3 Jan 2014: The Forum is currently in read-only made while we update to a new version of the Seventy% website and forum.

The forum will be back with a faster, simplified and up to date website in the next two months.

Please consider registering
guest

Log In

Lost password?
Advanced Search:

— Forum Scope —



— Match —



— Forum Options —




Wildcard usage:
*  matches any number of characters    %  matches exactly one character

Minimum search word length is 4 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

The forums are currently locked and only available for read only access
Topic RSS
Hot Cocoa
September 9, 2004
8:53 am
Polarbear
Tromsø, Norway
Member
Forum Posts: 299
Member Since:
April 24, 2004
Offline
21

quote:


Originally posted by LoneLy1) The one described above
2) Melting chocolate over a double heater, mix with hot milk
3) Heat milk, when almost boiling add chopped chocolate -
4) As 3, but continue boiling for a couple of minutes to make it thicker
5) Chop chocolate, add to cold milk or milk holding room temperature (ie. same as chocolate), heat slowly (why heating milk alone slowly, Polar?).

(…)

Some develop almost other flavors in method 2) and 5), but according to my experience never in ie. 3) and 4) (as suggested by Polar – can you give concrete examples?). On the other hand, some bars seem to survive the chock methods 3) and 4). In general I find these methods most barbaric, often leaving a burnt and choked/strangled taste, although, again, with some bars it seems to play a minor role (e.g. Valrhona Manjari). These two methods are also the far easiest, but 5) is not too complicated either.


Well, I have to admit I do it mostly because I’ve always done it that way… I heat the milk slowly, avoid boiling and then stir in the choc. Often, I simply have some pieces of choc in the cup and pours the milk over and then stirs.

I have seen that the choc not always dissolves so I will try doing it even slower next time.

I think fruity chocs, like Manjari, develop a richer taste when drinked this way.

***
My name is Polarbear and I am a chocoholic…

*** My name is Polarbear and I am a chocoholic...
September 9, 2004
10:18 am
Lone Ly
Oslo, Norway
Member
Forum Posts: 397
Member Since:
October 10, 2003
Offline
22

Polar, for Manjari I agree it doesn’t lose taste, but I don’t think anything is gained either. And Manjari represents an exception rather than the rule. If there is any rule, I’d say method 2) is the one safest in terms of keeping flavors.

"Man cannot live by chocolate alone - but woman can." (Unknown)
September 9, 2004
10:25 am
chocolatero
london
Member
Forum Posts: 155
Member Since:
September 5, 2004
Offline
23

dear Polarbear

try stiring differently
put the hot milk bit by bit on the chocolate and stir in the center in small circular motions to create a starting point for the emulsification…moves dont have to be slow but have to be small. as I said like a mayonnaise…
Chocolatero

September 9, 2004
10:29 am
Polarbear
Tromsø, Norway
Member
Forum Posts: 299
Member Since:
April 24, 2004
Offline
24

quote:


Originally posted by chocolatero

dear Polarbear

try stiring differently
put the hot milk bit by bit on the chocolate and stir in the center in small circular motions to create a starting point for the emulsification…moves dont have to be slow but have to be small. as I said like a mayonnaise…
Chocolatero


Thanx, I’ll try and see what happens. Never too old to learn something new.[:D]

***
My name is Polarbear and I am a chocoholic…

*** My name is Polarbear and I am a chocoholic...
September 9, 2004
1:02 pm
Lone Ly
Oslo, Norway
Member
Forum Posts: 397
Member Since:
October 10, 2003
Offline
25

Since I never have had any problems making it all disperse it seems as if I have done it ‘correctly’ by intuition. Female intuition ;-)

Will post a reply on the rest later … I just love to see my favorite issue being discussed so in-depth :-)

"Man cannot live by chocolate alone - but woman can." (Unknown)
September 9, 2004
1:55 pm
Lone Ly
Oslo, Norway
Member
Forum Posts: 397
Member Since:
October 10, 2003
Offline
26

quote:


Originally posted by chocolatero
You have to separate the issue of thickness which is mostly a function of the ratio of chocolate to milk and potentially cream


… which means that part 2) of your procedure is not really necessary?

quote:


The emulsification is required for the chocolate to disperse into the water/milk and for ultimately the taste to develop. Whatever you tried, you would have had a better result by making sure the emusification was correct.


