Do you remember when I mentioned, after being on our recent trip to the Pacific Northwest, eating a fantastic piece of cake when we visited The Willows Inn, on Lummi Island. Tender slices of this cake (I thought it was a pound cake) were sitting next to the urns of coffee in the lobby, and as we checked out, our last morning there, having not had any breakfast yet, I took a slice. And thought I’d died and gone to heaven.

After we got back home, I emailed my friend Jerianne about our trip – and about the cake (because she loves to bake too) she just took the bull by the horns – she has a lot more gutsiness than I do – and picked up the phone, called the Inn and asked for the recipe. And they SENT IT to her! Oh my gosh. This was a couple of months ago now, and at the time I had just made a pound cake (in my feeble attempt to make some kind of a tender one from an online recipe) I thought I’d wait awhile before making this.

WELL! First thing is the chef called this a rum cake. Remember, I thought it was a pound cake. But having made it, I really think it has the texture of a chiffon cake, but those are made with oil, not butter. Since my head just tries to understand the chemistry, I dug out several of my baking cookbooks, and found the answers  (mostly) in the Sur la Table cookbook, The Art & Soul of Baking by Cindy Mushet. This type of cake is called an egg-separated sponge cake. However, this one differs from the standard because it has quite a bit of butter in the egg  yolk batter. Most sponge cakes have little to no fat in them and their rising relies on the air incorporated in the egg yolks and whites. They derive their fat from the egg yolks themselves. But if it were truly a sponge cake it would have NO added fat. So that’s why it’s a kind of a combination of a standard butter cake and the egg-separated sponge cake.

Good, we have that settled now! (Maybe I should have been a chemist?) In the process of getting ready to make this I did rearrange the writing of the recipe, and clarified some of the instructions a bit, and added in my suggestions here and there too. The recipe was sent with ingredient weights rather than volume, and I’ve left it that way (and added in suggestions on approximate volume). I do think this is one of those kinds of recipes that will help if you use your scale. As elaborate as this is – well maybe elaborate isn’t the right word – it’s time consuming for sure – you don’t want to mess up on the weights and measures!

The batter has 3 parts – (1) the dry part (cake flour, and sifted at that!); (2) the egg yolk part; and (3) the meringue (egg white) part. Once all of those parts are prepared, it’s combined into a billowy, frothy batter and baked.

The recipe, in one area mentioned loaf pans. In another sentence it mentioned a tube pan, so I’m surmising that you could use either. I included instructions for both, although I only made it in a tube pan. Based on my recollection of the slice I ate at the Inn, I think theirs was made in loaf pans. The recipe indicated 45 minutes in the oven. Well, when I checked at 45 minutes in, the batter was still very jiggly and wet. My heart sank – I thought I’d most likely messed it up somehow, and even went back to the recipe to make sure I’d not forgotten something. No, it looked okay. I set the timer for another 15 minutes. I tested it with an instant read thermometer, my Thermapen, and it was only about 180°F. Another 10 minutes and it got to about 195°F. Each time, of course, the oven loses heat, so I have no idea exactly how many minutes it would take in one straight bake – but certainly a lot more than 45 minutes. Perhaps in loaf pans? I don’t know. Eventually it reached 200°F and I removed it from the oven.

What I learned was that the cake is very fragile – and in making a tender kind of cake – it would be very easy to break or crack it. I was fortunate that mine stayed together. Unintentionally, I did leave a bit of the cake on the tube-pan bottom, but not enough to make any difference. The cake must be left to cool to room temp, then you remove it from the pan(s). The recipe was specific – the cake needs to sit for a day (overnight) before slicing. The cake, right out of the pan, is very VERY moist and with the meringue batter as part of it, the outside edges were a bit sticky, so if you tried to slice it at that point, I think it would tear or rip. That must be why it needs to rest overnight – by enclosing it in foil the outside edges all softened.

I used a knife and an offset spatula to make sure the cake was separated from the pan. The physical act of removing it from the pan – well that was a bit of a juggling act – I used my outstretched and splayed fingers and my forearm to gently tip the cake out, then righted it very quickly and let it sit. Meanwhile I had a huge piece of foil ready, and some additional rum. Some is spread on the bottom of the foil (otherwise it would stick, I suppose), then you place the cake on top, then brush the top and edges with more rum (maybe about 2-3 T.). It’s all sealed up in the foil and left to sit.

