I made pfeffernusse cookies for Christmas and while I admit the batter amounts may have been a tiny amount more than 1 inch across (1 inch was the recommendation), the recipe indicated, I think, that I should have gotten more than 100 cookies. It was just over 30. Each finished cookie melted, of course, and was thus 2 inches in diameter.

I swear, this estimate discrepancy happens a LOT in that book with cookies - and maybe others as well. Does anyone know more about this? Thanks.


Lenona.

On 2017-12-28 2:55 PM, wrote:
> I made pfeffernusse cookies for Christmas and while I admit the batter amounts may have been a tiny amount more than 1 inch across (1 inch was the recommendation), the recipe indicated, I think, that I should have gotten more than 100 cookies. It was just over 30. Each finished cookie melted, of course, and was thus 2 inches in diameter.
>
> I swear, this estimate discrepancy happens a LOT in that book with cookies - and maybe others as well. Does anyone know more about this? Thanks.
>
>
> Lenona.
>
Some of the difference will be in using volume measurements in the
recipe. There could be a 25% difference in the amount that they specify
and that you measured out.

> wrote in message
...
I made pfeffernusse cookies for Christmas and while I admit the batter
amounts may have been a tiny amount more than 1 inch across (1 inch was the
recommendation), the recipe indicated, I think, that I should have gotten
more than 100 cookies. It was just over 30. Each finished cookie melted, of
course, and was thus 2 inches in diameter.

I swear, this estimate discrepancy happens a LOT in that book with cookies -
and maybe others as well. Does anyone know more about this? Thanks.


Lenona.

---

We used to get those from my parent's friends. They were tiny and
rectangular shaped but thick.

I am not too familiar with that cookbook. I was given the book as a gift
when I was an adult. I remember going through it and not being impressed.
Didn't see any joy there. I did try one recipe for macaroni and cheese,
baked in the oven with bread crumbs on top. It was okay, but I preferred the
way I usually made it which was to use whatever I had in the house then eat
it right away, no baking.

On 12/28/2017 4:55 PM, wrote:
> I made pfeffernusse cookies for Christmas and while I admit the batter amounts may have been a tiny amount more than 1 inch across (1 inch was the recommendation), the recipe indicated, I think, that I should have gotten more than 100 cookies. It was just over 30. Each finished cookie melted, of course, and was thus 2 inches in diameter.
>
> I swear, this estimate discrepancy happens a LOT in that book with cookies - and maybe others as well. Does anyone know more about this? Thanks.
>
That sounds like the recipe in the 1975 version of Joy.
The recipe in the most recent edition is a bit different. There is also
a version in the Joy of Cooking Christmas Cookies book, which gives
weights (in ounces), as well as volume measurements - it suggests making
"scant 3/4 inch balls", for a finished cookie measuring 1 inch.

If your local library doesn't have it, I could type it out for you.

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 13:55:43 -0800 (PST), wrote:

>I made pfeffernusse cookies for Christmas and while I admit the batter amounts may have been a tiny amount more than 1 inch across (1 inch was the recommendation), the recipe indicated, I think, that I should have gotten more than 100 cookies. It was just over 30. Each finished cookie melted, of course, and was thus 2 inches in diameter.
>
>I swear, this estimate discrepancy happens a LOT in that book with cookies - and maybe others as well. Does anyone know more about this? Thanks.
>
>
>Lenona.

check the front of the book. It should tell you how the measurements
were made for the recipes in the book.
Janet US

On Thursday, December 28, 2017 at 7:47:50 PM UTC-5, S Viemeister wrote:
> On 12/28/2017 4:55 PM, lenona wrote:
> > I made pfeffernusse cookies for Christmas and while I admit the batter amounts may have been a tiny amount more than 1 inch across (1 inch was the recommendation), the recipe indicated, I think, that I should have gotten more than 100 cookies. It was just over 30. Each finished cookie melted, of course, and was thus 2 inches in diameter.
> >
> > I swear, this estimate discrepancy happens a LOT in that book with cookies - and maybe others as well. Does anyone know more about this? Thanks.
> >
> That sounds like the recipe in the 1975 version of Joy.
> The recipe in the most recent edition is a bit different. There is also
> a version in the Joy of Cooking Christmas Cookies book, which gives
> weights (in ounces), as well as volume measurements - it suggests making
> "scant 3/4 inch balls", for a finished cookie measuring 1 inch.
>
> If your local library doesn't have it, I could type it out for you.


