Grape and wine jelly
 

I have just made my first ever batch of grape jelly from the fruit
growing on the vine in my garden. I followed the instructions that I
have been given and used a sugar thermometer to guage the setting
point but I am left with jars of syrupy liquid. What has gone wrong?
Is there anything I can do to make them set? I have loads more grapes
to use up so I want to get it right.

thanks

Frances

"Frances" > wrote in message
om...
> I have just made my first ever batch of grape jelly from the fruit
> growing on the vine in my garden. I followed the instructions that I
> have been given and used a sugar thermometer to guage the setting
> point but I am left with jars of syrupy liquid. What has gone wrong?
> Is there anything I can do to make them set? I have loads more grapes
> to use up so I want to get it right.


I had the same problem this year w/ scuppernongs. I would appreciate any
ideas also.

In article >,
(Frances) wrote:

> I have just made my first ever batch of grape jelly from the fruit
> growing on the vine in my garden. I followed the instructions that I
> have been given and used a sugar thermometer to guage the setting
> point but I am left with jars of syrupy liquid. What has gone wrong?
> Is there anything I can do to make them set? I have loads more grapes
> to use up so I want to get it right.

Since you didn't post the recipe you used, there's no easy way to tell.
Jams and jellies are very sensitive to ingredient proportions. Too much
or too little sugar, and it might not set. If the pectin level of the
grapes is too low, it won't set (which is why I always make jam with
added pectin nowadays); if you don't add pectin, make sure you use a
quantity of slightly under-ripe fruit, since it has more pectin. If it
isn't acid enough (acid is required for jelling) it won't set; many
recipes call for added acid in the form of lemon juice. If it's
overcooked, or heated too slowly, it might not set.

"Sugar thermometer"? You mean a jelly/candy thermometer? What did you
cook it to? It should be 8 degrees F over the boiling point, 220 F at
1000 feet or lower altitudes. Did you try the sheet test? The cold
saucer test?

--
to respond (OT only), change "spamless.invalid" to "optonline.net"

<http://www.thecoffeefaq.com/>

Scott > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> (Frances) wrote:
>
> > I have just made my first ever batch of grape jelly from the fruit
> > growing on the vine in my garden. I followed the instructions that I
> > have been given and used a sugar thermometer to guage the setting
> > point but I am left with jars of syrupy liquid. What has gone wrong?
> > Is there anything I can do to make them set? I have loads more grapes
> > to use up so I want to get it right.
>
> Since you didn't post the recipe you used, there's no easy way to tell.
> Jams and jellies are very sensitive to ingredient proportions. Too much
> or too little sugar, and it might not set.
The receipt uses 12oz of sugar for every pint of liquid obtained after
boiling the grapes, plus the juice of 2 lemons and 1/4 pint of port
wine.
>
> "Sugar thermometer"? You mean a jelly/candy thermometer?
Sorry I'm English this is the term we use here.
What did you
> cook it to? It should be 8 degrees F over the boiling point, 220 F at
> 1000 feet or lower altitudes.
Altitude is not an issue here in cooking however if it's sensitive to
cold and damp that's another matter <g>
Seriously I cooked it to 110 centigrade as marked on the thermometer.
The reciept didn't say how long one should boil it for Would that make
a difference?

thanks for your help

Frances

try testing for pectin concentration before adding the sugar. you'll need
to buy a small container of ethyl rubbing alcohol at a drug store for
about $3 (ask for ethyl, not isopropyl). if there is enough pectin then it
might need more sugar. the amount of sugar in grapes depends a lot on the
weather. they need hot dry weather in the latter part of the season to
have a high sugar content.

you can read about my experince making grape and other wild jellies this
year, including how to test for pectin, at
www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm and click on "Food"

"Michael" ) writes:
> "Frances" > wrote in message
> om...
>> I have just made my first ever batch of grape jelly from the fruit
>> growing on the vine in my garden. I followed the instructions that I
>> have been given and used a sugar thermometer to guage the setting
>> point but I am left with jars of syrupy liquid. What has gone wrong?
>> Is there anything I can do to make them set? I have loads more grapes
>> to use up so I want to get it right.
>
>
> I had the same problem this year w/ scuppernongs. I would appreciate any
> ideas also.
>
>