I tried a couple yesterday, and adding that to previous experience I am still not convinced in terms of taste. I have never had any problems making the chocolate disperse, btw. In method 2) it is the only wise thing to add milk to the melted chocolate since the chocolate is not easily poured out of the mug in which I use to melt it. Also I always start with only a little amount of milk (applies to all method) simply in order to keep control with the strength.

quote:


Many people use a whisk to try to correct the fact that the mix is split. To make it frothy, you can use the whisk after the mix is made, not in the cooking process.


I always use it afterwards, except in method 5) – surely stirring all the time – that’s the whole point – when I use it when all the chocolate has dispersed.

quote:


Methods 1 or 2 are best but 2 should be tried by adding the milk slowly to the chocolate melted, not the opposite. Have you even made a mayonnaise adding the oil to the vinegar? in metho 2 you may not need to heat the milk much but have to melt chocolate carefully. So still think 1 is more convenient.


I know making mayonnaise yes, but as long as it all disperse properly I don’t see why it is necessary except for consistency maybe. Also 1) still means to add very hot milk (1/3 it says in your recipe) to chocolate, ie. a ‘shock’ treatment. I can’t remember where I read it, but I have seen someone saying that if chocolate is to be mixed with anything else, one should make sure the two holds the same temperature – which supports method 2) and 5). It goes along with the experiences with method 3) and 4) too. But – I have also seen some apparently serious people suggesting the easiest way … I do understand the necessity of doing it by way 1) when making pralines, desserts and stuff, but not for drinking chocolate.

I find method 2) quite easy by heating the milk slowly with a mug with chopped chocolate in a sieve placed over the milk. Especially since I use to eat some of the melted chocolate or dip it in fruit or something (physalis is my fav!) before I mix with milk.

I bought a bag with bits of _couverture_ from your shop. I was just tired and couldn’t remember what it said on the label, so all of a sudden I clearly could imagine ‘Ganache’ in your fonts on the left bottom – so I wrote that without thinking. Checking the bag, nothing at all in the left bottom of the label ;-) Must have seen it somewhere else in your shop …

"Man cannot live by chocolate alone - but woman can." (Unknown)
September 9, 2004
6:03 pm
chocolatero
london
Member
Forum Posts: 155
Member Since:
September 5, 2004
Offline
27

Out of curosity, what is the difference conceptually for you between making a ganache and hot chocolate? Both are emulsions in variuous proportions of water and fat….

If it disperse properly fine, most people find the analogy of the mayo useful. it looks like you were doing the right thing anyway.

on 1 and 2) must admit I do not knw the answer
It is the same for ganaches. Some make it by pouring hot cream on teh chocolate and some lukewarm cream on the melted chocolate. I have never seen a comparison of the taste, texture and shelf life results.
Pleople in this industry often do” as they have seen” and do not question much but I shall investigate…
Depressing fact: 14 weeks to Xmas and we are nowhere yet in our production.
Anyone of you interested in our factory tour for the chocolate week?
regards
Chocolatero

September 9, 2004
6:45 pm
Masur
Stockholm, Sweden
Member
Forum Posts: 592
Member Since:
August 6, 2006
Offline
28

A factory tour would be nice.