Very kind of you, but no thanks. (I already spotted it online.)

I checked again and it actually said the final result should be 180 - yes, 180 - one-inch balls. Since the UNCOOKED cookies are supposed to be one inch across to begin with, that's impossible - they'd just melt and spread. Even if I had made the batter scoops only half an inch across and they had turned into one-inch cookies, I still doubt I'd have been able to make 180 cookies.


Lenona.

> wrote in message
...
On Thursday, December 28, 2017 at 7:47:50 PM UTC-5, S Viemeister wrote:
> On 12/28/2017 4:55 PM, lenona wrote:
> > I made pfeffernusse cookies for Christmas and while I admit the batter
> > amounts may have been a tiny amount more than 1 inch across (1 inch was
> > the recommendation), the recipe indicated, I think, that I should have
> > gotten more than 100 cookies. It was just over 30. Each finished cookie
> > melted, of course, and was thus 2 inches in diameter.
> >
> > I swear, this estimate discrepancy happens a LOT in that book with
> > cookies - and maybe others as well. Does anyone know more about this?
> > Thanks.
> >
> That sounds like the recipe in the 1975 version of Joy.
> The recipe in the most recent edition is a bit different. There is also
> a version in the Joy of Cooking Christmas Cookies book, which gives
> weights (in ounces), as well as volume measurements - it suggests making
> "scant 3/4 inch balls", for a finished cookie measuring 1 inch.
>
> If your local library doesn't have it, I could type it out for you.


Very kind of you, but no thanks. (I already spotted it online.)

I checked again and it actually said the final result should be 180 - yes,
180 - one-inch balls. Since the UNCOOKED cookies are supposed to be one inch
across to begin with, that's impossible - they'd just melt and spread. Even
if I had made the batter scoops only half an inch across and they had turned
into one-inch cookies, I still doubt I'd have been able to make 180 cookies.


Lenona.

---

I've never made them before but the ones we were given did not appear to
have melted and spread. They also were not round. They were tiny rectangles
and very thick.

On Thursday, December 28, 2017 at 3:55:47 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> I made pfeffernusse cookies for Christmas...

ROFL!!! Welcome to BAKING!! The MOST science (chemistry!) in COOKING!!

John Kuthe...

On 2017-12-30 7:17 AM, John Kuthe wrote:
> On Thursday, December 28, 2017 at 3:55:47 PM UTC-6, wrote:
>> I made pfeffernusse cookies for Christmas...
>
> ROFL!!! Welcome to BAKING!! The MOST science (chemistry!) in COOKING!!
>
> John Kuthe...
>
Agreed, 100%!!!

On 12/30/2017 10:59 AM, graham wrote:
> On 2017-12-30 7:17 AM, John Kuthe wrote:
>> On Thursday, December 28, 2017 at 3:55:47 PM UTC-6,
>> wrote:
>>> I made pfeffernusse cookies for Christmas...
>>
>> ROFL!!! Welcome to BAKING!! The MOST science (chemistry!) in COOKING!!
>>
>> John Kuthe...
>>
> Agreed, 100%!!!

Agree 90%. For repeatability, yes. You can change recipes if you know
what you are doing. Certain functions like rising yeast, reactions from
baking powder, adding an acid or salt are required.

Other portions can be vried and, of course, the results will be bit
different, be that better or worse. That is subjective. If you add or
subtract an egg, increase the butter, change the flavoring, sprinkle on
a topping are easily changed. You can add ingredients in some cases, or
leave them out. Apples, raisins, cheese come to mind.

Sort of like, do you have the recipe for pizza?

On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 08:59:07 -0700, graham > wrote:

>On 2017-12-30 7:17 AM, John Kuthe wrote:
>> On Thursday, December 28, 2017 at 3:55:47 PM UTC-6, wrote:
>>> I made pfeffernusse cookies for Christmas...
>>
>> ROFL!!! Welcome to BAKING!! The MOST science (chemistry!) in COOKING!!
>>
>> John Kuthe...
>>
>Agreed, 100%!!!