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William R Watt National Capital FreeNet Ottawa's free community network
homepage: www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm
warning: non-FreeNet email must have "notspam" in subject or it's returned

try testing for pectin concentration before adding the sugar. you'll need
to buy a small container of ethyl rubbing alcohol at a drug store for
about $3 (ask for ethyl, not isopropyl). if there is enough pectin then it
might need more sugar. the amount of sugar in grapes depends a lot on the
weather. they need hot dry weather in the latter part of the season to
have a high sugar content.

you can read about my experince making grape and other wild jellies this
year, including how to test for pectin, at
www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm and click on "Food"

"Michael" ) writes:
> "Frances" > wrote in message
> om...
>> I have just made my first ever batch of grape jelly from the fruit
>> growing on the vine in my garden. I followed the instructions that I
>> have been given and used a sugar thermometer to guage the setting
>> point but I am left with jars of syrupy liquid. What has gone wrong?
>> Is there anything I can do to make them set? I have loads more grapes
>> to use up so I want to get it right.
>
>
> I had the same problem this year w/ scuppernongs. I would appreciate any
> ideas also.
>
>


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William R Watt National Capital FreeNet Ottawa's free community network
homepage: www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm
warning: non-FreeNet email must have "notspam" in subject or it's returned

Frances ) writes:

> Seriously I cooked it to 110 centigrade as marked on the thermometer.
> The reciept didn't say how long one should boil it for Would that make
> a difference?

no. once it reaches the correct temperature it's usually ready. I confirm by
lifting the spoon 8-10 inches above the pot on its side and watching how
the liquid runs off back into the pot. As soon as it starts to run off the
spoon in two places it's ready to pour into the jars.

You can reheat your runny jelly and try again adding pectin or sugar. they
say to test for pectin before addign the sugar but I've done it after
reheating and old batch for which I did nto test for pectin the first
time, and it worked for me.

We had a wet summer and not a great wild grape crop but I made 12 cups of
good grape jelly. It helps to know the secret places where the magic vines
grow. :)

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William R Watt National Capital FreeNet Ottawa's free community network
homepage: www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm
warning: non-FreeNet email must have "notspam" in subject or it's returned

Frances ) writes:

> Seriously I cooked it to 110 centigrade as marked on the thermometer.
> The reciept didn't say how long one should boil it for Would that make
> a difference?

no. once it reaches the correct temperature it's usually ready. I confirm by
lifting the spoon 8-10 inches above the pot on its side and watching how
the liquid runs off back into the pot. As soon as it starts to run off the
spoon in two places it's ready to pour into the jars.

You can reheat your runny jelly and try again adding pectin or sugar. they
say to test for pectin before addign the sugar but I've done it after
reheating and old batch for which I did nto test for pectin the first
time, and it worked for me.

We had a wet summer and not a great wild grape crop but I made 12 cups of
good grape jelly. It helps to know the secret places where the magic vines
grow. :)

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William R Watt National Capital FreeNet Ottawa's free community network
homepage: www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm
warning: non-FreeNet email must have "notspam" in subject or it's returned

Frances ) writes:

> Seriously I cooked it to 110 centigrade as marked on the thermometer.
> The reciept didn't say how long one should boil it for Would that make
> a difference?

no. once it reaches the correct temperature it's usually ready. I confirm by
lifting the spoon 8-10 inches above the pot on its side and watching how
the liquid runs off back into the pot. As soon as it starts to run off the
spoon in two places it's ready to pour into the jars.

You can reheat your runny jelly and try again adding pectin or sugar. they
say to test for pectin before addign the sugar but I've done it after
reheating and old batch for which I did nto test for pectin the first
time, and it worked for me.

We had a wet summer and not a great wild grape crop but I made 12 cups of
good grape jelly. It helps to know the secret places where the magic vines
grow. :)

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William R Watt National Capital FreeNet Ottawa's free community network
homepage: www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm
warning: non-FreeNet email must have "notspam" in subject or it's returned

In article >,
(Frances) wrote:

> The receipt uses 12oz of sugar for every pint of liquid obtained after
> boiling the grapes, plus the juice of 2 lemons and 1/4 pint of port
> wine.

Grapes are acidic enough that 2 lemons should be fine. If the fruit was
overripe, however, it might not have had enough pectin to jell. I've
heard one source recommend using 1 part underripe fruit to 3 parts ripe.