Masur

"Porcelana: The Holy Grail of Pure Criollos" (Maricel E. Presilla)
November 2, 2004
3:00 pm
alex_h
Member
Forum Posts: 1170
Member Since:
April 29, 2004
Offline
29

hmmm, i hadn’t really paid much attention to this discussion before because i hardly ever make hot chocolate. yet recently i tried some of the mexican chocolate i bought (ibarra). they suggest using a blender :-)
since i don’t have a blender i just beat the hell out of it with a whisk and was ok with the result.
a couple of days later i felt like a domori hot chocolate but didn’t want to fork out the price they ask here, so i broke off a nice bit of a madagascar bar and slowly heated it in milk while stirring continuously. in the end i whisked it a bit for froth. came out all right i must say.

anne, i was wondering about what you’re saying about emulsification, fat and water. i always considered milk to be a fatty product, that could, when heated, easily be blended with chocolate. the ratio of fat to other parts is different than in chocolate obviously, but using method 5) above works quite all right.
i particularly chose domori’s madagascar for its added cocoa butter.

November 2, 2004
3:11 pm
alex_h
Member
Forum Posts: 1170
Member Since:
April 29, 2004
Offline
30

another idea: instead of using cocoa powder use a 100% bar that has added cocoa butter. i imagine domori’s 100% would work well. haven’t tried it and am not inclined to, since i am happy with my experiments with the madagascar bar.

i wouldn’t add any sugar in any case. in german cafes you can order “heisse schokolade” or “kakao”.
as far as i understand a sweetened powder in milk is used for the former and cocoa powder in milk for the latter. either way i don’t care for more sugar, the one drink being sweet enough from the start and the other somehow unable to assimilate the sugar properly. at least not to the satisfaction of my taste buds, so i enjoy it “bitter”.

November 2, 2004
4:33 pm
Lone Ly
Oslo, Norway
Member
Forum Posts: 397
Member Since:
October 10, 2003
Offline
31

Alex, Bonnats drinking chocolate, ie. chocolate in bits is supposedly 100% – it says so on the box, and for making a ‘normal’ hot chocolate adding sugar is necessary. Dolfin has got a bag with 77% with which I use less sugar to make it equally sweet.

‘Heisse schokolade’ in Austria can be the whole range of powder stuff, chocolate sauce to be used in coffee machine-like machines, cocoa powder and real chocolate. It all depends on the cafe.

Btw, I think that the method you described, slowly heating chocolate and milk together while constantly stirring, whisking in the end, is the best method in terms of bringing out the chocolate flavours.

Chocolate is cheaper than therapy and you don’t need an appointment.

"Man cannot live by chocolate alone - but woman can." (Unknown)
November 2, 2004
5:44 pm
Hans-Peter Rot
USA
Member
Forum Posts: 1462
Member Since:
August 1, 2006
Offline
32

Here’s my advice: Just melt chocolate and drink it while it’s still liquid. No milk, no dillution, no fuss [:D]

November 3, 2004
8:06 am
Lone Ly
Oslo, Norway
Member
Forum Posts: 397
Member Since:
October 10, 2003
Offline
33

… but how do you drink that? I don’t call it a drink if I need cutlery or fingers …

Chocolate is cheaper than therapy and you don’t need an appointment.

"Man cannot live by chocolate alone - but woman can." (Unknown)
November 3, 2004
6:19 pm
Hans-Peter Rot
USA
Member
Forum Posts: 1462
Member Since:
August 1, 2006
Offline
34

Well, that comment was made entirely as a joke, but if chocolate is in a liquid state, where does cutlery come into play? You simply remove the cup of chocolate from a warmer and sip it. How does one “cut” a liquid? Just because it’s a solid at room temperature doesn’t mean it can’t take other forms at different temperatures, just like water and oil. Additionally, you need your fingers to pick up the cup [;)]

November 4, 2004
6:00 pm
Lone Ly
Oslo, Norway
Member
Forum Posts: 397
Member Since:
October 10, 2003
Offline
35

Maybe my English vocabulary is to be blamed here. I thought cutlery was a common name for spoons, teaspoons, forks and knives, ie. “eating tools/aids”.

