Jim D.

Yes, I think the conclusion in past discussions has been to avoid the completely plain molds. Since bars are so popular especially of late, there are lots of interesting designs available. But if someone insists on a plain mold, @gap's suggestions sound promising.

I'm no expert in making solid chocolate bars, but I encounter the same demolding marks when I use magnetic molds for filled chocolates. I am inclined to conclude they are unavoidable. I am sure that is not the answer you want to hear, and I certainly will be interested in your future experiments.

@pastrygirl, any reason you prefer Roxy & Rich over Chef Rubber or Chocobutter (from Chocotransfersheets)?

Thanks, I'll look into those ideas. I ate one of the crème brûlée bonbons. Once the caramel bits and buttercream plus dark chocolate shell get into the mouth, it all melts together. To my relief (since these bonbons were requested for a wedding), there is some crunch and not too much gumminess. I can tell it isn't exactly what was intended, but I don't think most people will notice. I have some time to explore this before I do it again. Sometimes, I should add, it works beautifully. Those times must have been in January or February!

That is an excellent idea. Thank you.

Good idea. It would be a mess, but part of what we do for our art! Thanks.

I make a filling that aims to mimic the tastes and texture of crème brûlée. To get the crunch, I make a caramel (just sugar and water), let it harden, then grind it in a small food processor. I put a 1/2 tsp. or so in the bottom of each cavity, then cover it with melted chocolate (with a little coconut oil to keep it from hardening too much). On top of that I add a vanilla butter ganache (Greweling's eggnog but with no nutmeg or rum, just more vanilla). The issue is the caramel bits. In my notes on this recipe, I say sternly, "Don't attempt this on a humid day." But recently it seems, regardless of the humidity, the ground caramel sticks together and forms a more or less solid mass in the bottom of the cavities before I can seal it with the white chocolate. It makes for a less than ideal mouthfeel, more chewy than crunchy. Can anyone think of something that might keep the bits separate? Confectioner's sugar maybe? I tried it, and it made a mess. Am I simply limited to making this only in the dead of winter when the humidity is something like 30%?

@choc.frogs, I agree with pastrygirl's diagnosis. You can test to see whether this is what's happening by carefully scraping off some of the chocolate that appears on the sides (at the bottom edge) of the bonbons. When I have done this, the colored cocoa butter appears underneath. No one I have ever seen has a remedy for this irritating blemish. For me it occurs mostly with shallow molds, such as demispheres, quenelles, eggs, cocoa pods. What mold were you using?

I don't heat the molds. I tried it for a while but saw no difference. Apple caramel (particularly prone to leaking) leaks with or without heat. The theory of heating (to form a better bond) makes complete sense, but didn't follow through for me, and there is always the danger of easily overheating the edges.

😖 That's the closest emoji I could find for saying I'm jealous. Of course, you do realize how chocolate-related obsessions progress...you're quite satisfied with one Selmi now, but you'll have at least another for milk before the year ends. Think of the holiday production you could accomplish! 😜 The Selmi is definitely a worthy home for Felchlin couverture.

I should have qualified my statement by saying that I don't use my melter for overnight melting, not that it could not be done. I am a new user of the Mol d'Art and so far haven't found its temp controls very accurate (other users have said the same, maybe it's just the one I received). I probably wouldn't use the melter to melt (as un-obvious as that sounds) for one simple reason: As I have described my process previously, I use a Chocovision Delta to temper the chocolate and have found its thermostat to be very accurate. I haven't had a lot of success emptying the melter into the Delta bowl without making a mess. I use the Mol d'Art for dumping molds (as, obviously, the round Delta bowl makes that impossible, or at least messy beyond what even I can put up with). I can keep the melter at a temp of 95F or above, so that it contains untempered chocolate, ready to be added to the Delta whenever overtempering starts. With the Mol d'Art (so I gather from others), the user controls overtempering by turning up the thermostat for a while, then lowering it (or keeping some untempered chocolate ready from another source). With the procedure of adding untempered chocolate at 95F or above to the Delta bowl, it takes a very short period of time (a minute or two) for the temp to come back down to working temp, and at that point the chocolate is noticeably more fluid. A final reason why I don't use the melter for filling shells is that it would be difficult to ladle chocolate into the last molds when the chocolate level is low, whereas the Delta bowl provides a smaller, deeper area so the chocolate level remains higher longer. I try to use as little chocolate as possible for a batch so as to reduce melting time. We don't all have the luxury of having a Selmi at our disposal (ahem, @pastrygirl). I really think it all comes down to what each person finds most convenient and efficient.

