5 hours ago, Thanks for the Crepes said:I can read it fine by right clicking on pbear's posted image in the thread and selecting "open in a new tab". My eyes aren't as good as they used to be though, and it is pretty small print.
FWIW, I read the 4up version with a magnifying glass myself. But it's a handier size for keeping on the wall. The text size for the regular version (second link) is pretty easy, I think.
4 hours ago, Michael Ohene said:.nice pbear, this seems to be a good cooking equivalents. Am I correct? I did not see wheat germ, almond paste, or different size of eggs. This is good to true up my equivalents. Also, I liked the fact you used a realistic figure for all purpose flour (132g/cup) as opposed to 120g/cup
Wheat germ is there (88g per cup); it's just that it's listed under flour. Whether to group related items was a difficult decision because it leads to problems like this. I went with grouping because it helps see patterns. Also, the recipes have the conversions already calculated, so it's not like someone has to find this entry to cook the dish. Neither of the other two come up in my recipes and, so, didn't make the list.
3 hours ago, liuzhou said:For all the reasons given here, it is impossible for any volume to weight conversion to be "accurate". Too may variables.
Anyway, I very seldom need a conversion, so I don't need a chart. I avoid all recipes that work in Fahrenheit and cups etc.
I am 100% metric in my daily life and have no need of antediluvian, illogical systems.
I do dual measures for two reasons. First, they help give a sense of scale. Even if I at some point flip priority and lead with metric in my recipes (for the time being, it's the other way round), pretty sure I'll always retain volume for that reason. Second, I share recipes with folks who mostly aren't accustomed to working by weight. It's a cookbook, not a polemic. 