Next day I just couldn’t wait until our dinner to see if the cake tasted like I remember. We were having guests and this was dessert. What if it was a completely bust? I might have to fix some other kind of dessert on short notice. I needn’t have worried – the cake was absolutely just as I remembered. (Later note: I made this a couple of weeks ago and put part of it in the freezer. I was trying to find something else, pulled out a little package of these, defrosted it. Oh my. So delicious!) This leads directly into my ranking system . . .

What’s GOOD: there is absolutely nothing about this cake that isn’t good (fabulous is more like it), IMHO. It has texture (oh so very tender) and moisture (it almost drips with it) and sugar and mellowness. Everything about this cake makes it a winner. I served it with whipped cream and some fresh plums that I’d simmered in port wine. If you want to get the full impact of the cake, serve it plain, or maybe with just a little bit of whipped cream. A definite five-star winner in my book.

What’s NOT: the only thing I can say is that it does take a bit of time to make – there are numerous steps and you’ll dirty up a lot of dishes in the process. But it’s worth the effort and the elbow grease (you can ask my DH about that – he did have to wash everything). If you’ve never made a sponge cake before, it might seem a bit intimidating. Just make sure you have the butter and eggs at room temp and follow the directions. Don’t over mix anything.

printer-friendly CutePDF

MasterCook 5+ file and MasterCook 14 file

Tweet

Can I just tell you – please make this. It is really extra-special in the taste department. But then, I love hazelnuts. And then I also love whipped cream (who doesn’t?). And the plum compote with the hazelnuts somehow is one of those magical pairings. Just make it.

Some of my friends – and my friend Cherrie’s friends – laugh at us – why do we need to go to cooking classes, since we both are pretty darned good home cooks? Neither of us has professional training. Neither of us really lacks for ideas. Neither of us lack cookbooks to get even more ideas. Neither of us dreads cooking. So why do we go? Well, sometimes it’s just to get us thinking outside of our own boxes.

We also go to classes because we’re close friends, and we enjoy spending time together, of course, but we always – and I mean always – learn something. You’d really think we would be past the stage where we could still learn, but yet, we do. And of course, the kitchen gadget inventors love to tweak us – about needing a new something to augment our already bulging kitchen utensil drawers.

This class was in a private home in an area near us called Nellie Gale Ranch. Seeing this house, in itself would have been a reason to go to the cooking class – I think the home (kitchen pictured above) was THE most beautiful home I’ve ever visited in my life – it was decorated in my style and every step I took, ever hallway I entered, every turn I made I’d find some new pretty thing – a niche, a decorator item, an arch, a room just exquisitely appointed. The hostess, Karen, designed the house herself – I mean everything – the architecture of it, every wall, doorway, bathroom, and she paid attention to minute detail. She also designed all the interior décor and does all of it herself. I was mightily impressed. The granite in the kitchen was honed first, then “leathered.” I’d never seen that before. Note the lights under the toe kick area. Note the windows behind the 2 cupboards on the far wall – so natural light brightens the entire room. There were 3 sinks in the kitchen, 2 of them farmstyle fronts. She has indoor table seating for 32 people (I counted) although 8 of those are in an enclosed solarium back 20 feet or so behind where I was standing taking the above photo. She has 2 laundry rooms, 5 or 6 fireplaces. Oh my, I could go on and on and on.

The class was taught by Tarla Fallgatter, who regularly teaches classes to this group Cherrie and I are in. We get together 4 times a year. And had I looked at this recipe in a magazine or even a cookbook, I might not have given it much thought. Nothing in it would have generated any kind of “wow” thoughts. I do like hazelnuts, though. But oh, was this dessert ever delicious. After eating it I concluded that it must be that hazelnuts and plums have a natural affinity – a food chemistry when they’re paired.

