I didn't follow the recipe exactly because I didn't notice the part about
putting the dough on a cloth and heating the pan first :-(

Also, I don't know what 'all purpose' flour is - I'm in Britain. We have
plain flour which is low gluten and used for cakes, biscuits (cookies),
sauces and the like and we have bread flour which is strong and high gluten
and used for bread, pasta etc. We also have self raising flour which is
plain flour with a chemical raising agent incorporated.

I used plain flour and instant yeast.

It looked really good with a nice thin crispy crust but didn't have the same
open crumbs as those described by others. The flavour was OK but not as good
as my usual bread. It reminded both of us of the commercial bread we used to
have when we were children (in the 1940s). It was far better than modern
commercial mass produced bread.

I'll try it once more, using my starter but I'd like to be put right on what
all purpose flour is first.

Here's the crumb - sorry for the poor picture.

http://i9.tinypic.com/3z6exza.jpg

TIA

Mary

Mary Fisher wrote:
> I'll try it once more, using my starter but I'd like to be put right on what
> all purpose flour is first.
>
All-purpose flour is a blend of hard and soft wheats, yielding a flour
that can, at least in theory, be used for all-purposes.

It is soft enough to be used to make quick breads and cakes, but hard
enough to be used to make breads.

It tends to not rise as well as bread flour, but a number of bakers, and
I am one of them, feel it tends to produce a better tasting bread than
most bread flours.

Overall, all-purpose flour is about 10% protein. Bread flours tend to
be 12% and up, with lots of room on the "and up." However, one bread
flour I looked at had 10% protein and still rose well... so, as with
most generalities, there are exceptions.

Mike

--
....The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the world...

Mike Avery mavery at mail dot otherwhen dot com
part time baker ICQ 16241692
networking guru AIM, yahoo and skype mavery81230
wordsmith

"Mike Avery" > wrote in message
news:mailman.8.1164123034.67839.rec.food.sourdough @mail.otherwhen.com...
> Mary Fisher wrote:
>> I'll try it once more, using my starter but I'd like to be put right on
>> what all purpose flour is first.
>>
> All-purpose flour is a blend of hard and soft wheats, yielding a flour
> that can, at least in theory, be used for all-purposes.

Thanks. We don't have that. I suppose I could mix my own but I think I'll
try using bread flour.

Not that the NYT recipe is any easier than my usual method if I think about
it!
>
>
> Overall, all-purpose flour is about 10% protein. Bread flours tend to be
> 12% and up, with lots of room on the "and up." However, one bread flour I
> looked at had 10% protein and still rose well... so, as with most
> generalities, there are exceptions.

We're not told the protein content - I've never felt the need to know though
:-) We just trust the maker to produce something fit for its purpose and it
always has been in my experience.

Thanks again for replying,

Mary

Mary Fisher wrote:

> Thanks. We don't have that. I suppose I could mix my own but I think I'll
> try using bread flour.

I expect that will work fine. The procedure does not seem to be at all
picky about type of flour.

> Not that the NYT recipe is any easier than my usual method if I think about
> it!

Different, not necessarily easier.

To me, the advantages are less time actually working with the dough, and
an excellent result with better crust than I've been able to achieve
using other methods. The disadvantage is the need to plan ahead and to
be available at specific times that are many hours in the future.
Although the initial rise time seems to also not be at all picky.

"Steve Bonine" > wrote in message
...
> Mary Fisher wrote:
>
>> Thanks. We don't have that. I suppose I could mix my own but I think I'll
>> try using bread flour.
>
> I expect that will work fine. The procedure does not seem to be at all
> picky about type of flour.
>
>> Not that the NYT recipe is any easier than my usual method if I think
>> about it!
>
> Different, not necessarily easier.

Yes, but I thought that it was being promoted as easy, perhaps I
misunderstood.
>
> To me, the advantages are less time actually working with the dough, and
> an excellent result with better crust than I've been able to achieve using
> other methods.

I think that's because it's baked in an enclosed and steamy environment.
I've had the same beautiful thin crisp crust by inverting a soaked unglazed
clay pot over a free form loaf. Every time I'm going to see my potter I
intend asking him to make me some and every time I see him I forget :-)

> The disadvantage is the need to plan ahead and to be available at specific
> times that are many hours in the future.

Yes, and organising myself is something I'm not good at.

I shall try again but I think I'll go back to my very forgiving sourdough
bread - especially in the warmer months when I'll be using my bread oven.
Timing IS important with that. another problem with the NYT recipe, for me,
is that it makes a very big loaf. We eat a lot of bread but there's still a
third left after two meals. It would be good for when the family comes
though. Hmm - perhaps I'll make one and freeze it ...

Mary

Mary Fisher wrote:

> another problem with the NYT recipe, for me, is that it makes a very big loaf.

<grin> I was just thinking that I wished it made a bigger loaf . . .

Has anyone tried doubling the recipe and making one large loaf? I
suspect the results would be disappointing, but maybe not. I rather
like the ratio of crust in the original recipe, and having a loaf twice
as big would probably destroy that.