ronnie_suburban wrote:

Roger Ramjet wrote:wouldn't the point of a class be to teach techniques? why would a teacher use $$$ ingredients in that context?

The same ingredients were used for the classes and in the products being sold in the shop.

=R=

Let us now praise disappointing cheap ingredients, then ...


"both delicious and beautiful"

"gelato [tastes] exactly like a high quality piece of dark chocolate ... It's wonderful."

"excellent texture and bold flavors ... these are the best."

"one of the least expensive high end chocolatiers ... they provide great value."

"much, much better than more expensive brands like Vosges and Coco Rouge."

bnowell724 wrote:

ronnie_suburban wrote:

Roger Ramjet wrote:wouldn't the point of a class be to teach techniques? why would a teacher use $$$ ingredients in that context?

The same ingredients were used for the classes and in the products being sold in the shop.

=R=

Do you know what brand of chocolate he used? If it was really a terrible quality then that makes his product more impressive to me- his chocolates were beautiful and really tasty.

I can't remember but the chocolate was pretty good. It was the fillings I thought were pretty low grade.

Roger Ramjet wrote:wouldn't the point of a class be to teach techniques? why would a teacher use $$$ ingredients in that context?

At $200 a head for the class, I see no legitimate reason to skimp on ingredients.

=R=

I guess now I know why the gelato I've had around here never impressed me that much.

Why would a food establishment have to use a pre-made ice cream base if they don't have pasteurization equipment? Can't they use pasteurized cream or milk?
Is it really the case that a restaurant can't take cream or milk and make it's own ice cream?

Jonah

Jonah wrote:Why would a food establishment have to use a pre-made ice cream base if they don't have pasteurization equipment? Can't they use pasteurized cream or milk?
Is it really the case that a restaurant can't take cream or milk and make it's own ice cream?

Jonah

That would make a whole lot of sense, but the state has decided that's not good enough. Not only did Nice Cream use pasteurized milk and cream, they also heated their base on the stove high enough and long enough to meet pasteurization standards. That was not acceptable. They were also told that the smallest pasteurizer that met the state's minimum requirements was a $10,000 machine, when there are many smaller, reliable pasteurizers that are much less expensive.

And Ronnie, you are absolutely right about the fillings of Michael's chocolates. The chocolate is fine, but he's definitely using artificial flavorings for fruit if nothing else. I tried them when I first started my company in 2006, and was actually pretty impressed. I don't know if it's my palate that's changed or his products, but I didn't like any of them when I had a few earlier this year. He also charges close to what my cost is for one piece, so that's a red flag to me too.

Ingredients can make a difference to chocolate making...but not always as I learned visiting the kitchen/factory of the one of the top small chocolatiers on the east coast.

The quality of the couvature absolutely makes a difference and there is no way to recover from a mid-grade couvature.

Similarly, the quality of the couvature for a ganache makes a difference...but other ganache flavorings may make no difference. For example, if the ganache is rum or whiskey flavored a very high-grade and expensive liquor will not provide a taste benefit over a cheap liquor. Same with tea, coffee and many other flavors. (I was shocked by what was being used)

Non ganache bon bon fillings are a different matter. Many, many chocolatiers -- the very best -- use off-the-shelf products out of the can or jar for their fillings. They typically flavor a bit to shape the flavor profile into one that is theirs. Like adding chili to a citrus jelly. The good version of these canned chocolate fillings come from Europe...Belgium and France...and common folk can't buy them.

Truffles are done from scratch with the finest chocolate, butter, cream and other ingredients. One would hope.

At the end of day, I was told, it's all about the final product. Texture, thickness of chocolate coating (thin is better), bright chocolate flavor, not too sugary, etc., etc.

auxen1 wrote:Ingredients can make a difference to chocolate making...but not always as I learned visiting the kitchen/factory of the one of the top small chocolatiers on the east coast.

The quality of the couvature absolutely makes a difference and there is no way to recover from a mid-grade couvature.

Similarly, the quality of the couvature for a ganache makes a difference...but other ganache flavorings may make no difference. For example, if the ganache is rum or whiskey flavored a very high-grade and expensive liquor will not provide a taste benefit over a cheap liquor. Same with tea, coffee and many other flavors. (I was shocked by what was being used)

Non ganache bon bon fillings are a different matter. Many, many chocolatiers -- the very best -- use off-the-shelf products out of the can or jar for their fillings. They typically flavor a bit to shape the flavor profile into one that is theirs. Like adding chili to a citrus jelly. The good version of these canned chocolate fillings come from Europe...Belgium and France...and common folk can't buy them.

Truffles are done from scratch with the finest chocolate, butter, cream and other ingredients. One would hope.

At the end of day, I was told, it's all about the final product. Texture, thickness of chocolate coating (thin is better), bright chocolate flavor, not too sugary, etc., etc.

I think this was more acceptable 10-20 years ago. Don't get me wrong - the majority of chocolatiers are using extracts, flavorings, and oils to get a flavor without the labor of actually processing the base ingredient from scratch. If they are using fruit, most of them are using frozen puree from Sysco or similar - 80-90% fruit, then sugar and water to create a consistent product so they don't have to modify their recipes with each batch.