The shortcakes are easy enough – the only caveat there is to NOT overwork the dough. If you do, the shortcakes will get tough. Tarla pressed the dough to about an inch thickness and made very short wedges. She cut them erratically in order to get a short triangle (see photo), not a long tapered one, as she says more often than not that thin, tapered end will fall off when you pick it up to plate it. To make it easier, cut rounds with a cutter instead. And really, it makes no-never-mind what shape it’s in anyway – cut squares if you want. If you make them thinner they’ll be more crispy. If you make them thicker than an inch, they’ll be more soft. The 1-inch one was absolutely perfect.

Plums happen to be in season right now, and they just were so perfect for this – different too. Don’t we first think strawberries? If the plums you buy are not ripe/soft, you may need to cook them awhile longer – you want them to be tender (not mush, though). Add the raspberries at the last minute – otherwise they’ll completely fall apart. You’ll not even know they’re in the fruit mixture.

When I looked at the nutrition/calorie count of this, I gasped. It must be the volume of whipped cream. Perhaps you could make do with 1 cup of heavy cream – that would cut down some. But the shortcakes do need an ample amount of whipped cream – it’s more than just decoration here.

What’s GOOD: there isn’t anything about this that ISN’T good in my opinion. The hazelnuts are different in a shortcake and you definitely can taste them. Toasting them enhances their flavor so much. The plums were piquant and sweet at the same time; mixed with the whipped cream the flavor mixture in my mouth just . . . well, it was sinfully good.
What’s NOT: absolutely nothing, except the calories!

printer-friendly CutePDF
MasterCook 5+ file and MasterCook 14 file

Tweet

Yes, I know . . . the photo says Clementine and I titled it Tangerine. You could use either, depending on the citrus season. It could even be orange for that matter. Sounds more elegant to say it’s clementine, though, doesn’t it? Whatever citrus you DO use, it’s a really nice cake from Israel.

And isn’t that honeycomb Bundt cake shape just the cutest thing? My friend Dianne made this for our Israeli dinner we had a couple of weeks ago, and a friend of hers, who is Jewish, loaned her the pan. These 2 gals work at Sur la Table, and Dianne loves to bake. Dianne thought the pan was available at the store, but it isn’t on their website. In the event you want one of these, here’s the Amazon link for the Nordicware Jubilee Bundt Pan.

The recipe, is another one from Jerusalem: A Cookbook by Ottolenghi & Tamimi. In deciding on the menu, this dessert, of the many in the cookbook, sounded the most interesting to me. Since I know Dianne loves to bake and some of the other recipes were really complex (even more than I’d want to do), I chose this one.

The only thing unusual about the cake is the use of almond meal. I spent some time looking at lots of other bloggers who have posted this recipe already, and some did it the way the recipe indicated – grinding up almonds to get finely minced almonds. Dianne used almond meal (you can buy it at some markets – Trader Joe’s carries it at a more reasonable price). I think (and I can’t guarantee it, but it’s my humble opinion) that people who ground up nuts ended up with a heavier cake. I suspect this is because whatever machine type you use to grind the nuts (blender, food processor, coffee grinder) could vary – if you stopped it 3 seconds before the next person did it, you’d end up with different textures in the finished cake. I think the Trader Joe’s almond meal is a lighter – and less dense meal.

Now some stores have a completely white almond meal (no skins used) and perhaps that would be the best, but it shouldn’t make any difference, really. Almond meal is done in some process that gets it to a dry meal – not a wet and moist mixture, which would make a difference in the end texture. So, just keep all that in mind. The way to counteract all this is to use weight rather than volume. The recipe calls for 280 grams of ground almonds. So if you used whole almonds, it might be less than 2 1/2 cups. And that would make a difference for sure. And the flour – 100 grams are called for.

Anyway, the cake is a cake – eggs, butter, flour, salt and the ground almonds. The original was baked in a 9 1/2 inch springform pan. Do not use an 8-inch or a 10-inch. Use a 9 or a 9 1/2 incher. Several bloggers said that the size variation made a big difference. Dianne used the Bundt cake pan. Whatever you do, measure the internal temp of the cake – and remove it when it reaches 200°F. The recipe says when  a toothpick inserted in the center comes out clean. As we learn more about the chemistry of cakes, it’s pretty reliable to do the internal temp method.