This is exactly what I do. Although I love my dehydrator, its thermostat control is far from exact. I set the temp for a little above 100F. I put the chocolate into the dehydrator the night before I am using it, and it's melted by the next morning and ready to temper. When I don't have the overnight time, I have left it in for about 6 hours, and it has melted (or mostly so). If I'm in a real hurry, I put it in two bowls and that helps noticeably. Still better than waiting for it to melt from scratch (whether one is using a melter or a tempering machine).

Excuse my ignorance, but what is "interfacing"? Finding a fabric store these days is another matter, but one thing at a time.

I have the single level Master spray booth, and it is quite adequate in size. The inventor/owner of the company told me the taller ones are meant for tall items (such as chocolate showpieces). If you watch the video of chocolatier Sydney using their two-level one, you will see the booth in action. I phoned her, and we had a long chat. She is extremely pleased with the booth. I am not so extravagant in my praise, but I think Sydney sprays at a lower psi. I have just resigned myself to using a lot of the "pre-filters." I bought a roll of the material and cut it myself, thus saving some money. I change the filter after spraying 6-12 molds (depending entirely on how much cocoa butter comes out of the gun--some colors are much worse than others). Sydney uses far fewer than that. Yes, it is an expensive proposition, but I don't make huge number of chocolates at a time, and I am willing to pay for inhaling less cocoa butter. You might also (as I did) look into a Paasche spray booth. That was going to be my choice before I found the CakeSafe. It is the fan that makes the difference.

SATA has a very good reputation, but sometimes I wonder if that is because they are so much more expensive than most spray guns. If you ever get one, I would be interested in knowing your opinion. I too have been in Melissa's studio and seen her spray booth in action. If the noise is an indicator, then it is indeed very powerful. I have looked into various spray booths (DIY and otherwise) at great length. During that investigation I concluded that virtually all of the DIYs ones (as seen on Youtube) are intended for paint use. The big issue with what we do is that cocoa butter builds up and clogs faster. I made a spray booth out of a large box with a hole cut into the back, into which I inserted an air filter intended for a home heating system, and then I placed a large fan behind the filter. I finally gave up on the box because the filter was clogged with cocoa butter after a short usage and was virtually useless. In my opinion--and others will disagree--it's primarily the cocoa butter spraying into the air and back onto the person that is the worst thing, and I don't think a lot can be done about that. Venting to the outside means that the vent pipe will get clogged with cocoa butter rather quickly. In Las Vegas I wondered who gets to clean Melissa's vent. I am currently using two methods of controlling how much cocoa butter I inhale. I wear a 3M ventilator, and that helps a lot. It looks weird and is quite uncomfortable, but I no longer blow my nose and see blue or red or green. The spray booth I use is this CakeSafe one. It is quite expensive, but it does help. It has a strong fan and a series of filters that manage to keep any cocoa butter from exiting from the back of the fan box. And in addition to the initial cost, I am using a lot of the "pre-filters," which catch most of the cocoa butter. I asked the inventor of the product about this, and he said he envisioned people spraying at 30psi. I am spraying at closer to 60psi, meaning I have to use more filters, but 30psi took too long to cover molds. And even this device doesn't stop cocoa butter flying through the air--it hits the box holding the filter and bounces back--and I don't see any way to control that. A huge spray booth would, I assume, contain it better. Some colors are worse than others--white and colors containing a large amount of white are the worst.