Actually Confectionary Making is the MOST science (chemistry!) in
COOKING!!

On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 13:06:06 -0500, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On 12/30/2017 10:59 AM, graham wrote:
>> On 2017-12-30 7:17 AM, John Kuthe wrote:
>>> On Thursday, December 28, 2017 at 3:55:47 PM UTC-6,
>>> wrote:
>>>> I made pfeffernusse cookies for Christmas...
>>>
>>> ROFL!!! Welcome to BAKING!! The MOST science (chemistry!) in COOKING!!
>>>
>>> John Kuthe...
>>>
>> Agreed, 100%!!!
>
>Agree 90%. For repeatability, yes. You can change recipes if you know
>what you are doing. Certain functions like rising yeast, reactions from
>baking powder, adding an acid or salt are required.
>
>Other portions can be vried and, of course, the results will be bit
>different, be that better or worse. That is subjective. If you add or
>subtract an egg, increase the butter, change the flavoring, sprinkle on
>a topping are easily changed. You can add ingredients in some cases, or
>leave them out. Apples, raisins, cheese come to mind.
>
>Sort of like, do you have the recipe for pizza?

what you say proves the point. "You can change recipes if you know
what you are doing"
Janet US

On 2017-12-30 1:06 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 12/30/2017 10:59 AM, graham wrote:
>> On 2017-12-30 7:17 AM, John Kuthe wrote:
>>> On Thursday, December 28, 2017 at 3:55:47 PM UTC-6,
>>> wrote:
>>>> I made pfeffernusse cookies for Christmas...
>>>
>>> ROFL!!! Welcome to BAKING!! The MOST science (chemistry!) in COOKING!!
>>>
>>> John Kuthe...
>>>
>> Agreed, 100%!!!
>
> Agree 90%.Â* For repeatability, yes.Â* You can change recipes if you know
> what you are doing.Â* Certain functions like rising yeast, reactions from
> baking powder, adding an acid or salt are required.
>
> Other portions can be vried and, of course, the results will beÂ* bit
> different, be that better or worse.Â* That is subjective.Â* If you add or
> subtract an egg, increase the butter, change the flavoring, sprinkle on
> a topping are easily changed.Â* You can add ingredients in some cases, or
> leave them out.Â* Apples, raisins, cheese come to mind.

My mother used to say that it was hard to ruin a cake. They might not be
exactly the same, but they would still turn out with a little
adjustment. Cake recipes vary a lot in terms of the amount of fat,
sugar, leavening, eggs, liquid etc.

Even method is not all that always that important. I once came home to
find my son making a batch of chocolate chip cookies. I was petty upset
with him because he was doing it all wrong. I had taught him to cream
the shortening and sugar together and then add the egg and vanilla, and
to add the dry ingredients and then the chips. He had everything in a
bowl together and had just started to beat them all together all at
once. I figured the ingredients had been wasted. He assured me he had
done it before and it had worked. He went ahead and finished them, and
they turned out beautifully.

On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 14:12:47 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2017-12-30 1:06 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 12/30/2017 10:59 AM, graham wrote:
>>> On 2017-12-30 7:17 AM, John Kuthe wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, December 28, 2017 at 3:55:47 PM UTC-6,
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> I made pfeffernusse cookies for Christmas...
>>>>
>>>> ROFL!!! Welcome to BAKING!! The MOST science (chemistry!) in COOKING!!
>>>>
>>>> John Kuthe...
>>>>
>>> Agreed, 100%!!!
>>
>> Agree 90%.* For repeatability, yes.* You can change recipes if you know
>> what you are doing.* Certain functions like rising yeast, reactions from
>> baking powder, adding an acid or salt are required.
>>
>> Other portions can be vried and, of course, the results will be* bit
>> different, be that better or worse.* That is subjective.* If you add or
>> subtract an egg, increase the butter, change the flavoring, sprinkle on
>> a topping are easily changed.* You can add ingredients in some cases, or
>> leave them out.* Apples, raisins, cheese come to mind.
>
>My mother used to say that it was hard to ruin a cake. They might not be
>exactly the same, but they would still turn out with a little
>adjustment. Cake recipes vary a lot in terms of the amount of fat,
>sugar, leavening, eggs, liquid etc.
>
>Even method is not all that always that important. I once came home to
>find my son making a batch of chocolate chip cookies. I was petty upset
>with him because he was doing it all wrong. I had taught him to cream
>the shortening and sugar together and then add the egg and vanilla, and
>to add the dry ingredients and then the chips. He had everything in a
>bowl together and had just started to beat them all together all at
>once. I figured the ingredients had been wasted. He assured me he had
>done it before and it had worked. He went ahead and finished them, and
>they turned out beautifully.
>
It depends of course. If you're happy with whatever you get, then
what you say is true.