As soon as the cake is removed from the oven, you’ll need the syrup to be ready. Pour it all over. If you want, use a wooden pick or toothpick to help get the syrup to ooze further down into the cake. That info wasn’t in the original recipe, but I’ve included it below because we noticed the syrup stayed mostly at the surface and you want it disbursed as much as possible. Allow the cake to cool (if using the Bundt, remove the cake after about 20 minutes) and frost when it’s reached room temp.

What’s GOOD: The texture – it’s a heavier cake – don’t expect lightness here. But it’s far from being a brick, either! Enjoyed the flavor. Also liked that it wasn’t too sweet. The chocolate just melts in your mouth. All good.
What’s NOT: really nothing other than making or finding almond meal.

printer-friendly CutePDF
MasterCook 5+ file and MasterCook 14 file

Tweet

You know pudding cake, right? That mysterious chemistry that happens when you combine certain baking ingredients and it makes its own sauce – like magic! I’ve had chocolate pudding cake and lemon pudding cake (here on my blog it’s called a Lemon Sponge Pudding), and count them as favorites of mine, but oh, this one. Wait till you try it.

Since it’s October, my thoughts turn to Fall. I love Fall. Here in Southern California, though, it comes late and doesn’t last long. My physical calendar says yes, October is Fall, but real Fall doesn’t arrive here, usually, until November. As I write this we’ve had a couple of beautiful cooler days, but we’re anticipating Santa Ana winds which usually come with very high heat (winds blow in from the hot deserts). Most people dread them – they blow like hell. They wreak all kinds of minor havoc. Light weight things get tossed around back yards, into pools, get hung up in trees. And leaves and debris blow just everywhere. Weak limbs on trees and even whole trees can fall and block roads and down power lines. Often my internet connection is shaky. Why that should be I don’t know since the cable is underground. But it happens almost every time. And no, none of this is related to a hurricane – there is no water/rain associated with the Santa Ana winds. Here where we live, on a western-facing hill, the winds come roaring up and over the peak of the hill behind us, then create a twist and roll back to our yard and particularly our side patio. Birds hunker down and try to hold on. I don’t know how they manage to eat when we have the winds. Our awnings are pulled in, all our summer umbrellas are stowed, our rolling cart that lives on our patio is tied down. We keep towels on our patio, covering cushions to protect them from sun damage – if we didn’t take those in they’d all be flying up the road, off to neighbors’ yards, or caught in bushes. It’s crazy. We get these winds during the Fall and Spring mostly. And now is the season. We’ve been told we’ll have 3 days of winds – that’s a long one. If we’re lucky they last just one day. Not this time, I hear.

But it’s a good day to stay inside and bake, if you’re so inclined! I am going to bake bread today (one of those overnight no-knead types that I mixed up a couple of days ago). If it’s successful, I’ll post it. It’s a whole wheat rye loaf.

We expected a big crowd for our bible study group last week when I made this. We had 9 people, I think it was, and am so glad I made a double batch of this – that way we did have a bit of left overs. A couple of conscientious people decided not to have any. I couldn’t resist. I made some sweetened whipped cream to put on top, but didn’t take the time to photograph one, so I created a photo-worthy version the next day with some cream poured over.

The recipe comes from fellow blogger (and friend) Marie Rayner, who lives in England. I started reading her blog many years ago, A Year from Oak Cottage. Some years ago when we visited England, we visited Marie and her husband Todd (and their adorable then-puppy Mitzie) and went out to dinner together. Marie’s recipes are posted at her 2nd blog, The English Kitchen. Marie loves pudding cakes and explains on the blog post about this recipe about several of her other pudding cakes. When I made this I didn’t have enough milk, but I did have buttermilk, so I adapted the recipe. That meant I reduced the amount of baking powder and added baking soda – I also added just a tetch more fluid – I had to do that because the initial batter was so thick it couldn’t hardly hold all the flour. Hence I added more buttermilk.

Now, let’s get to this pudding cake. I am very long-winded this morning . . . this dessert is SO easy to make. You create a cake batter first (it’s just a bit on the stiff side), then you create the sauce part (a lot of brown sugar, water and butter). The batter is spread into a pan, the sauce part is poured over, then you dot the top with fresh chopped apples and walnuts. That’s it. Into the oven to bake for nearly an hour and it’s done.

