Jim D.

Thanks for the kind words. I have learned so much from eG--and am still learning. Whether the PdF flattens out, depends on how long you cook it, and that is always an experiment, given the different viscosities of fruits. It does not flatten out as a gianduja might, but if you have a narrow opening in the piping bag and hold it close to the shell as you pipe, then raise it quickly as you finish, the PdF does very well at staying where you put it. After all, the only way you could have it self-leveling is if it were 100F or some such temp, and it would have so much liquid that the Aw would be affected (besides melting the shell). But the best part is that after it has set overnight, you can usually take a gloved finger or piece of plastic wrap and flatten it. By the way, I learned from reading a Grewling paper about migration of fats and liquids inside bonbons that if you plan two layers, the PdF should be covered in a layer of cocoa butter before adding another layer.

This is what Pomona's says: BEFORE YOU START JAMMING MAKE CALCIUM WATER! 1. Put 1/2 teaspoon white calcium powder and 1/2 cup water in a small, clear jar with lid. Shake well. 2. Lasts many months in refrigerator. Freeze for long-term storage. Do not discard unless settled white powder discolors or you see mold. Shake well before using. The ingredient list says the package contains monocalcium phosphate. Is that enough to identify it?

The recipe for Pomona's PdF is here: http://www.pomonapectin.com/recipes/jelled-fruit-candy-low-sweetener/ It is based on the recipe for jam and jelly, found here: http://www.pomonapectin.com/directions/ Note that although the PdF recipe says it is "low sweetener," it also calls for the maximum amount of sugar, so I'm not sure why they call it "low." Let's face it: there is no escaping that PdF has a lot of sugar. My version of the recipe is as follows. It is for strawberry because that recipe doesn't use dried fruit and so is simpler. 400g sugar 22g Pomona's pectin 980g strawberry purée 2 tsp. calcium water 44g lemon juice 280g sugar 120g glucose 96g sorbitol In a small bowl whisk together the first amount of sugar and the pectin. Put the purée in a pot and add the calcium water and lemon juice, then bring to a boil. Whisking constantly, add the sugar and pectin mixture to the purée and cook until the mixture returns to a full boil. Remove from heat. Add the second amount of sugar, the glucose, and the sorbitol. Return the pot to the heat. Stir thoroughly to dissolve the sugar. Bring the mixture to a full boil, stirring constantly. Boil for about 1-2 minutes, then remove from heat. To test for thickness, put a small amount of the mixture on a plate, place in the refrigerator, and test after a few minutes. If the mixture seems to be too thick, add some liquid, then bring back to the boil. If it seems too thin, boil for another minute. This adjusting can be performed even after the PdF has cooled. Alternatively, if the PdF seems too thick when it is cool enough to pipe, it can be loosened with a whisk or immersion blender. Any additional flavoring (such as fruit compound or liquor) can be added when the PdF is beginning to cool.

I think I wasn't completely clear: Pomona's recipe for PdF still calls for about the same amount of sugar as a traditional one (it calls for doubling the amount specified for jams and jellies). The recipe I am using substitutes sorbitol for some of the sugar, thus lowering the perceived sweetness. I also use the optional lemon juice (regardless of pectin content of the fruit) in all recipes because it too counteracts the sweetness. It's mostly the extra fruit flavor that attracts me to Pomona's. Did you want me to PM you the official Pomona's recipe for PdF or what I use in my recipes?

I guess you do need to make the same ganache with the traditional method. As I described elsewhere recently, I keep my chocolate in temper as I make the ganache, so (according to the theory at least) it is crystallizing almost from the beginning (Greweling recommends making ganache with tempered chocolate). All that said, however, I have certainly had the issue you had--a ganache that is too thick to pipe properly by the time it gets to the proper temp. I consider it a good day when the ganache self-levels.

Beautiful dessert you made. It's difficult to tell the texture from a photo. Certainly the Pomona's people think their pectin is low-methoxyl--that's what they call it. And its final texture depends on how long you cook it (and how much pectin you have added, of course). Their recipe for PdF calls for doubling the amount of pectin as is used for jelly. I have made traditional PdF, and I am unable to tell the difference between that and one made with Pomona's, but that may be my lack of subtlety. In making a pipeable PdF I am aiming for something softer than the traditional PdF. And, in my humble opinion, the short cooking time of a Pomona's pectin recipe maintains more fruit flavor. And then there is not having to have a refractometer.

