Jim D.

The latter. It happens with other colors as well (blues become grayish). I have contacted American Chocolate Designs (information that came from you earlier in this thread), and they are sending me (free) some samples of transfers with red in them. The fact that they didn't answer with something like "Oh, we know about that problem, and with ours, the red stays bright red" suggests these won't work. I've never understood what ChocoTransferSheets does (did?) that made theirs opaque. If they added white to red, it would turn pink. Here is a sample of one of their transfers:

To follow up: I posted my issue on Facebook, and Ruth (@Chocolot) replied that she uses Chef Rubber. And in her photo the reds were really red. I have bought CR transfers in the past, and the red turned brown (on a dark choc background). Perhaps they have changed their method. I'm not sure how I can delicately ask CR (when I want to say: "do your reds still turn brown?")

I just received a notice from ChocoTransferSheets as follows: I had received several notices recently about price reductions in their products, but our warm fall weather discouraged placing an order. It sounds as if reopening of the company is an "iffy" proposition. Of course this is a season when those who use transfer sheets usually stock up for the holidays. ChocoTransferSheets was unique (as far as I was able to determine) in being able to make any color opaque. Reds did not turn dark red/brown but stayed a bright red. I do not know what their secret was, perhaps some use of white that did not distort the displayed color. I have used several other vendors--and have many bags with their non-opaque transfers that I will never use--except perhaps for bonbons molded in white chocolate. Does anyone have suggestions for another source?

Another interesting and delicious-sounding combination. For my "apple crisp," I use a layer of apple pâte de fruit with the usual apple pie spices, then a layer of vanilla buttercream, ending with a crispy layer made from Speculoos cookies. What do you mean by "mixed the crumbs a bit too much"? They lost their crunch? Recently I made a bonbon that called for a cookie layer on top (actually it was your carrot cake bonbon!), but I had filled the cavity too much, so I used my heavy Robot Coupe immersion blender to pulverize the cookie layer more than usual so that it would flatten once piped. This worked, and I didn't detect too much loss of crunch. I think cookie layers in general are tricky to get right--sometimes mine don't firm up enough even though I have done exactly the same thing as I always do. Including clarified butter is an issue: Kalle Jungstedt includes it, but the reality that butter doesn't firm up as much as cocoa butter does means that a layer with butter will always be a little soft--or at least that's my guess.

With the caveat that I don't know the costs involved in shipping chocolate from the U.S. to Canada, I found Supremo, a sugar-free dark chocolate. I have not tasted it, but it is from Felchlin, a company whose dark and milk chocolate I use for my chocolate production. It uses maltitol as its sweetener. Chef Rubber sells a 500g bar for US$8.70, an amazingly low price for Felchlin chocolate. I know Chef Rubber does ship internationally but may have quantity minimums.

That's what melangers.com recommends; I think most people use a food processor. The farther along you go toward a liquid, the easier the melanger will be, but, of course, after a while you might ask the point of having a melanger. In the case of almonds, I process them until a little liquid appears, then let the melanger do the rest.

I see your point. I would not want to work with #4--it has those straight sides that (for me) make domes difficult to use. I can't imagine having the bonbons drop out of that mold without resorting to counter-banging and freezer-popping-into.

And a lot of chocolate these days costs a lot of money. I saw those samples. I don't see ever cleaning them. Isn't there a limit to the insanity of chocolatiers?

I think he meant using a piping bag to make the shells--you know, the way people do it in videos (when they are making just one mold). When filling the mold with a ladle, there is no space between cavities for the chocolate to flow, so most of the extra flows over the edges It's when I turn the mold upside down that the mess becomes really bad. The mold is heavy when it's full, so holding it upside down and scraping it is particularly difficult. 5 x 8 is a bad idea!

@Vojta I didn't photograph a bonbon from the molds I was considering (I made my decision for the Cabrellon and then ate all the examples!). I might be able to get to that after I finish my current batch. The dome labeled #4 in your photo is what CW would call a cone; it looks just like my 17g CW dome. I looked up its weight, and it's the ever-popular 11g. I am not at all surprised by the misbehavior of #5. I have been attracted to it many times and have seen beautiful bonbons come out of it, but that flat bottom is bound to cause the wet circle. That happens with some magnetic molds I use. I would think the only "solution" is to decorate it in such a way that the design disguises the imperfection. #2 is a good example of an extreme flattened dome.