As far as sugar:fruit ratio, that's trickier, since we don't know the
grape's pectin content. According to the Farm Journal's Freezing and
Canning Cookbook:
"If the pectin test gives you a jellied mass you can pick up with a
fork, measure 1 c. sugar for each cup juice. If the test is moderately
strong (large jelly flakes), use 3/4 c. sugar for each cup juice. When
juice contains only a moderate amount of pectin, use 2/3 to 3/4 c. sugar
to 1 c. juice. (Too much sugar results in syrup, not jelly.)"

I think that parenthetical at the end might be telling. My understanding
is that grapes are among the more forgiving of fruit when it comes to
not doing a pectin test, but the ratio might still be off--but whether
it's too high or too low, I'm not sure.

To test for pectin, measure 1 tablespoon rubbing alcohol into a cup and
stir in 1 tsp. cooked, cooled juice, then use the evaluation above.


> Seriously I cooked it to 110 centigrade as marked on the thermometer.
> The reciept didn't say how long one should boil it for Would that make
> a difference?

Jell point at sea level would be 104-105 degrees C (220 F), with the
jelly taken off the heat when it get to that temperature. It should be
brought to jelling temperature then removed immediately.

Sounds like you might have overcooked it; this may be more the issue
than the sugar content.

How big a batch did you make? If you try to make too much at once, that
can result in it not setting (it cooks too slowly).

How long has it been since you made this? It's not a failed batch until
you wait at least 2 weeks.

--
to respond (OT only), change "spamless.invalid" to "optonline.net"

<http://www.thecoffeefaq.com/>

In article >,
(Frances) wrote:

> The receipt uses 12oz of sugar for every pint of liquid obtained after
> boiling the grapes, plus the juice of 2 lemons and 1/4 pint of port
> wine.

Grapes are acidic enough that 2 lemons should be fine. If the fruit was
overripe, however, it might not have had enough pectin to jell. I've
heard one source recommend using 1 part underripe fruit to 3 parts ripe.

As far as sugar:fruit ratio, that's trickier, since we don't know the
grape's pectin content. According to the Farm Journal's Freezing and
Canning Cookbook:
"If the pectin test gives you a jellied mass you can pick up with a
fork, measure 1 c. sugar for each cup juice. If the test is moderately
strong (large jelly flakes), use 3/4 c. sugar for each cup juice. When
juice contains only a moderate amount of pectin, use 2/3 to 3/4 c. sugar
to 1 c. juice. (Too much sugar results in syrup, not jelly.)"

I think that parenthetical at the end might be telling. My understanding
is that grapes are among the more forgiving of fruit when it comes to
not doing a pectin test, but the ratio might still be off--but whether
it's too high or too low, I'm not sure.

To test for pectin, measure 1 tablespoon rubbing alcohol into a cup and
stir in 1 tsp. cooked, cooled juice, then use the evaluation above.


> Seriously I cooked it to 110 centigrade as marked on the thermometer.
> The reciept didn't say how long one should boil it for Would that make
> a difference?

Jell point at sea level would be 104-105 degrees C (220 F), with the
jelly taken off the heat when it get to that temperature. It should be
brought to jelling temperature then removed immediately.

Sounds like you might have overcooked it; this may be more the issue
than the sugar content.

How big a batch did you make? If you try to make too much at once, that
can result in it not setting (it cooks too slowly).

How long has it been since you made this? It's not a failed batch until
you wait at least 2 weeks.

--
to respond (OT only), change "spamless.invalid" to "optonline.net"

<http://www.thecoffeefaq.com/>

In article >,
(Frances) wrote:

> The receipt uses 12oz of sugar for every pint of liquid obtained after
> boiling the grapes, plus the juice of 2 lemons and 1/4 pint of port
> wine.

Grapes are acidic enough that 2 lemons should be fine. If the fruit was
overripe, however, it might not have had enough pectin to jell. I've
heard one source recommend using 1 part underripe fruit to 3 parts ripe.

As far as sugar:fruit ratio, that's trickier, since we don't know the
grape's pectin content. According to the Farm Journal's Freezing and
Canning Cookbook:
"If the pectin test gives you a jellied mass you can pick up with a
fork, measure 1 c. sugar for each cup juice. If the test is moderately
strong (large jelly flakes), use 3/4 c. sugar for each cup juice. When
juice contains only a moderate amount of pectin, use 2/3 to 3/4 c. sugar
to 1 c. juice. (Too much sugar results in syrup, not jelly.)"