Pomona's is quite reversible. It can be reheated to increase its firmness, or liquid can be added to decrease it, and it will still jell. In my recipes a tsp. or less calcium water is required. I don't know whether that can be considered a lot more calcium since I don't know the other low methoxyl pectins you are describing.

You are describing Pomona's pectin. That's exactly what I use for pipeable PdF--just made some strawberry a few days ago.

What was it like after sitting overnight? It it's extremely firm, you could add more liquid to the recipe to help a bit. The puzzle is that Greweling recommends a ratio of 2:1 dark chocolate to liquefier, so you are way beyond that in the amount of liquefier.

@Rajala, if you check the previous thread on pipeable pâte de fruit, you will see various approaches to this goal. Kate Weiser appears to be the champ at accomplishing this (I bought a box of her chocolates, all pâte de fruit fillings, to check her out, and they were delicious). I don't know what technique she uses (I see that she teaches classes on her techniques, but Dallas is a bit far to travel for me). The method I now use is with Pomona's pectin, a low-methoxyl pectin. I include a recipe on the page to which I linked above. I have found, after dozens of times, that--in my opinion--the greatly reduced amount of cooking time allows the fruit flavor to come through much better. This is a forgiving pectin--if it ends up not firm enough, you can reheat it and cook it for a little longer. I have played around with the amount of pectin and have made a few "refinements" to the recipe I posted there. It is pipeable and can be flattened out with piping technique. The big issue with using pâte de fruit in a bonbon is the water activity, which tends to be high because of the liquid necessary to make it pipeable (whether you leave liquid in by taking the PdF off the stove early or add liquid to liquefy it later). I was inspired to experiment by, among other things, this quote from Michael Laiskonis: So my technique uses sorbitol to get the necessary solids to reduce the Aw (it has the added benefit of being less sweet than sucrose). If a person has objections to using sorbitol, then this method will not work. I also add to the solids by supplementing fruit purée with some of the same fruit dried (if it exists). I have done this with apricot, cherry, and pear.

Yes, I still have some. Send me a personal message telling me how many you would like, plus your email address and shipping address. I'll send you an invoice from Paypal. Jim

Makes sense. I don't specifically temper chocolate for ganache. I start with tempered chocolate from the bag and melt it slowly over hot water (it doesn't require much attention during this) until most is melted, then remove it from heat and stir, using the unmelted pieces as the seed. It never really falls out of temper. As I am sure you know, this is one of Greweling's methods. As for your question as to why the Valrhona method didn't work this time: You said this was your first white chocolate ganache, so I would guess the chocolate is the factor. I have had many disasters with white chocolate in ganaches--disasters until I added more liquid (usually mixing in drops of skim milk or liquor or even water). This separation regularly happens with Notter's lime ganache--when the small amount of cream and melted white chocolate are mixed. Then magically, when the lime juice is mixed in, it all comes together smoothly. I used to have attacks of "ganache separation panic" when the mess appeared; now I just reach for the skim milk or liquor bottle and make a note that I need to adjust that recipe a bit. I should add that the white chocolate I use (Valrhona's Opalys) seems especially prone to this problem.

I was about to do the same (that's what the eGullet instructions said to do--post on the most appropriate forum), but I guess this new forum was established for classifieds.

I know about the Valrhona method (with the liquefier and the chocolate at roughly the same temp), but I'm not sure why you would choose to follow it. Is there some advantage? "Normal" recipes (as in Greweling and Notter) call for having the liquids at a higher temp; the separation does not happen (or if it does, as I have had occur with white chocolate ganaches, it means there is too much fat and a little more liquid solves the problem). There is some disagreement about how warm the liquid should be; I myself don't follow the method of having the liquid very hot or even boiling. But I would be interested in knowing any benefit to the "Valrhona method."