Yes, the Cabrellon is on the right in the photo (I included that info previously but somehow deleted it during editing). When I decided to try to do something about 17g CW domes (CW calls them "cones") sticking in the mold and also allowing colored cocoa butter to stick, I turned to Chocolat Chocolat in Montreal. A staff member there was very helpful, taking lots of photos comparing the various domes. I had read that the tall domes tend to have thin sides near the top of the cavity (the area that later becomes the bottom). Thanks to gravity, the crystallizing chocolate settles in the bottom of the cavity. So I have developed some techniques for leading the chocolate in the problem area to get thicker, and the situation has improved. But it occurred to me that a less tall cavity might alleviate the problem without all the fuss. I already had the CW 2207, which I call a flattened dome, and I am pleased with the bonbons it produces (I do, however, dislike the mold because, to get those 40 cavities, the designer virtually eliminated "margins" around the cavities--and filling the mold always causes a huge mess). But I wanted a larger version of CW 2007. That's what led me to consider having molds custom-made. But what if there is such a mold already available? That's what led me to Chocolat Chocolat and to Cabrellon molds; the Jungstedt mold was also in the mix. Eventually I decided that photos were not enough, so I ordered a smaller version of the same Cabrellon mold and also one of Jungstedt's molds. I made a solid piece of chocolate from each to see what they really produced. I concluded that the flattened domes lean to one direction or another--either they are very close to half-spheres or they are more like CW 2207. The Jungstedt bonbon looked very much like a half-sphere. I have watched Kalle fill these molds, and I don't see how he gets three layers into them. So I leaned toward the 17g Cabrellon 1728 (Chocolat Chocolat had only the 11g version, 6024). I ordered 10 of the 1728 (Cabrellon's minimum order for export), and that is what is in the photo posted earlier. As I said, I am not totally happy with it, but it does accomplish my two goals: it is earlier to unmold, and it doesn't tend to have thin spots in the shell. The only difficulty in filling it is with very viscous ganaches; it's problematic getting an even layer spread around the large diameter of the cavity. Here is the summary info you requested about these molds (all "flattened domes"): Jungstedt's mold: 4 x 7 layout, 11g, 31mm diameter x 18mm tall Cabrellon 6024: 4 x 8 layout, 11g, 29mm diameter x 18mm tall Cabrellon 1728: 4 x 6 layout, 17g, 35mm diameter x 20mm tall Chocolate World 2207: 5 x 8 layout, 14g, 30mm diameter x 19mm tall In your quote from CW for custom molds, you don't include the initial cost for the metal die from which the individual molds are manufactured. The die is the expensive part. If you don't like the flattened domes, then what other design are you thinking of?

So far no customer has complained that the bonbon is too large! That particular filling, by the way, is one I adapted from one of yours. The first layer is rhubarb pâte de fruit (I found some particularly flavorful local rhubarb), the second is yogurt ganache (this time I flavored it with strawberry rather than vanilla), and the third is a toasted oatmeal crumble. Thanks for the recipe--and for all the ideas available on your Instagram page.

The two bonbons in the photo have very different fillings, so weighing them wouldn't help. I intended to fill one cavity of each mold with solid chocolate, but in the rush of finishing the batch, I forgot. I will do it with the next batch.

Finally I had an opportunity to use the 17g Cabrellon flattened dome discussed in this thread and to display it alongside the Chocolate World 17g dome I have been using for quite some time (the Cabrellon is on the right in the photo below). In the photo it hardly seems that both molds have the same capacity. The Cabrellon is a large mold. If I had ordered custom molds, I would have had them made a few millimeters smaller in diameter and a few millimeters taller, but the difference in price between buying this mold vs. having one custom made is, of course, quite substantial. At first the size of the new mold made it look out of place, but since I use molds of many different sizes (including a half-sphere that is only a couple of millimeters smaller), it doesn't seem so odd when it has been placed in a tray. It is more difficult to fill than I expected. I use it for bonbons with multiple layers, and when a layer is one of those ganaches that is quite viscous, it is tricky to spread it over the diameter of the mold before it becomes too thick. As I hoped, bonbons release more easily from the mold (to be expected from its shorter height and slightly sloped sides). All things considered, I am glad I found the mold and have ordered more of them in time for holiday production.

About making dulce de leche. I never felt confident enough to do the submerge a can of sweetened condensed milk in water technique. So I used to pour several cans into a pan and leave it in the oven until it was a rather dark brown. It was delicious, BUT it sometimes took 3-4 hours at 400F. Then I discovered La Lechera dulce de leche. Open a can, add some sea salt, and heat it, and it's ready to go. I cannot tell any difference at all between "homemade" and La Lechera--and there is no risk of DDL on my kitchen ceiling.

I came across this post and realized that I had not updated the idea from @Kerry Beal of pairing Amarula cream liqueur with dates. It has become a hit with customers (not to mention with the chocolatier). I use lemon to counteract some of the dates' sweetness and also add some nutmeg, which seems to have an affinity for Amarula. Amarula has an almost magical relation with Aw--I can add what seem huge quantities of the liqueur, and the water activity reading is 0.72. I had to test it several times before I believed the reading.

