relies not only from the result of technical assessors
but also from potential customers inputs ; and in many cases marketing
people will even follow their gut feel and think that if the public
wants it , it must be good for the business? They will do everything (
including )urging the management that the new product should be
produced
\Wholly technically based assessment is not risk free; developers can
be become attached to the attributes of the product from their
technical evaluation that the sometimes forget if the consumers still
wants the product. This is true in some specialty chocolates such as
for certain clientele( diabetics, those with food allergies etc).
Unfortunately the market in this section is not that large.


>It's not the brand name that counts but the profile of the chocolates
>involved. Domori's Porcelana and Carenero Superior make for a particularly
>instructive comparison in this case because their characteristics are
>clear-cut within the stylistic choices of a particular manufacturer, but
>that they are from Domori is material only insofar as the particular style
>Domori uses makes these chocolates a good or a bad fit for a particular
>application. In a tasting setting, however, yes, you'd want to mask the
>brand as much as possible. Unfortunately, since most brands come in readily
>identifiable formats (often their logo is moulded into the chocolate
>piece), that's hard.

That's what make it sell....good marketing strategy and good
labeling/packaging.


>Those ideas might be true in the United States and the surrounding
>areas but Europe and other developed countries have a different
>perspective that is meant by a good chocolate

Well it had been my experience that many Europeans chocolate
connoisseurs don't like American chocolates.
I am not sure if its politically motivated or what....but they have
these notions that Hershey destroyed the American palate.<grin>

>I wouldn't assume that Europeans are any more sophisticated than Americans,
>at least not when devising a survey. It's very, very difficult to design a
>scientific study to measure sophistication - because what is meant by that
>is itself variable. There are probably national preferences as to basic
>chocolate flavour, but I don't think one can conclude anything as to what
>that implies about their perception of quality.

>From the point of chocolate formulations....American and European
chocolates are not the same
Many chocolatiers from the European continent had some aversion for the
American made chocolates;
The same also with other chocolate manufacturing institution from
countries such as Australia ,Japan. Etc..

Definitely.

I point it out to illustrate that, given that subjective tastes vary,
adding liqueur isn't a good *default* strategy - i.e. one that you
apply
semi-automatically, with the belief that it is going to be an overall
improvement to the general population.


....>Preservative action of liqueurs is based on its ability of ethanol
to
>lower water activity of the fillings and there are other means to
>attain that in the industry not strictly relying in dairy cream but in
>combinations also on industrial fractionated butter fat and sometimes
>the use of glycerin and sorbitol to confer the same water activity
>lowering..



Yeah, you sometimes see that as well. Techniques which have less impact
on
the flavour I tend to prefer. The use of alcohol is one that on an
ingredient list doesn't stand out quite so obviously because people
tend
not to think of it as an "additive" in the same way. It's a prime
illustration of the underlying point - the concept of an "additive" as
such
is a vague term. Really, *any* ingredient in a recipe is technically an

"additive".

This issue of additives sometimes get blurred with chocolate
manufacturers....If it does not sound like a chemical.... Or just too
commonly used its forgotten as a food additive for functional reasons.
....

>Well many consumers don't understand the importance of nut paste in
>chocolates and being difficult to improvise its preparation then it
>will never be a part of an ordinary chocolate connoisseur repertoire
>of chocolate confection preparation .



>I would like to see a greater availability (or at least visibility) of
>certain things for the home user. Part of the difficulty facing such an
>individual is his inability, unless he goes to extraordinary lengths, to
>get and/or indeed even know about certain key components, tools, etc. etc.
>On this NG you regularly get people asking how they can make chocolate from
>scratch at home, and then you have to explain to them the ins and outs of
>the industrial process and how unless they're willing to make a hefty
>investment they're not going to be able to do it. And yet there's no
>reason, *a priori* that this should be impossible - it's just that the
>equipment-makers aren't building anything for low-volume output.


DIY chocolate manufacture is not an impossibility ...
In the past I had toyed with making chocolate in a way suitable for
home users interested in making their own chocolate from the scratch...

Using the wok to roast the beans, then using the meat mincer to grind
the beans to paste by repeated passes, and in other cases using the
food processors to do the particle reductions but the results were
unsatisfactory. Its gritty .
.. I have used a pasta machine as an improvised 2 roll refiner but the
resulting products is still gritty.
One major reason is that the chocolate manufacturing equipments are
made with high precision such as the roll distances , roll speed, roll
temperatures and roll speed differentials. Etc.
Conche machines does not come in small sizes that any home chocolate
"would be"manufactuer could afford as its expensive and has no
other uses.

With conching.....
there are ways to improvse such process....you can conche the
chocolate by using the planetary mixers which run continuously for at
least 8 hours. Would(it be wise enough to destroy) your kitchen aide
mixers to do such things aside with the cake paddle improvised to
sweep the chocolate paste around the mixing bowl evenly?
But How can you attach a heat jacket to your mixing bowl? A hot water
bath is not good as the steam may condense may come into contact with
partially destroying it,nor you could apply that to many kitchen aide
and even Hobart made machines designed for chocolate use.
Another thing is
How can you measure miniscule quantity of lecithin and PGPR(
polyglycerol poly ricinoleate) if you don't own an analytical
balance as one of your measuring equipmentsn for home scale chocolate
manufacture.
Another very important question is how can you attain the 15-30
microns unit particle size of your chocolate before you try to conche
it in your supposedly strong planetary mixers with the cake paddle
and bowl modified for such purpose for hours?

Its more common for home bakers or small bakery businesses to buy the
institutional Hobart mixer and even ovens as they are cheaper and had
many other uses than special precision chocolate manufacturing
equipment like Conche and refiner machines made by such names like
Macintyre, Friggessa,Lehmann and Buhler that has a very limited
application potential outside its specified use.

But if anybody is determined to make his own chocolate from cacao beans
you can invest
they should insure that they can get at least a laboratory scale 3-roll
refiner( or much better a 5 roll refiner if there is ) to insure they
can practically get the same particle size and resulting mouth feel as
the institutionally made chocolates feasibly.
Then they should ensure that they have a really extra sturdy mixer
with the bowl with a electric heat jacketed ( 50-70 degree C)
mixing bowl to conche the chocolate for several hours non stop.
IMO
That is reason ...why chocolate is considered not only food of the
gods but also.....MADE BY THE GODS!<grin>... as only the institutional
chocolate manufacturer ( the 'gods') could do it properly <grin>.