I did report back, but in the marshmallow thread. I now have piped marshmallow that will work (based largely on the strawberry marshmallow recipe in RecipeGullet). When I am using a marshmallow layer, I let it set, then brush on some melted cocoa butter to insulate the layer (or that's the hope), then put something else on top. I think coated feuilletine would also work. I have doctored Notter's lime recipe so that it sets up a little more, but it's still quite fluid.

As they are by definition dry, I don't think they would add any moisture whatever to the filling, so the water activity (Aw) is unlikely to be affected. The biggest culprits in my experience are with ganaches that have too high a proportion of cream to chocolate and with what are essentially water ganaches, where a fruit purée is substituted for cream.

I assume you are using a brush to mingle the colors (perhaps the "dusting" brushes you referred to?). That means you apply the colors quite quickly and mingle them just as quickly before they crystallize. So you keep all the colors (you referred to various shades of yellow) ready at once? That is quite a feat unless you have a way to keep them all heated to the appropriate temperature. I use a heating pad, but its temperature is not reliable. I know some use yogurt makers. P.S. I'm glad my demisphere molds are being put to such beautiful use! You inspire me.

Her work is very impressive. Take a look at her Easter eggs. Her flavor combinations are also intriguing. However she achieves the pastel water color effect (my guess is paintbrush with a very light touch--maybe using some of the "opaque" cocoa butter colors that contain white coloring), I imagine she uses a lot of white chocolate in her work.

I agree with you about the shapes. There are very few that hold enough for two bites--and that is the kind of chocolates I try to make. The familiar scalloped circle is one, and the rectangle with cut-off edges is another. I can tell you that the plain one I have (a cube), which is quite small, does not unmold well--it tends to show release marks much more than other molds. I don't know whether that is a result of the plainness or perhaps my lack of skill. I have used the Chocolate World oval and teardrop shapes, and they make a larger piece than many others. I have had a non-magnetic mold made, and I can tell you that if you could find someone to make a magnetic one, you would pay an astronomical amount of money, given how much more expensive magnetic molds are than the others. The tooling fees are what get you; the individual mold cost is not that bad--but just imagine the tooling involved in a magnetic mold.

I guess I'm not concerned about the appendages at this point--but probably would be when I got around to production. I assumed it would require gluing.

I have a recipe (from an ancient Bon Appétit) that calls for making truffles from (sweetened) cream of coconut, chopped macadamias, white chocolate, dark rum, lime zest, and toasted coconut flakes. Sounds a bit similar to what you are thinking of.

@Kerry Beal, is the frog mold a Chocolate World one or ... ? I have not made any 3-D figures so far. What is the level of difficulty? the rough percentage of failures? I ask because the process looks as if it would be difficult. The city where I live has an annual Harry Potter festival that attracts thousands of people. I know practically nothing about Harry Potter but have been told by someone connected with the festival that frogs are very important in Harry's world; she suggested that, having seen the amount of money parents were throwing around last year on all sorts of stuff for their kids (including some cheaply made candy frogs), they would pay virtually any price for anything connected with frogs, especially with good chocolate involved. I suspect the cost of frog molds would virtually wipe out any profits, but it's worth a little exploring. Alternatively you could bring down a batch and get rich yourself.

The latest from Jess is that she wants more molds and will probably pick them up. The problem with the flat rate boxes is that, with fairly light-weight items and short distances, flat rate costs considerably more than just priority mail. I learned this from (expensive) experience with shipping chocolates. I shipped a box flat rate weighing a little more 1 lb. to Canada, and it cost around $60--twice what it would have been if I hadn't used the flat-rate box. I have now bought some boxes so that I can ship lighter items non-flat rate. I know, this is irrelevant information in terms of shipping molds, but thought it might be interesting to others.

Just to let you know: I just finished packing 4 molds to go to Wisconsin, and shipping (Priority Mail) was $14.15.

As luck would have it, tikidoc does. She is tentatively planning to pick hers up at my house on a trip to Kentucky. If she has hers mailed instead, the shipping is low as she is not far away--a rough calculation was about $12 for 5-6 molds (depending on how many boxes it takes to fit them). I am so glad that you are ordering some. I was worried that you didn't have enough molds already!