Here at left you can see the different steps. The top photo shows the fairly stiff batter in the pan. The liquid was poured in after that and when you do that the batter starts to separate some. Blobs of batter float to the top. Don’t be dismayed by the appearance (I should have taken a picture of it at that point). Just persevere. The 2nd photo shows it ready to go in the oven, then below that that finished cake. At first – when I snapped the photo of that step, you could not see or feel the pudding part.

The cake cools for awhile and when I scooped into the pan to serve it, there is all that delicious, brown sugary caramel-like sauce in the bottom. Do spoon some of that sauce over each portion.

What’s GOOD: oh my goodness, everything about it. I just loved this dessert. Do note that a 8×8 pan only contains 2 T. of butter – so it’s very VERY low fat. It’s not low sugar, however. I should have made it with some Splenda, but often the first time I make things I want to make it according to the recipe. Since this is one of those mysterious chemistry things, I was afraid to change it much.

What’s NOT: gosh, nothing. Definitely a keeper.

printer-friendly CutePDF
MasterCook 5+ file and MasterCook 14 file

Tweet

Decadent! Rich! Sweet! Chocolaty! All of those things and more. If you crave an over-the-top kind of dessert, here’s your ticket to chocolate nirvana.

Right off the bat I’ll tell you, this dessert is really rich and sweet. Not the kind I’d serve after a rich 3 or 4 course meal. Maybe after a more simple meal, even soup, salad and bread, when you can handle the calories, fat and sugar! When you’re still hungry. Phillis Carey served this at a recent cooking class. She says that even though her class teaching subject could be something like meats, or even vegan, if she doesn’t serve dessert, her class sighs in sadness. So, usually Phillis prepares some kind of dessert in every cooking class. I have many-a-dessert in my repertoire that have come from her classes. She and I have many things in common when it comes to desserts.

The cake is fairly normal in that it’s a chocolate batter, using unsweetened chocolate, bittersweet chocolate and cocoa. It makes a relatively dense cake – this isn’t a light and fluffy kind of fare. More like a brownie, actually. You also make a caramel sauce – and at the end chocolate is added in, hence it’s a chocolate-caramel sauce. You absolutely NEED the vanilla ice cream to cut the richness and the chocolate. Don’t skimp on that ice cream.

What’s GOOD: Well, everything about the dessert is good – even in 2 parts (both the torte and the sauce) are delicious all by themselves. Put it all together, and it’s just decadent. What else can I say. As I mentioned, be sure to NOT skimp on the ice cream.

What’s NOT: If a complaint could be made, it’s that this dessert is ultra-rich and sweet. What’s there not to like about that, though?

printer-friendly CutePDF

MasterCook 5+ file and MasterCook 14 file

Tweet

Going on a cooking or baking frenzy is fun, sometimes challenging and tiring. I love trying new recipes (and if you didn’t feel the same, you probably would not be reading my blog), so when I needed to bring goodies for a women’s meeting, I went through the hundreds of to-try recipes I have in my “internet” cookbook arsenal. This is one, and coming up in the next week will be 2 others.

What I wanted were some varied baked things – not just cookies, or bars. Three other women were on my committee and they brought fruit, cold drinks and peanut butter & jelly treats (on bagels). Sometimes the hostess serves coffeecake, since the meeting is in the morning, but I’ve noticed that rarely do people take any of it. I thought finger food would be the best. First up is this easy zucchini bread, a sweet bread that used about 2 zucchini.

The recipe is simple enough, one devised by Peabody, over at Culinary Concoctions by Peabody. Way back in 2008. But who’s counting any of the recipes we set aside to make . . . some day?

You may recall that a few years ago I went through my ancient files – recipes dating from about 1962 to 1995. Within each of those folders were ones I’d made and ones to try (mixing them in the same folder was a bad idea), just divided into categories like salad, beef, veggies, etc. Once I retired in 1995 I started entering all of my favorite recipes into MasterCook and then throwing away the clippings. That took nearly a year, pulling some from those clippings, and many others from cookbooks with flags on the pages. But there were still hundreds – gee, maybe a thousand or more – clippings in the pocket folders. A few years ago I started systematically going through those folders again, tossing some and re-sorting them into sub-categories and returning them to the Pentaflex hangars. As time has gone on, I rarely even refer to those recipes anymore – maybe only every 3 months or so. That tells me I should get rid of them, Period. But gosh, is that ever hard! Don’t know if I can do it. To do so, I’ll have to go through them yet again. Sigh . . . so many recipes, never enough time. I seem to veer toward new recipes, either ones I find on the internet or in the hundreds of cookbooks I own. I could cook for 10 years with nothing but 4-5 of my newer cookbooks. Well, I will think about all that another day . . .