I tried the calculator with a recipe today and was very pleased. Admittedly I chose a fairly simple recipe. The ganache has cream and raspberry purée mixed with Valrhona's Framboise and Valrhona's Opalys chocolates. The calculations of percentages of fat, liquid, etc., were close to my own. The most interesting finding to me was the use of sorbic acid. With acidic fillngs I often add a few grams of this acid to retard spoilage. Without sorbic, the app predicted a shelf life of 8 day/30 days; with the acid included, the shelf life increased to 12/44. For the inventor of the calculator: Is this change based simply on adding 5g of a solid to the recipe, or does the app take the action of sorbic acid into consideration? Congratulations on completing the mammoth amount of work involved in tis project.

Tom Sampson recently posted that his effort to develop a device to keep cocoa butter warm while spraying or airbrushing it has progressed. Here is his update: I asked him about the possibility of developing a version for the Fuji or similar spray guns, and he immediately responded by asking me to provide the dimensions of the Fuji cup. The fact that the Fuji is pressurized and has a mandatory screw-on cap seemed problematic to me, but he stated that his device fits on the outside of the cup. I think that most chocolatiers with a Fuji use the small metal 75cc cup, but, as stated in the second quote, Tom is also working on a version of his device for polyurethane cups (which is what I believe Kalle Jungstedt uses in his production facility).

Update on the 17g dome mold: I emailed Cabrellon to see if they would sell me a couple of the molds mentioned earlier in this thread. I heard nothing, so I asked Chocolat Chocolat (CC) if they would go ahead and order 10 of the molds (10 being the minimum Cabrellon will sell them). The contact at CC informed me that Cabrellon is closed for the entire month of August (I think I'm living in the wrong country). CC has ordered 10 of the molds, which should arrive in mid-September. My rationale was that even if I don't end up making these molds my default large dome, I can still use them. And the price is considerably better than custom molds from Micelli. Meanwhile the 17g CW molds used in the August batch have produced better results. It still took some tapping to get everything out, but I didn't lose any bonbons at all, and the shells seemed more substantial (no cracks detected). It's just that it takes a lot of special attention to get the thicker shells required in tall cavities. For the September batch I will try pastrygirl's technique of filling 3-4 molds at a time.

For the 8-lb. machine, the specs are: Minimum capacity 2.5lbs/1kg Maximum capacity 8lbs/3.5kg No, I haven't tried flavored couvertures (you mean something like Valrhona's passion fruit, raspberry, etc.?). Given today's prices, making your own would almost certainly be less expensive--especially if you don't start with a Valrhona couverture! My experience with some of the Valrhona "Inspiration" line suggests a light touch with the flavoring is important. I have "diluted" both the Framboise and Fraise with a substantial amount of white to get a flavor I liked, but the strawberry in particular is excellent.

If you have the 10-lb. tilting melanger, the maximum/minimum numbers are: Minimum capacity 3lbs/1.3kg Maximum capacity 10lbs/4.5kg For small amounts, the micro accessory is recommended, as the large version does not work well with a small quantity. There is a splash guard (did you install that?). From others' reports I expected splashing, but so far I have not had any splashing at all.

I had exactly the same experience the first time I made almond praline paste--very little almond taste. I use blanched almonds, and I toast them. I was quite disappointed until I accepted that almonds need a little help. I had the same reaction to macadamias and cashews, but those nuts don't offer the same solution I found for almond. I discovered a bitter almond oil, and I add that to my finished paste. Your taste will determine how much, but the taste does intensify a little with time. Amazon link. What was your process with caramelizing the sugar? I assume you did it separately from the nuts. I had some difficulty with the caramel getting gummy because of humidity. Eventually (and it took quite some time) the melanger ground up the caramel and the gumminess disappeared. Since you said you made almond paste, I assume you figured out the problem with the center rod. What was the issue?

You bring up what I have always thought is the inappropriateness of judging molds by weight. I suppose it more or less works, but it is really the volume--as you point out--that matters. That's why when I wrote my app to calculate what quantity of a filling I need to fill a given mold, I base it all on volume. I record the volume of each mold in teaspoons and weigh a teaspoon of each filling in grams. It's only an approximation, but it helps.

Ingenious idea, but I don't think it would work. My evidence: On occasions when I have taken molds from the cool room where they were stored and, without thinking, immediately filled them with chocolate to make a shell, the 90F chocolate hitting the 60F mold has caused immediate thickening of the chocolate--and a very thick shell. It might seem logical to heat the chocolate above 90F before pouring into the frozen mold, but much above 90F, and the chocolate goes out of temper--and would come out of the shell only with a chisel (I exaggerate, but not by much).

I do have smaller molds, lots of them. These are the multi-layered ones I am concerned about. I am not good enough at piping to be able to fit three layers into a 12-gram mold. "Raise prices anyway" -- don't let the Consumer Protection Agency find out--you will become the poster child for price gouging. As for chocolate prices, have you given up Felchlin? I didn't think so.