Those are fine chocolatiers, and some have long been considered the best, but more and more I believe we are starting to hold chocolatiers to the same standards that we do for the rest of the food industry. If we are going to pay premium prices, we want the absolute best flavor. If you pay $12 for a cocktail, you want fresh basil and cucumber (for example), not a frozen puree and an oil, correct? In some cases, it's definitely not a pricy ingredient, however in many cases it is. For instance, a strawberry puree or strawberry "filling" is not at all like the early summer berries you can get from local farmers. It's sure a lot more work to process them, but the flavor is incomparable. Grinding fresh coffee and infusing it in cream will create a far better product than using coffee extract, which is the standard among chocolatiers.

You are very right in that some liquors do not make a difference cost-wise. However, the absolute cheapest liquors usually have artificial flavoring of some sort (try using a cheap cassis or amaretto!) so in some cases you'll have to shell out a bit more for a really delicious alcohol-infused truffle. Though, we use Meyer's dark rum and it's really great and a reasonable price point. I've used more expensive rums and have noticed a bit of a flavor difference, but it's not better or worse - just different.

Of course all of this is negated with low-quality chocolate, but I haven't yet seen someone who was putting a lot of work in to really delicious ganaches and had low quality chocolate. Too often it's the other way around, with the filling taking second fiddle (in the case of Canady) to a nice chocolate.

If you ever want a flavor comparison, feel free to bring a box of your favorite chocolates over - I'll provide some of mine, and we can be chocolate critics for a day I'd love to see if you could tell the difference in my confections.

I was really surprised by the whiskey because the name of the chocolate played up the quality but the ingredient was very bottom shelf. I was also surprised (ok, shocked) that the pumpkin came out of a tin. It was altered, of course, but still. I deliberately omitted his name but you'd know it.

I am especially fond of Kees and Christopher Elbow, and like Jin Patisserie very much. Actually, I'm distracted by Kees. Really great chocolates. But all require a plane trip. My favorite in Chicago abruptly closed down a couple years ago.

I will make a point of trying your product. And will mention your business to others in the Chicago chocolate mafia.

Fyi...

http://www.keeschocolates.com
http://www.jinpatisserie.com
http://www.elbowchocolates.com/

I may have missed it...what's the name of your place, Katherine_84f?

Pie Lady wrote:I may have missed it...what's the name of your place, Katherine_84f?

Katherine Anne Confections
http://katherine-anne.com

I was also surprised (ok, shocked) that the pumpkin came out of a tin.

Why? Canned pumpkin is of absolutely equal quality to fresh, and generally less stringy and watery. If you really must be a purist, use organic canned pumpkin from Whole Foods.

auxen1 wrote:I was really surprised by the whiskey because the name of the chocolate played up the quality but the ingredient was very bottom shelf. I was also surprised (ok, shocked) that the pumpkin came out of a tin. It was altered, of course, but still. I deliberately omitted his name but you'd know it.

OK, I have to admit that canned pumpkin is one of the only things we will use out of a can. I am right there with sundevilpeg, in that not only is canned pumpkin awesome and consistent, there is no discernible difference between canned vs fresh. We could roast down whole fresh pumpkins for hours, peel, seed, and process them, or we can use the can. I cannot tell the difference even BEFORE we mix it with chocolate. If anyone asks, I have no problem telling them where it comes from - even though we use tons of local/organic products, we will always use the highest-quality available, even if it means non-local.

For whiskey, we're actually working on a partnership with Few Spirits for a holiday caramel (Brown Sugar + Whiskey + Pecan) which would be pretty awesome - though I would never be able to justify the cost buying at retail. In general we tend to use OK quality brands, but nothing top shelf for sure! We made a truffle with Veuve's rose champagne recently and while it was delicious, I would never spend $50 on a bottle of champagne just to drown out the delicate flavor with chocolate. A $10 bottle of "California champagne" works just as well if not better, as you don't want subtlety with alcohol that's about to be mixed with chocolate, as the flavor tends to get lost.

Oh and I love Christopher Elbow, I will have to try the other chocolatiers you mentioned! Part of the job

Katherine_84f wrote:

auxen1 wrote:I was really surprised by the whiskey because the name of the chocolate played up the quality but the ingredient was very bottom shelf. I was also surprised (ok, shocked) that the pumpkin came out of a tin. It was altered, of course, but still. I deliberately omitted his name but you'd know it.

OK, I have to admit that canned pumpkin is one of the only things we will use out of a can. I am right there with sundevilpeg, in that not only is canned pumpkin awesome and consistent, there is no discernible difference between canned vs fresh. We could roast down whole fresh pumpkins for hours, peel, seed, and process them, or we can use the can. I cannot tell the difference even BEFORE we mix it with chocolate.

I'll have to agree. I once made pumpkin pie from scratch and it was a bitch, only to come out with pie that tasted almost exactly the same as Libby's. Might as well save some time.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Pie Lady & Katherine_84f. You have to pick your spots, and to paraphrase Peg Bracken slightly, there are far easier and more pleasant ways to shorten your life than to waste hours roasting, peeling, and pureeing fresh pumpkins, not to mention the awful cleanup. That stuff stains!