I think that parenthetical at the end might be telling. My understanding
is that grapes are among the more forgiving of fruit when it comes to
not doing a pectin test, but the ratio might still be off--but whether
it's too high or too low, I'm not sure.

To test for pectin, measure 1 tablespoon rubbing alcohol into a cup and
stir in 1 tsp. cooked, cooled juice, then use the evaluation above.


> Seriously I cooked it to 110 centigrade as marked on the thermometer.
> The reciept didn't say how long one should boil it for Would that make
> a difference?

Jell point at sea level would be 104-105 degrees C (220 F), with the
jelly taken off the heat when it get to that temperature. It should be
brought to jelling temperature then removed immediately.

Sounds like you might have overcooked it; this may be more the issue
than the sugar content.

How big a batch did you make? If you try to make too much at once, that
can result in it not setting (it cooks too slowly).

How long has it been since you made this? It's not a failed batch until
you wait at least 2 weeks.

--
to respond (OT only), change "spamless.invalid" to "optonline.net"

<http://www.thecoffeefaq.com/>

In article >,
(William R. Watt) wrote:

> you can read about my experince making grape and other wild jellies this
> year, including how to test for pectin, at
> www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm and click on "Food"


Hi, William, just a recommendation: put URLs inside "< >". E.g.,
<www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm>

Newsreaders and browsers play better with URLs that way.

--
to respond (OT only), change "spamless.invalid" to "optonline.net"

<http://www.thecoffeefaq.com/>

Scott wrote:
> In article >,
> (William R. Watt) wrote:
>
>
>>you can read about my experince making grape and other wild jellies this
>>year, including how to test for pectin, at
>>www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm and click on "Food"
>
>
>
> Hi, William, just a recommendation: put URLs inside "< >". E.g.,
> <www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm>
>
> Newsreaders and browsers play better with URLs that way.
>
Depends on your newsreader Scott. I use Netscape 7.xx and the url's turn
up in blue type and you just click them. The brackets aren't really needed.

George

George Shirley wrote:

> Scott wrote:
>> In article >,
>> (William R. Watt) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>you can read about my experince making grape and other wild jellies this
>>>year, including how to test for pectin, at
>>>www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm and click on "Food"
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi, William, just a recommendation: put URLs inside "< >". E.g.,
>> <www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm>
>>
>> Newsreaders and browsers play better with URLs that way.
>>
> Depends on your newsreader Scott. I use Netscape 7.xx and the url's turn
> up in blue type and you just click them. The brackets aren't really needed.

Same with Mozilla 1.7.3 aka Seamonkey.

B/

George Shirley wrote:

> Scott wrote:
>> In article >,
>> (William R. Watt) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>you can read about my experince making grape and other wild jellies this
>>>year, including how to test for pectin, at
>>>www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm and click on "Food"
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi, William, just a recommendation: put URLs inside "< >". E.g.,
>> <www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm>
>>
>> Newsreaders and browsers play better with URLs that way.
>>
> Depends on your newsreader Scott. I use Netscape 7.xx and the url's turn
> up in blue type and you just click them. The brackets aren't really needed.

Same with Mozilla 1.7.3 aka Seamonkey.

B/

George Shirley wrote:

> Scott wrote:
>> In article >,
>> (William R. Watt) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>you can read about my experince making grape and other wild jellies this
>>>year, including how to test for pectin, at
>>>www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm and click on "Food"
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi, William, just a recommendation: put URLs inside "< >". E.g.,
>> <www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm>
>>
>> Newsreaders and browsers play better with URLs that way.
>>
> Depends on your newsreader Scott. I use Netscape 7.xx and the url's turn
> up in blue type and you just click them. The brackets aren't really needed.

Same with Mozilla 1.7.3 aka Seamonkey.

B/

Brian Mailman ) writes:
> George Shirley wrote:

>>> Hi, William, just a recommendation: put URLs inside "< >". E.g.,
>>> <www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm>
>>>
>>> Newsreaders and browsers play better with URLs that way.
>>>
>> Depends on your newsreader Scott. I use Netscape 7.xx and the url's turn
>> up in blue type and you just click them. The brackets aren't really needed.
>
> Same with Mozilla 1.7.3 aka Seamonkey.

sorry, I don't have an apprecitation for hypertext browsers and news or
mail programs as I use the UNIX mail program on a dialup connection with
VT100 terminal emulation, ie. text only. I do get MIME and HTML encoded
mail from time to time which is almost impossible to read with all the
embedded tags being displayed on my text terminal.