On 12/30/2017 1:41 PM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 13:06:06 -0500, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>> On 12/30/2017 10:59 AM, graham wrote:
>>> On 2017-12-30 7:17 AM, John Kuthe wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, December 28, 2017 at 3:55:47 PM UTC-6,
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> I made pfeffernusse cookies for Christmas...
>>>>
>>>> ROFL!!! Welcome to BAKING!! The MOST science (chemistry!) in COOKING!!
>>>>
>>>> John Kuthe...
>>>>
>>> Agreed, 100%!!!
>>
>> Agree 90%. For repeatability, yes. You can change recipes if you know
>> what you are doing. Certain functions like rising yeast, reactions from
>> baking powder, adding an acid or salt are required.
>>
>> Other portions can be vried and, of course, the results will be bit
>> different, be that better or worse. That is subjective. If you add or
>> subtract an egg, increase the butter, change the flavoring, sprinkle on
>> a topping are easily changed. You can add ingredients in some cases, or
>> leave them out. Apples, raisins, cheese come to mind.
>>
>> Sort of like, do you have the recipe for pizza?
>
> what you say proves the point. "You can change recipes if you know
> what you are doing"
> Janet US
>

You can change them even if you don't know what you are doing, but the
results are more of a crap shoot. Could be the best ever though.

John Kuthe wrote:
> On Thursday, December 28, 2017 at 3:55:47 PM UTC-6, wrote:
>> I made pfeffernusse cookies for Christmas...
> ROFL!!! Welcome to BAKING!! The MOST science (chemistry!) in COOKING!!
>
> John Kuthe...

8!

On 12/30/2017 4:37 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> The area of a 2" circle is about 4 times that of a 1" circle.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>> Omelet wrote:
>
>> He hates me 'cause I never slept with him...
>
> He hates himself because he is all he has to sleep with
> I don't know, sometimes he used to seem normal, then he went petty
> trough vindictive and now I just shun contact. I have enough crazies to
> deal with in my world without encouraging those who refuse to take their
> meds.

For the record, I never once even considered sleeping with you. And
you know that. You're the one who somehow got the idea that I was
going to move in with you - and you posted that to RFC just out of the
total blue.

After having met you twice at casual austin.food gatherings 2 or 3
years ago and not giving you any indication that there was any sort of
romantic interest in the least, you somehow twisted that into MY
MOVING IN WITH YOU?

That was just way too Psycho for me. I sat there at stared at the
screen for at least 15 minutes wondering, WTF? That was just way too
spooky. I've met weird, semi-psycho women before but you win, hands
down. Mapi of austin.general still holds the male title, but at least
he announced his psychosis right there lying on the floor of the bar
at B.D. Reilly's rather than romantically obsessing over me for 2
years.

Needless to say, you need to come to terms with what happened and why
your mind works that way and stop making up excuses for your fixation
and disappointment before we become the next Yoli and Michael. I'd
prefer you use a sniper rifle on me from a few hundred yards away.
There you go - a reason for you to buy yet another gun and ammo.

And Jeremy, I was just tired of your decade of bullshit and visions of
grandeur about all these things you're "working on" or have not done
in the past. Even posting a call for meetings with imaginary people
about imaginary projects of yours at "the normal time and place", as
if you are somebody important with a life. I'm pretty sure you're
manic depressive mixed with habitual liar.

Sorry I don't fit either of your Ideal Psycho Pal Profiles.

-sw
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------