Jim D.

I did let the coconut stand overnight, and it appeared somewhat firm. When I started to cut it, however, I saw that it was still quite soft underneath the crust that had formed. I would love to see Greweling make this confection; the sample in his book is perfect. It does seem to me that getting the caramel just right is quite difficult.

I am responding to an older post (6 years!) as I know the forum doesn't like new threads started when there are old ones on the same topic. In any case I tried Greweling's cocomels today--without success. I cooked the caramel to the prescribed temp and also tested it, but it got too hard. I melted it down, added some cream, and got the temp more or less right as the caramel was firm but still pliable. The coconut mixture was sticky, but seemed OK. When I tried to cut the slab into bars, however, nothing went right. Oiling the knife (as recommended) did no good. The two layers got too distorted to look at all right. So I quickly decided to form a "patty" shape with the caramel (now with its chocolate foot) on the outside, the coconut on the inside. They looked OK (or so I thought). I dipped them in dark chocolate, and slowly but surely most of the patties developed pinholes through which droplets of either caramel or coconut were oozing. This got worse as I watched. The pieces were delicious (though quite sweet), but completely unpresentable. I quickly whipped up an alternate chocolate that includes both caramel and coconut, but molded so that I don't have to deal with shaping and dipping. What I am interested in getting some advice about is the fact that the pinholes developed. I am fairly certain the dipping chocolate was tempered properly. The interiors appeared to be covered completely. I know that coconut can interact with dark chocolate, but I understand that the reaction takes some time, whereas this happened immediately. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

I sometimes use Mycryo, and it works quite well. It does make me question (as I have written before) the great variation in the amount of seed recommended (all the way from Callebaut's 1% to others who specify as much as 1/3 of the total amount of chocolate used). Mycryo is very convenient if you need a specific amount of chocolate tempered, for example, for a slabbed ganache. When you use seed chocolate instead, you may need to take the extra step of weighing out the final amount of chocolate called for in the recipe. I find that Mycryo is sometimes difficult to dissolve completely as it is not supposed to be added until the chocolate is at a fairly low temp (in the case of dark, between 93 and 96 F.); an immersion blender is perfect for this task.

In the case of dark chocolate, warming helped earlier this week, but it's disturbing that I had just 6 molds to do and the thickening started after only a couple. In the case of white (the temperamental--to me--Opalys again), it can't be warmed as much, and it got close to the point of being just a blob with no room for ganache. I'm going to try keeping some chocolate out and warming it to melt all crystals, then cool to around 84-86 and add as the chocolate in the tempering machine gets low. This is an idea I have read a lot about on The Chocolate Life and from other sources as well. I have got to conquer this issue.

The amount of seed that is recommended varies hugely from one authority to another. Some say 1/3 of the total amount (which can be a lot), some say much less. As I am having overtempering problems as I use the chocolate, I am now leaning toward a fairly small amount of seed. Do you have any guidelines (for me and for the OP as well)? Like you, I always test before I start using. To the OP: I wouldn't recommend succumbing to the temptation of using candy melt/confectionary coating. The taste is hugely different.

Thanks for all the replies on washing down the caramel pot (or not). People certainly have many different approaches to making caramel. Tri2Cook, it sounds as if the cooking gods have been smiling down on you all these years. I can contribute one anecdote to your "cooking heresies that work" compilation: Once I got a few drops of water in melting chocolate, and it was fine. (Now I have put a curse on my future chocolatiering!) About caramel, I do find that if I want a lighter caramel (for example, one that won't overwhelm a delicate flavor such as apple), a wet approach is the only one that works for me.

I am interested in knowing whether people wash down the sides of the pot as the caramel cooks (regardless of whether it starts as wet or dry). I always do--just in case--but I have noticed that recipes in the books of major chocolate experts don't mention it. One time I didn't succeed, and the sugar hardened on the sides of the pot, and after I added the heated cream, it took so long to dissolve the sugar that the caramel got much too dark.

To the OP: If you have Andrew Shotts's Making Artisan Chocolates, he has a recipe that he calls "Red Rose," which calls for adding raspberry purée to dark chocolate, plus "2 to 4 drops culinary-grade rose petal oil or rose water." I've made it and it's delicious. I used rose water. Of course I was adding it to a chocolate ganache after the emulsion has been achieved. I don't what might happen if you added it to plain chocolate (it's possible, of course, as gfron1 wrote, to make a water ganache), but you might want to look for the oil to be safe. I did find that the rose water comes through even dark chocolate; it adds a mysterious taste that most people can't readily identify.

If I read correctly, the OP is talking about making the equivalent of Valrhona's Dulcey from scratch, not from white chocolate. Other posters have written about making caramelized white chocolate from already existing white chocolate. There are several recipes for the latter on the Web: There is this one from David Lebovitz, another from Joe Pastry (this recipe includes photos of the varying stages of caramelization), and yet another from Food52 (this recipe supposedly from Valrhona itself).

I should add to what I wrote previously that using Notter's method when you have two layers of ganache can make the layers uneven in height (because the foot takes up some of the space in the bottom layer). Therefore I bought bars 3/8" high for the bottom layer (still using 1/4" for the top layer), and the layers come out close to even. If you use Greweling's method, this is not an issue as the foot is added on top of the two layers.

I would be afraid of putting the guitar in the dishwasher. Aren't you concerned about breaking the wires, or am I too cautious? The thought of replacing a wire gives me nightmares.

I don't worry too much about the temp of the chocolate used for the foot. Recently I spread some dark chocolate, and the way it set up immediately with a nice gloss made me realize it was probably in temper. Sure enough, it cracked under nearly every piece--which is not always a tragedy since it will be covered when you dip, but it can cause an undesired lumpiness on the bottom. So now I do make sure the chocolate is well above the tempering temp. I wait until it dries and then spread the ganache, though I found the idea expressed by danield of spreading sooner intriguing. About the guitar: It is a bit faster than cutting with a knife, but the main advantage I have found is the perfect "squareness" of the pieces and their sharp edges, which I was never able to attain with a knife. They turn out much nicer after they are dipped than pieces cut by hand (at least by my hand). I must say, however, that breaking the wires frightens me (see Chocolot's comment above). A few days ago I made William Curley's coconut bars, which were rather sticky--and, more to the point, had toasted desiccated coconut that did not like the guitar wires. I got about halfway through the slab when I realized I was in trouble. Once I rescued the slab (a very messy story), I went back to my trusty knife--and spent a long time cleaning the wires. Lesson learned. If you are a professional, I think a guitar should be on your wish list. I am not a professional, so it was an extravagance for me. One additional reason I use Notter's spread-the-foot-first method: Putting a ganache down first means you have to trust that it will separate cleanly from the parchment/acetate beneath it. Some ganaches are quite sticky when they are first poured, so that has made me apprehensive and also made me glad there is a firm layer of chocolate beneath that ganache.

I use the Notter method, though most people, I think, use Greweling's. The advantages you point out for Notter's are what swayed me: I lay the foot down first (heated to maybe 110F or more, enough so that it's definitely not in temper). It doesn't thicken immediately (as you say), and, more importantly, it doesn't crack nearly as readily when it is cut. You say that it is streaked, but it doesn't matter what it looks like as it will never be seen. Putting the foot down first makes a great anchor for the bars. I draw lines around where the bars are supposed to go with food-safe pen (I have a template I place under the acetate), get the bars out of the way in order to spread the foot, then lay the bars on top (I use stainless steel bars I had cut). I used to use parchment (which worked perfectly with this method--it doesn't make any difference if it crinkles a bit), now I use acetate, but there isn't a lot of difference I noticed. I formerly cut the pieces as you do, but recently splurged on a guitar, and the acetate makes the slab a bit easier to slide onto the stainless support that comes with the guitar.

I have been working on a recipe for a chocolate chip cookie truffle and have come up with something that works. Many thanks to Pastrygirl for her suggestions to use Valrhona Dulcey chocolate and molasses to try to duplicate the flavor of the cookie. I would be interested in having any suggestions for improvement and for increasing shelf life. Notes: You could use white chocolate instead of Dulcey, perhaps adding more molasses to compensate for the loss of the "brown sugar" taste. Milk chocolate might work, but I have not tried it. For the chocolate chips, you can purchase good-quality dark chocolate chips or (as I did) just chop dark chocolate into appropriately sized pieces. The dipped truffles could be decorated with cocoa nibs or chopped dark chocolate instead of the chopped pecans I used. I considered adding glucose for extended shelf life, but it would have added undesired (to me) sweetness; I do not know whether molasses helps with shelf-life issues. Others may question my tempering of the Dulcey. I did so out of caution as I have had frequent issues with white chocolate separating when using the usual "pour hot cream over chocolate" method of making a ganache. The recipe is based on one found on the website of Ecole Chocolat. CHOCOLATE CHIP COOKIE TRUFFLES 100g pecans (or other nuts) 70g dark chocolate (or dark chocolate chips) 60g butter 150g heavy cream 1 vanilla bean 300g Valrhona Dulcey chocolate 20g molasses Toast the pecans, then chop into small pieces. Remove 80g for use in the truffles, then chop the remaining 20g into smaller pieces to use for decorating the finished truffles. Chop the dark chocolate into pieces approximately the size of chocolate chips. Brown the butter in a pot, then cool to room temperature. Scrape the vanilla seeds into the cream, add the pod, then heat in a pot to approximately 84F/29C. Temper the Dulcey to 84F/29C. Remove the vanilla pod from the cream, then slowly mix the cream into the Dulcey to make an emulsion (an immersion blender is recommended). Mix in the browned butter (include the browned bits if you wish), then the molasses. Add the 80g of coarsely chopped pecans and the chopped dark chocolate. Chill the mixture, then roll into balls and dip in dark chocolate. While the truffles are still wet, decorate with the finely chopped pecans (cocoa nibs or chopped chocolate may be used instead). Makes approximately 36 truffles (each 1 inch in diameter and weighing 14-15g).

Thanks for the further information about how to maintain crispness; I hadn't thought of a praliné or gianduja layer but will definitely give that a try.

Very impressive. I am curious about the "puffed rice." I wonder if it is what in the U.S. we call puffed rice (which is not particularly crisp) or what we have as Rice Krispies. In any case, does it retain its texture (crunchy or otherwise) in the ganache? My experience with ingredients like feuilletine is that they become soggy unless steps are taken (such as encasing them in chocolate or cocoa butter).

I am adding my question on making a "dry caramel" to this thread as the subject came up earlier--earlier meaning 2007 in this case! When making a dry caramel (just sugar and glucose), does one have to be concerned with washing down the crystals that form on the sides of the pan? I know this is common practice with a "wet caramel." I have found that by the time I have eliminated as many crystals as possible from the sides of the pan, the caramel has gotten too dark. I end up labeling my ganache "burnt caramel" out of necessity. In the case of an apple caramel, I want a caramel that is fairly light in color (and taste) so as not to mask the apple flavor. So do I just not worry about the sugar crystals, hoping they will be melted when the heated cream is added? Or if it is necessary to keep washing down the sides, how do I get a light caramel? Thanks for any help.

Anna, If the information is handy, could you let me know the issue of CI in which this appeared? I've been using a recipe from the Fannie Farmer cookbook, but the results are erratic and the flavor is rather plain. Thanks.

I have been making the Cook's Illustrated Mostly-No-Knead Bread for some time--the first rise is 18 hours or more, then after a quick folding and slight kneading, the second rise is in a bowl lined with parchment, so that the loaf can easily be transferred to the 500F. preheated pot with cover. Oven temp is lowered to 425F., bread is baked for 30 minutes, then cover is removed, and baking continues for 15-20 min. until the internal temp of the loaf is around 200F. I remove the loaf from the pot and cool it on a rack. The taste is acceptable, and the look of the outside is beautiful. But when I cut the bread, it does not have that crackle that it looks as if it will have. It's actually difficult to cut, as the exterior of the loaf is quite flexible. I think I recall that this same recipe produced a loaf with a crunchy exterior some time ago, and I am not aware of any changes I have made. The second baking period lasted only about 15 minutes yesterday, the loaf had reached 200F., and I didn't want to overbake. Is it possible I am just not leaving it in the oven long enough and the bread is therefore softening as it sits? Any suggestions would be appreciated.

I've never found I had to toss out extra crème anglaise. The reference to mayo is in From Julia's Kitchen. Let us know how the soufflé turns out. The best lessons I learned from JC are how to fix things that go wrong. Of course, the crème anglaise will thin out the soufflé base eventually, but since it is thickened by eggs, I would think it would take longer.

You might try heating the mixture very gently while whisking and adding drops of milk to thin it out. Julia Child says it should be the consistency of "a heavy mayonnaise." Unless you need a lot of liquid to do the thinning, I would not bother making crème anglaise for this purpose. As you probably already know, when it's time to add the egg whites, stir in some to lighten the mixture (which should also help with your problem), then fold in the rest (again, all per JC).

Chocomom, Thanks for the links and other help. I appreciate your advice and will give the apple a try. You wrote about using boiled cider. That is basically what the cider jelly is that I mentioned earlier--cider boiled until it thickens (the only ingredient is "apple cider"). Of course it has a somewhat cooked taste, so it's possible it needs a dash of fresh apple purée (or citric acid, often recommended by Kerry Beal on this forum). Jim

Chocomom, I hope you don't mind my asking more questions: I have been working on an apple filling for some time, and also I looked at the Shotts recipe. What did you use for the apple flavoring that he calls for? Others have said that it is difficult to locate. Getting the apple flavor has been a hurdle; purée alone just doesn't make it through the chocolate taste. Another poster here uses cider jelly, and I have bought some of that to try (in an apple caramel). Of course, I agree that cinnamon is (at least for an American) suggestive of apple--there is another thread here that explores other options to go with apple. So can an impartial taster really taste apple in the filling you made? The mold has to be one that has a more or less flat top to be able to add the colored almonds, so that is another issue. On the subject of pumpkin, this is also something I have worked on a lot. I used Peter Greweling's pumpkin caramel ganache, and it was delicious but seemed to be dominated by the caramel. Then I found an Epicurious recipe that was more creamy, and I have now more or less combined the two approaches. I use white chocolate, which lets the pumpkin and spice flavors come through, then mold the filling in milk chocolate (I have been using E. Guittard Orinoco). I must say it tastes just like pumpkin pie (not that dark gluey kind, but a light creamy one). I like large molds, so I'll look for that one you used for the pumpkin. Thanks for your replies.

Chocomom, They are beautiful. So tell us what's inside. Is the top one by any chance Andrew Shotts's candy apple flavor? Looks a lot like it. I also like the shape of the bottom one. Can you tell us where you purchased the mold?

Here's a recipe using fondant: http://www.saveur.com/article/Recipes/Peppermint-Patties And here's one from Epicurious.com: http://www.epicurious.com/recipes/food/views/Peppermint-Patties-240935 (this one calls for tempering the chocolate)