I like the text connection for mail and newsgroups because it's fast and
simple and I can use my MS-DOS computer, 1990 vintage. The DOS computer is
actually a lot faster to get up and running and connect to the FreeNet
than my Windows computer which takes eons to load all the drivers. I only
use it when I want colour graphics. The DOS computer with text
communication is also free of all the viruses and computer invasions the
colour graphics computer with PPP communication is subject to. With a text
connection I don't have to try to stay one step ahead of the hackers. I
never have to update any of software on the DOS computer. I use the DOS
computer for 90% of my computing (word processing, number crunching,
communication, etc.).

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William R Watt National Capital FreeNet Ottawa's free community network
homepage: www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm
warning: non-FreeNet email must have "notspam" in subject or it's returned

Scott ) writes:

>...According to the Farm Journal's Freezing and
> Canning Cookbook:
> "If the pectin test gives you a jellied mass you can pick up with a
> fork, measure 1 c. sugar for each cup juice. If the test is moderately
> strong (large jelly flakes), use 3/4 c. sugar for each cup juice. When
> juice contains only a moderate amount of pectin, use 2/3 to 3/4 c. sugar
> to 1 c. juice. (Too much sugar results in syrup, not jelly.)"

What is written above is true but I'd recommend bringing the pectin
content up to the "mass" level and then add 3/4 cup sugar for each cup
juice. If the juice is stuck at the boiling point of water then add the
extra 1/4 cup sugar or however much is needed to get the temperature up to
220 deg F or whatever test for set you are using. There are three reasons
I'd recommend doing it that way.

1. I've found when the pectin level is high the voume expands when sugar
is added and you get more jelly than there was juice.

They don't say above that you have to boil down the juice and sugar
mixture until there is sufficient concentration of pectin for it to jell,
so...

2. You have to stand there and stir longer and pay a bit more for the extra
elecricity or whatever fuels your stove.

3. The longer boiling time is supposed to lower the quality of the jelly.
I'm not expert enough to confirm this from experience, but I've read that
it's so.

Either commercial pectin or pectin rich juice (eg apple) can be added to
raise the pectin level. I re-test after adding to confirm its at the
"jellied mass" level before starting to add sugar.


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William R Watt National Capital FreeNet Ottawa's free community network
homepage: www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm
warning: non-FreeNet email must have "notspam" in subject or it's returned

In article >,
George Shirley > wrote:

> Depends on your newsreader Scott. I use Netscape 7.xx and the url's turn
> up in blue type and you just click them. The brackets aren't really needed.

I don't dispute that some newsreaders don't need it; I simply said that
using "< >" works with ALL newsreaders, rather than just many.

BTW, how does Netscape treat this link:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...22499/sr=8-2/r
ef=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/102-5358893-3277729?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

also as compared to this:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...d=1100922499/s
r=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/102-5358893-3277729?v=glance&s=books&n=5078
46

--
to respond (OT only), change "spamless.invalid" to "optonline.net"

<http://www.thecoffeefaq.com/>

Scott wrote:

> In article >,
> George Shirley > wrote:
>
>> Depends on your newsreader Scott. I use Netscape 7.xx and the url's turn
>> up in blue type and you just click them. The brackets aren't really needed.
>
> I don't dispute that some newsreaders don't need it; I simply said that
> using "< >" works with ALL newsreaders, rather than just many.
>
> BTW, how does Netscape treat this link:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...22499/sr=8-2/r
> ef=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/102-5358893-3277729?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Hmmm. Mozilla (based on Netscape) treates it as a broken link, only the
first line is active and would fire up the browser component but not
find the entire link. I'd get a 404 Not Found error.

B/

As most newsreaders do, way too long.

George

Scott wrote:
> In article >,
> George Shirley > wrote:
>
>
>>Depends on your newsreader Scott. I use Netscape 7.xx and the url's turn
>>up in blue type and you just click them. The brackets aren't really needed.
>
>
> I don't dispute that some newsreaders don't need it; I simply said that
> using "< >" works with ALL newsreaders, rather than just many.
>
> BTW, how does Netscape treat this link:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...22499/sr=8-2/r
> ef=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/102-5358893-3277729?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
>
> also as compared to this:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...d=1100922499/s
> r=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/102-5358893-3277729?v=glance&s=books&n=5078
> 46
>

Scott > wrote:

>In article >,
> George Shirley > wrote:
>
>> Depends on your newsreader Scott. I use Netscape 7.xx and the url's turn
>> up in blue type and you just click them. The brackets aren't really needed.
>
>I don't dispute that some newsreaders don't need it; I simply said that
>using "< >" works with ALL newsreaders, rather than just many.
>
>BTW, how does Netscape treat this link:
>
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...22499/sr=8-2/r
>ef=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/102-5358893-3277729?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
>
>also as compared to this:
>
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...d=1100922499/s
>r=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/102-5358893-3277729?v=glance&s=books&n=5078
>46

In Agent the URL's are split. One way I get around this if I want to
launch it is to "reply" and then remove the line feed and extraneous
characters.
--
Susan N.

"Moral indignation is in most cases two percent moral, 48 percent indignation, and 50 percent envy."
Vittorio De Sica, Italian movie director (1901-1974)

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 08:39:27 -0500, The Cook wrote
(in article >):

> Scott > wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> George Shirley > wrote:
>>
>>> Depends on your newsreader Scott. I use Netscape 7.xx and the url's turn
>>> up in blue type and you just click them. The brackets aren't really
>>> needed.
>>
>> I don't dispute that some newsreaders don't need it; I simply said that
>> using "< >" works with ALL newsreaders, rather than just many.
>>
>> BTW, how does Netscape treat this link:
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...22499/sr=8-2/r
>> ef=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/102-5358893-3277729?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
>>
>> also as compared to this:
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...d=1100922499/s
>> r=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/102-5358893-3277729?v=glance&s=books&n=5078
>> 46
>
> In Agent the URL's are split. One way I get around this if I want to
> launch it is to "reply" and then remove the line feed and extraneous
> characters.
>

When I have a long URL, I like to use this:

http://tinyurl.com/

You put in the long URL and it transforms it to a tiny one, then you can post
or email that.

Laurel

In article >,
George Shirley > wrote:

> This is the URL clicking on it took me to. I assume it could be the same
> as above but don't know. It was an Amazon page selling the USDA guide to
> canning in paperback.

OK, but did enclosing the URL in the angle brackets preserve the URL,
as compared to not using them? That's what I'd meant about using them...
some newsreaders handle the links them correctly without, but all do so
with. My newsreader can handle them, but somehow a null character often
gets added at the beginning when it gets to the browser.
If "http://" is present at the beginning, it works fine (absent a
multi-line URL), but if it just starts "www.domain.com" then it's not
automatically recognized properly.

--
to respond (OT only), change "spamless.invalid" to "optonline.net"

<http://www.thecoffeefaq.com/>

In article >,
(William R. Watt) wrote:

> The longer boiling time is supposed to lower the quality of the jelly.
> I'm not expert enough to confirm this from experience, but I've read that
> it's so.

I've found it to be so, which is one reason I usually use pectin--it
reduced the total boil time. I think the resultant jam (I usually make
jam rather than jelly) has a nicer aroma.

--
to respond (OT only), change "spamless.invalid" to "optonline.net"

<http://www.thecoffeefaq.com/>

Laurel > wrote:

>On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 08:39:27 -0500, The Cook wrote
>(in article >):
>
>> Scott > wrote:
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> George Shirley > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Depends on your newsreader Scott. I use Netscape 7.xx and the url's turn
>>>> up in blue type and you just click them. The brackets aren't really
>>>> needed.
>>>
>>> I don't dispute that some newsreaders don't need it; I simply said that
>>> using "< >" works with ALL newsreaders, rather than just many.
>>>
>>> BTW, how does Netscape treat this link:
>>>
>>> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...22499/sr=8-2/r
>>> ef=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/102-5358893-3277729?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
>>>
>>> also as compared to this:
>>>
>>> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...d=1100922499/s
>>> r=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/102-5358893-3277729?v=glance&s=books&n=5078
>>> 46
>>
>> In Agent the URL's are split. One way I get around this if I want to
>> launch it is to "reply" and then remove the line feed and extraneous
>> characters.
>>
>
>When I have a long URL, I like to use this:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/
>
>You put in the long URL and it transforms it to a tiny one, then you can post
>or email that.
>
>Laurel

There are a number of people who do not like the surprises you
sometimes get when opening the tinyurl. I want to know exactly where
the reference is sending me. I may have already looked at it and
decided to bookmark it or I may have looked and decided it had nothing
of interest.

--
Susan N.