I agree about the fig ganache. I also make one and would probably not make a huge amount at a time. It's difficult enough to pipe when it's freshly made. I second the idea of a strong immersion blender. Especially in a ganache that includes butter, I wouldn't be without one. I am impressed that you make your ganaches by hand. I much prefer doing that, since the blender tends to raise the temp of the ganache and thus increase wait time to get it to a pipeable state. The separation of ganache when reheating applies mostly to white chocolate based recipes. It's easy enough to get it to come back together, but still is a pain. If I have medium to large amounts of leftover ganache, I always vacuum-seal and freeze it.

I have never made that much ganache at one time, but the only consideration I can think of is the consistency of the finished ganache and how long it stays at that consistency. In other words, how much can you pipe before it gets too viscous to get out of a piping bag and be level in the cavities? If it's a quite fluid ganache, you would have lots of time. Given the time it takes to prep for and mix a ganache, I would do everything I could to make it only once. It might be quite possible to make it all at once, pipe half of it, keeping the other half warm, then pipe the remainder. Of course it's also possible to let the second half cool completely, then reheat it, but that can be tricky, and I have had reheated ganache separate more than once.

@CharTruff, I can completely sympathize with the difficulty of making a decision, and that difficulty is compounded by the fact that you are shopping for a product that was not meant for chocolate use--so a lot of guesswork is involved in selecting and many reviews are irrelevant. I am not familiar with the Iwata HVLP you mention, but it looks good. I was concerned with what appears to be a plastic cup, but one of the reviews says the spray gun actually comes with a metal cup (an important consideration when you use a heat gun). That California Air Tools compressor looks great--definitely a purchase for the future (as you say you are purchasing for the long haul). The big question about HVLP guns, however, is whether the more expensive ones (such as this Iwata) are worth the money. To try out spray guns, I bought a very inexpensive one (it cost all of $47), and it did an adequate job. The coverage was considerably faster than with an airbrush. HVLP guns do use more cocoa butter, sometimes a shocking amount. Some eGullet members (@Chocolot is one) manage to save the oversprayed cocoa butter and reuse it, but I don't have the patience for that. She uses a Fuji, so there is a lot of overspray. I also have a Fuji but, I am sad to admit, no longer use it. It just used so much cocoa butter that even I (ordinarily an extravagant person when it comes to chocolate equipment and materials) was shocked. I was not surprised when a thank-you note for my cocoa butter purchases was tucked into a box from Chef Rubber! There is no question the Fuji is fast, very fast. It does splattering, but the technique requires a lot of experimenting to get it right. It does not do gradients very well. In addition, I found the Fuji cumbersome to use. It is difficult to know when the spray cup is getting low, and every time you check it, you have to remove the hose that supplies pressure to the cup. And, a final consideration for me, the overspray on the top of molds is so pronounced that cleaning off the mold is an onerous procedure. I freely admit that my still-in-the-early-stage skills at coloring molds may come into play in what I say. One possibility for you to see whether you will be happy with an HVLP gun is to buy an inexpensive one, plus the hose and any couplings it requires, and give it a try. You would not be out much more than $50. If you have other questions, I would be happy to share the experiences I have had with spraying molds (most of which are recorded, for better or for worse, in this thread).

The issue of overtempered chocolate is relevant here. If nothing is done to deal with too many crystals, the first shell of the day differs a huge amount from the last one. Since I started dumping my chocolate into a melter and thus recycling it back into the tempering machine (a Chocovision Delta), I have had more success with keeping the chocolate at more or less the same consistency. But without a temper meter (very expensive and--as far as I know--quite time-consuming to use), it's still guesswork.

No such thing as "too fussy" in my book. Thanks for your insights. Although I love the "mouth feel" of thin shells, I too had come to realize that shell thickness is important. But it's very difficult to judge from just looking at the shell. Frankly I had never thought of weighing it. If you have one that is too thin (that is, underweight), do you fill the cavities again and do the whole scraping process a second time?