Back to this chocolate zucchini bread. Divine. Oh, I think that’s a no-no word in foodie culture. Bloggers use way too many superlative adverbs – yummy, luscious, delicious, fantastic, greatest, and we’re supposed to nearly forget about using an exclamation point. Oh dear. I’m guilty. Garrett McCord (from Vanilla Garlic) wrote up a post recently about not using the following words: nice, good, bad, great, unctuous (which he says has a totally different meaning than food writers [me included] may use it for) and better than sex. I don’t think I’ve ever used that last phrase, but undoubtedly I’ve used all of the others. But McCord cautions bloggers to clarify – if it’s nice, explain exactly what makes it nice. Or if it’s good, exactly how or why it’s good. I think I do that ever since I added the little blurbs at the bottom of my posts – the what’s good and what’s not. I’ve had a few of my friends tell me that they bypass all the paragraphs I write and simply go to the what’s good and what’s not to decide if they’re going read the recipe and/or print/save it. Or not.

What’s different about this bread is the addition of mascarpone cheese in the mixture. It also is a buttermilk based batter – I always like using buttermilk since it makes cakes and breads so very tender. This one included. My only difficulty was getting the very center cooked through. I used a different sized pan, so I expected the timing to be different than the stated recipe, but after researching all over the ‘net I’ve concluded that moist short (non-yeast) breads like banana bread and I’ll include this bread in the same category since it’s moist from the zucchini, should be baked to an internal temp of about 200°. Some recipes say 190° or even as high as 210° – and I baked mine to 190°, but only after the bread cooled and I cut into the very center, did I discovered that it wasn’t quite cooked, right down the center, inside that crack in the ridge and down about 1/2 inch or so.

The age-old test of whether a cake/bread is done, using the toothpick test, still seems to be a good one, though, if you don’t have an instant read thermometer.

What’s GOOD: loved this stuff. It has the heft of a bread, but it’s very tender (thin slices are not possible with this). It’s not a cake, though – maybe it’s something in between. The chocolate flavor is just right. And if you shred the zucchini finely (mine were a bit on the more-medium sized) you’ll not even see it. It freezes well. A real winner of a recipe, thanks to Peabody.
What’s NOT: nothing, whatsoever. Very worth making.

printer-friendly CutePDF
MasterCook 5+ file and MasterCook 14 file

Tweet

Does this cake look like it’s sitting on a mirror? It isn’t really – it just mounded high in my bundt pan and sits awkwardly on it’s top/bottom and it happens that the chocolate swirl just looks quite reflective. Anyway, this is one of those easy cake-mix concoctions, and a winner it is. Read on . . .

If I’d ever heard of this cake before, I don’t recall it. But I was intrigued after reading Bonny Wolf’s book, Talking with My Mouth Full: Crab Cakes, Bundt Cakes, and Other Kitchen Stories. I wrote up a post about it – I loved the book. Loved Bonny Wolf’s creative writing and the fun, witty and interesting stories she writes. Included in the book were a smattering of recipes. As I searched the internet for info about this cake I discovered than the genesis of it was a Pillsbury bake-off for that tunnel of fudge cake. Remember that? This is reminiscent of that cake, but it does not have the lava cake oozing in the middle as the bake-off recipe did. That cake called for a buttercream frosting packaged mix that Pillsbury no longer produces. So bakers have devised other recipes. This definitely isn’t one of those, so don’t be confused here. This cake is just a chocolate pistachio swirl cake.

A couple of days ago I gave you the recipe for the chocolate syrup. Oh, what a revelation that was! Home made chocolate syrup. I used 2/3 cup of it in this cake. The yellow (or white) cake mix batter is mixed with a pkg of instant pistachio pudding (the dry stuff, makes the batter quite green), then you add in orange juice (that was a bit different), oil, eggs, water, etc. Part is poured into the pan, then the remaining is mixed with the chocolate syrup, poured on top, swirled with a knife and baked. The finished cake has virtually no green tint to it – maybe the heat baked out the color, but I’ll tell you, when I started, the batter was definitely green!