"Moral indignation is in most cases two percent moral, 48 percent indignation, and 50 percent envy."
Vittorio De Sica, Italian movie director (1901-1974)

Netscape recognizes both of your examples.

George

Scott wrote:
> In article >,
> George Shirley > wrote:
>
>
>>This is the URL clicking on it took me to. I assume it could be the same
>>as above but don't know. It was an Amazon page selling the USDA guide to
>>canning in paperback.
>
>
> OK, but did enclosing the URL in the angle brackets preserve the URL,
> as compared to not using them? That's what I'd meant about using them...
> some newsreaders handle the links them correctly without, but all do so
> with. My newsreader can handle them, but somehow a null character often
> gets added at the beginning when it gets to the browser.
> If "http://" is present at the beginning, it works fine (absent a
> multi-line URL), but if it just starts "www.domain.com" then it's not
> automatically recognized properly.
>

Scott wrote:

> OK, but did enclosing the URL in the angle brackets preserve the URL,
> as compared to not using them?

Not in Mozilla 1.7.3... still broken. There's a way of making them all
one line but I can't remember what it is.

B/

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:59:37 -0500, The Cook wrote
(in article >):

> Laurel > wrote:
>>
>> When I have a long URL, I like to use this:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/
>>
>> You put in the long URL and it transforms it to a tiny one, then you can
>> post
>> or email that.
>>
>> Laurel
>
> There are a number of people who do not like the surprises you
> sometimes get when opening the tinyurl. I want to know exactly where
> the reference is sending me. I may have already looked at it and
> decided to bookmark it or I may have looked and decided it had nothing
> of interest.

Very true, usually I put the long URL there, and then put the tinyurl version
underneath it. Take your pick.

Laurel

In article >,
Scott > wrote:
>In article >,
> George Shirley > wrote:
>
>> Depends on your newsreader Scott. I use Netscape 7.xx and the url's turn
>> up in blue type and you just click them. The brackets aren't really needed.
>
>I don't dispute that some newsreaders don't need it; I simply said that
>using "< >" works with ALL newsreaders, rather than just many.

However, it doesn't work with all eyeballs :)

It helps the machine for clicking, perhaps, but it does make it harder
to read.

hawk
--
Richard E. Hawkins, Asst. Prof. of Economics /"\ ASCII ribbon campaign
111 Hiller (814) 375-4846 \ / against HTML mail
These opinions will not be those of X and postings.
Penn State until it pays my retainer. / \

In article >,
Scott > wrote:
>In article >,
> George Shirley > wrote:
>
>> Depends on your newsreader Scott. I use Netscape 7.xx and the url's turn
>> up in blue type and you just click them. The brackets aren't really needed.
>
>I don't dispute that some newsreaders don't need it; I simply said that
>using "< >" works with ALL newsreaders, rather than just many.

However, it doesn't work with all eyeballs :)

It helps the machine for clicking, perhaps, but it does make it harder
to read.

hawk
--
Richard E. Hawkins, Asst. Prof. of Economics /"\ ASCII ribbon campaign
111 Hiller (814) 375-4846 \ / against HTML mail
These opinions will not be those of X and postings.
Penn State until it pays my retainer. / \

In article >,
(Dr. Richard E. Hawkins) wrote:

> It helps the machine for clicking, perhaps, but it does make it harder
> to read.


You read URLs???

--
to respond (OT only), change "spamless.invalid" to "optonline.net"

<http://www.thecoffeefaq.com/>

In article >,
(Dr. Richard E. Hawkins) wrote:

> It helps the machine for clicking, perhaps, but it does make it harder
> to read.


You read URLs???

--
to respond (OT only), change "spamless.invalid" to "optonline.net"

<http://www.thecoffeefaq.com/>

In article >,
Scott > wrote:
>In article >,
> (Dr. Richard E. Hawkins) wrote:
>
>> It helps the machine for clicking, perhaps, but it does make it harder
>> to read.
>
>
>You read URLs???

Err, yes. Always before connecting. That, and I either type the
address in, or, if it's long, select it and paste it. Not all
newsreaders ar GUI based, and not all automatically parse links for
clicking.

hawk
--
Richard E. Hawkins, Asst. Prof. of Economics /"\ ASCII ribbon campaign
111 Hiller (814) 375-4846 \ / against HTML mail
These opinions will not be those of X and postings.
Penn State until it pays my retainer. / \