I know you prefer chocolate “virgin” style, Monte ;-) , but the thing is that even when melted, the chocolate is fluid but it doesn’t pour easily. Hence it is not “drinkable”. Soups are most often drinkable, but casseroles and porridges are not, even if they are basically liquid. There is no cutting involved here either. I haven’t been “over there” and I don’t know what barbarian styles of eating you have, but here in civilized Europe we usually
eat (not drink) a casserole dish by help of a spoon. As for the melted chocolate I would probably use my fingers not only to pick up the cup or mug but to get the chocolate out of the cup and into my mouth as well …

Melted chocolate is fine, especially on italian almond biscottos, fruit (and cheese – learnt at Chocolate Week) and icecream, but when it comes to drinking I prefer a blend of chocolate and milk.

Chocolate is cheaper than therapy and you don’t need an appointment.

"Man cannot live by chocolate alone - but woman can." (Unknown)
November 4, 2004
6:59 pm
Hans-Peter Rot
USA
Member
Forum Posts: 1462
Member Since:
August 1, 2006
Offline
36

Yeah, perhaps the whole language thing has caused us to misinterpret each other, but oh well.
In a very broad sense, with all forms of manners aside, it certainly is possible to “drink” melted chocolate, as it involves no chewing to further break it apart. Certainly, you could regard this as swallowing, but swallowing is much more broad, so much so, that it involves the ingestion of anything in any form and state, whether or not it involves mastication. I wasn’t calling it a drink either. Rather, I was referring to the “act” of drinking a substance that while at room temperature is solid, but when heated becomes fluid, which by definition when ingested is in fact “drinkable.” Over here in the uncivilized and barbaric US [;)] we surprisingly have utensils to aid in our food consumption. Utensils are things such as forks, spoons, knives, etc., and cutlery is generally a term designated for knives exclusively. Crazy, huh? Well, don’t take the above comments the wrong way [:)]

November 4, 2004
7:03 pm
Hans-Peter Rot
USA
Member
Forum Posts: 1462
Member Since:
August 1, 2006
Offline
37

Oh, and how can chocolate be cheaper than therapy when a bar of Amedei’s Porcelana is $9.50? If you’re REALLY stressed or depressed, it can be pretty expensive too, hehe. Can I send my therapy bill to you, then? [:D]

November 4, 2004
8:11 pm
alex_h
Member
Forum Posts: 1170
Member Since:
April 29, 2004
Offline
38

anyone tried domori hot chocolate? and i mean not by itself, but melted in hot milk as a drink, martin ;)

November 4, 2004
11:35 pm
Martin Christy
London, United Kingdom
Member
Forum Posts: 614
Member Since:
July 31, 2006
Offline
39

It’s Esmeraldas and somehow it’s just too yummy and sweet when it’s in those sticks … but I did get as far as drinking choc once or twice and it’s very good. I find the ‘Hot Hot Chocolate’, with chilli, maybe just a little too strong, so half this and half the normal makes a really good mixture. I have the Bonnat 100% here, but haven’t tried it yet. (We actually ordered the 100% bar, not the drinking chocolate, but there’s another story …)

Martin Christy
Editor
http://www.seventypercent.com

Martin Christy Editor www.seventypercent.com
November 5, 2004
6:34 am
Lone Ly
Oslo, Norway
Member
Forum Posts: 397
Member Since:
October 10, 2003
Offline
40

A bar of Amedei’s Porcelana is only 7.3 USD here (3.5 GBP at Harvey Nichols in London), and 1 kilo 70% is now 27 USD. A one hour appointment at a good shrink’s is at least twice the price for the 1 kg block, and you’ll need at least once a week to call it therapy. The block should last for a month, otherwise you will probably be in need of some other medical treatment … But in my opinion therapies of all sorts should be free – that includes shrinks, surgery, chocolate, pets etc etc ;-)

Chocolate is cheaper than therapy and you don’t need an appointment.

"Man cannot live by chocolate alone - but woman can." (Unknown)