I have long had a question that is related to the topic of this thread. In tempering, once all the crystals are melted, tempered seed is added (or formed from scratch if hand-tempering) so as to "encourage" Type V crystals to form. The theory is that more and more of them will form, and the chocolate will be "in temper." If I understand the theory correctly, if the chocolate is allowed to cool, the undesirable crystals (I-IV) would ordinarily form, but because there are so many Type V, the others cannot. If this is true, then why (as @wannabechocolatierdescribed) does a poured slab often show obvious signs of not being in temper? Is it the "latent heat of crystallization" that throws the slab out of temper (too thick for the heat to escape), or do Types I-IV somehow manage to form? When I empty out a large bowl of leftover tempered chocolate onto parchment to be saved for another batch, I encounter various outcomes: Sometimes, when the slab is not so thick, the chocolate seems to be perfectly in temper (shiny, no streaks, plenty of snap). Other times the slab becomes bendable, off-color--obviously out of temper. At still other times the slab has a swirly, marble-like pattern but might still have some snap. On the other hand, some manufacturers sell fairly thick bars of chocolate (I often use these as seed), and they are presumably in temper. How do they manage that? Are we in a theoretical, Mark Heim-like area of expertise here? Any ideas?

I will second what others have said about domes. They are also the bane of my chocolate existence. They are beautiful, make decorating with cocoa butter a pleasure, look great after unmolding. That is, if they unmold. Following @Kerry Beal's rule, all shells should be refrigerated after they have begun to crystallize at room temp so as to dissipate the "latent heat of crystallization." When I have filled domes, sealed them, and am ready to unmold them, I leave them in the fridge for a long time, hours even. This idea (thanks @pastrygirl) has helped a great deal. Putting them in the freezer for a few minutes is the last resort, but it usually releases the really stubborn ones. Of course, the "solution" I omitted was to tap them (pound them actually) on the counter--fortunately polycarbonate is very sturdy. Unless I am using a mold that is fairly shallow (demispheres, the so-called quenelles, or flattened domes), I don't have a lot of luck releasing just made empty shells. Experience suggests getting them out is not a reliable indicator of how they will eventually release after being filled. When someone like Andrey Dubovik picks empty shells out and shows off the shine of his decoration, he is almost always using a demisphere. So I would recommend getting some demispheres or molds of shapes other than domes. And for domes, if you can find a mold you like with a design, even a small feature, in the bottom, they will release much better. I just came across Chocolate World 1016 and ordered a lot of them; in preliminary tests, they released without a hitch. Same for a "cinnamon bun" design (Cabrellon 6442)--though Cabrellon molds are difficult to find in the U.S.--bonbons just fall out of the mold. And finally CW 2207--a somewhat flattened dome--is also easier than a non-flattened shape. For a really thorough discussion of the problem of releasing dome molds, you might check out this thread --from 2009, so it's a longstanding issue. In that discussion, it was Kerry who mentioned the fact that domes are so smooth that they "get kind of a suction effect going." I think it's always consoling to see that others, even very talented others, have these same issues. Aside from giving domes more time to contract from the sides of the cavities, I have found only two solutions: always make extras because you will probably lose some of them or find domes with a design in the bottom.

Here's the Youtube link. It's one in the series of Tomric interviews with chocolatiers, and the discussion of the second edition occurs at about the 40-minute mark (you have to ignore the frequent interruptions by his interviewer to get to what Greweling is really saying). Upon rewatching it, I see that he is not quite as negative as I said; he is more subtle and emphasizes how pleased he was with the first edition, referring to mistakes introduced in the second.

Good catch. I checked both editions of the book, and this is an error that crept into the second edition. The first has the correct "less than or equal to" sign in front of 60. No wonder that (in an interview I watched with Greweling) he said he was not thrilled (I'm paraphrasing) with the way the second edition turned out.

When people ask how I got started making chocolates, I always tell them the simple answer is "eGullet." The amount of information people share without cost on this forum is amazing, and I never cease learning more all the time. In the celebratory photo below, all of the items, whether decoration or filling, reflect some of what I have learned here: