Inter-Library Loan ( wasRe: Fwd: RE: SC - Portuguese Cookbook)

Wed Mar 7 16:54:29 PST 2001

- --============_-1228114021==_ma============
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"

>  > It is our recipe from the Miscellany, except that someone has
>>  changed "crush" into "boil" at the beginning.
>>  --
>>  David/Cariadoc
>
>Ah.  Then may I ask how you chose that particular thickness? 
>Because my first reaction, when looking at the recipe, was to think
>of something like thin pastry dough.  I have no reason to think that
>mine is the more correct interpretation, but I'd like to know how you
>arrived at yours.

Elizabeth's opinion, and mine, is that we don't do them as thick as 
the recipe says--perhaps 1/4 inch or a bit less. Either the figure in 
the recipe is a typo or we did it that way originally, later 
modified, and never got around to changing the recipe.

As for why we did the thickness we did, my guess is that we tried it 
at that thickness and liked how it came out. The original says " fair 
thin cakes," and I guess we assumed it would have been "foil" or some 
similar term if it was really rolled out thin. Done that way they 
puff up quite nicely.

>Or to broaden the question further, how do you decide on sizes,
>measurements, etc., when working with an original recipe that
>says something vague like "thin" "small" or "enough"?

There are a number of different ways. Sometimes we find a modern 
recipe that is similar enough to give us a first guess. For example, 
when I was working out Hulwa, the crucial question was to what 
temperature you were boiling the sugar syrup (which is then stirred 
into beaten egg whites to give a thick white cream called "natif," 
which is in turn combined with chopped nuts etc. and then rapidly 
hardens). I don't have much experience with candy making, so I went 
through a modern cookbook and discovered that the process for making 
divinity was very similar. So I tried the temperature that the 
divinity recipe called for and it worked.

On other occasions, it's trial and error. I've done gingerbrede with 
a range of ratios of breadcrumbs to honey. What we have listed is 
about the lowest amount of breadcrumbs that yields a reasonably solid 
product after it cools.

You should not assume that the instructions in our recipes are the 
only way that works, or the best. Most of the time, we stop when we 
get one way that works reasonably well. That's probably true of many 
other people's worked out recipe as well.
- -- 
David/Cariadoc
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
- --============_-1228114021==_ma============
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { margin-top: 0 ; margin-bottom: 0 }
 --></style><title>Re: Redacting ( was Re: SC - losenges fryes/potage
of</title></head><body>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> It is our recipe from the
Miscellany, except that someone has<br>
> changed "crush" into "boil" at the
beginning.<br>
> --<br>
> David/Cariadoc<br>
<br>
Ah.  Then may I ask how you chose that particular
thickness? <br>
Because my first reaction, when looking at the recipe, was to
think<br>
of something like thin pastry dough.  I have no reason to think
that<br>
mine is the more correct interpretation, but I'd like to know how
you</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>arrived at yours.</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>Elizabeth's opinion, and mine, is that we don't do them as thick
as the recipe says--perhaps 1/4 inch or a bit less. Either the figure
in the recipe is a typo or we did it that way originally, later
modified, and never got around to changing the recipe.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>As for why we did the thickness we did, my guess is that we
tried it at that thickness and liked how it came out. The original
says "<font color="#000000"> fair thin cakes</font>," and I
guess we assumed it would have been "foil" or some similar
term if it was really rolled out thin. Done that way they puff up
quite nicely.</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Or to broaden the question further, how
do you decide on sizes,<br>
measurements, etc., when working with an original recipe
that</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>says something vague like
"thin" "small" or "enough"?</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>There are a number of different ways. Sometimes we find a modern
recipe that is similar enough to give us a first guess. For example,
when I was working out Hulwa, the crucial question was to what
temperature you were boiling the sugar syrup (which is then stirred
into beaten egg whites to give a thick white cream called
"natif," which is in turn combined with chopped nuts etc.
and then rapidly hardens). I don't have much experience with candy
making, so I went through a modern cookbook and discovered that the
process for making divinity was very similar. So I tried the
temperature that the divinity recipe called for and it worked.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>On other occasions, it's trial and error. I've done gingerbrede
with a range of ratios of breadcrumbs to honey. What we have listed
is about the lowest amount of breadcrumbs that yields a reasonably
solid product after it cools.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>You should not assume that the instructions in our recipes are
the only way that works, or the best. Most of the time, we stop when
we get one way that works reasonably well. That's probably true of
many other people's worked out recipe as well.</div>

<div>-- <br>
David/Cariadoc<br>
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/</div>
</body>
</html>
- --============_-1228114021==_ma============--