Not wanting to over bake it, I researched the internal temp of baked cake – 190°. (Across the internet, recommendations varied between 190° and 214°, but the one suggesting the high temp was for a pound cake – I decided to go for the low temp.) So, with my oven at 350°, the cake took 55 minutes for me. I let it rest for 15 minutes, then inverted it. The recipe indicated to dust with powdered sugar. I didn’t do that part, as I was serving the cake at an outdoor music event (our local symphony performing music from Pixar movies) and we eat dessert at intermission, sitting in our seats along with cups of coffee and Bailey’s. Trying to dust with sugar at that point just would be too difficult. All 6 of us who had the cake raved about it though, with or without the sugar!

What’s GOOD: the cake is incredibly moist. The kind of moist that is hard to get outside of using a cake mix. It was quite easy to make. I did make the chocolate syrup (but you don’t have to) as well. The cake kept very well for several days. The chocolate flavor will depend entirely on the brand and type of cocoa you use. Mine was a higher fat Natural Dutch Process cocoa (24%) from Penzey’s. Or use Hershey’s Special Dark. Everyone liked the chocolaty flavor.
What’s NOT: nothing other than I don’t keep instant pistachio pudding on hand, so a trip to the market was required!

printer-friendly CutePDF

https://tastingspoons.com/pdf/Desserts/choc_pistach_bundt_cake.mx2

 and MasterCook 14 file

Tweet

Oh, chocolate syrup, where have you been all my life? I cannot believe that since I started cooking when I was 20, to now when I’m in my 70s, that I’ve never thought to MAKE chocolate syrup. But of course, home made syrup would be better than the Hershey’s plastic squeeze bottle. Ha. By a long shot!

And it’s so EASY! It’s nothing more than water, sugar, powdered cocoa (unsweetened, Dutch process), salt and vanilla. You do have to cook it – but hey, it takes less than 10 minutes to make, start to finish, including going to get the ingredients. So you’ll have no excuse for not trying it.

I will tell you, however, that I buy a specialty cocoa, Penzey’s, their half pound bag. Their cocoa is really chocolaty, dark and doesn’t lump. I only use it in special things I make – where I’m sure the taste will come through in the finished baked good. I also use Hershey’s Special Dark when I can find it, but I’m all out of it at the moment.

The recipe came from Gourmet, back in 2003, according to epicurious. I looked at several recipes before I tried this one. Why this one? Because one commenter said she’s tried lots and lots of syrup recipes and once she tried this one, she’s never looked back. That was all the convincing I needed. Another commenter said this syrup is addictive – when you realize that it’s nearly fat-free – it’s not like eating chocolate candy, but you get the taste of full chocolate – she’d even sneak in the refrigerator now and then for a spoonful.

In a couple of days I’ll post a recipe for a bundt cake that I made with this chocolate syrup, then you’ll know why I went to the trouble of making the syrup myself. Once you dissolve (boil) the sugar and water, you add the cocoa and use a whisk to mix it in. The cocoa wants to clump, so using a whisk is necessary. I actually used one of those bounce-up-and-down whisks for this, to make sure there weren’t any little pockets of cocoa. It simmers for 3 minutes, while you whisk, and it’s done. It thickens up more when it cools. With my spatula in hand, once I poured all the syrup in the jar you see at top, I carefully scraped every last smidgen into my mouth. <grin>

So far I haven’t tried it ON anything, but if I do so before this post goes up, I’ll come back in and edit this part. What I tasted on the spoon was sensational. That ultra-dark chocolate taste I was looking for.

What’s GOOD: how EASY it is to make. I’ll never go back to Hershey’s squeeze bottle. Taste is fantastic; of course, the quality of the cocoa powder will determine how great the chocolate flavor is. Worth seeking out some good stuff.

What’s NOT: gosh, nothing.

printer-friendly CutePDF

MasterCook5+ file and MasterCook 14 file

Tweet

With peaches in season, this dessert is SO easy and so tasty. Only one thing – you have to have amaretti cookies on hand to make it. I had a few, actually have had about 8 of them sealed up in a vacuum bag for about a year, but when I opened it up that lovely almond flavor poured out, so I was assured they were still usable.

This is a recipe I’ve made numerous times over the years. Back in the 80’s we were in a 4-couple gourmet group that generally met for dinner for about 6-7 years, about every other month. Occasionally we would gather on our boat (back then it was in Newport harbor, not in San Diego as it is now) for a sunset sail, or in someone’s backyard for a summer brunch. I was the point-man with the group – always starting the ball rolling on when we’d meet, talking with the hostess about the calendar and menu ideas. And because everyone in the group generally didn’t want to have to decide on recipes, they relied on me to do all the menu and recipe selection. I’d create a menu of new things that I thought went together, I’d photocopy the bunch and mail out the pages to everyone a week or so before our event.

I can vaguely see (in my head) the magazine clipping I had for this recipe, but I don’t know where it came from. I did not find it on the internet, although I did find a similar one made by Giada on the Food Network, and she tops hers with whipped cream. With the name Piemontese, it means it’s a dessert from the Piemonte region of northern Italy. And since it has amaretti cookies in it, that’s another clue it’s Italian.

In a nutshell, here’s what you do: buy larger peaches if at all possible (because you need a bigger pit-cavity to spoon the cookie mixture into), peel them with a vegetable peeler (remember, the newer Messermeister Pro Touch Swivel Peeler will peel tomatoes, peaches, nectarines easily). Cut them in half, discard the seeds, and place in a buttered baking dish. With a peach or two (you use a third of the peaches for the filling), puree in a food processor, then combine with sugar, egg yolks and some crushed up Amaretti cookies. Scoop that wet mixture into the center of the peaches, dot with butter (yes, butter) and bake for  about 30 minutes until the tops are golden brown. I had white fleshed peaches that were on the smaller side, so it made it a bit harder to fill the small cavities with the peach, egg and amaretti mixture. Some of it oozed over the edges, but the egg helps to keep in intact.

I prefer to serve the peach halves warm (not hot) so ideally bake them an hour or two before serving. You can also make them a few hours ahead and reheat them for 10 minutes in a low oven before placing them on dessert plates or in bowls and scooping a little bit of vanilla ice cream on top. If they’re warm, the ice cream melts (which is fine) or if they’ve cooled to room temp then you can add a bit more ice cream – some will soften, some won’t. Don’t overwhelm the peaches with ice cream – this dessert is all about the peaches, not the ice cream. If the peaches are large, you can serve each person just a half, especially if you give them a nice (but small) portion of ice cream alongside. If they’re medium to smaller peaches, each person should have two.

If you have trouble finding amaretti cookies (I buy mine at a specialty food store, and at some times of the year our local Italian deli has them) you can, if you want to, make your own. I’ve never done that, but surely they’re not hard. Here’s a link to Martha Stewart’s site with detailed instructions.

What’s GOOD: the lovely, sweet, succulent peaches, almost dripping in butter (but they’re not, really). Oh so very tasty. The almond scent from the amaretti cookies shines through. If you choose to put whipped cream on it, add a bit of Amaretto to the cream, which will highlight the almond flavor.
What’s NOT: gee whiz, nothing at all – only that when it’s not peach season you probably can’t have these. I have made them with extra-deluxe canned peaches, but they’re definitely not as good!

printer-friendly PDF – created using Cute PDF Writer, not Adobe
MasterCook 5+ import file and MasterCook 14 import file

Tweet

Scrumptious, smooth and loaded with flavor from the vanilla bean and the potent blackberry Zinfandel sauce on top. If you like panna cotta, you’ll love this one.

There are 2 recipes for panna cotta here on my blog. The one linked is an Ina Garten recipe that uses about equal cream and yogurt. I do have another one – a boxed mix, and not normally what I’d recommend anyway. Recently Phillis Carey made a different one – a lemon panna cotta that was fantastic. It was identical to this one except she used a blueberry sauce instead of the blackberry AND she used liquid vanilla instead of the vanilla bean. I’ll give you both recipes at the bottom. Obviously Phillis really likes the stuff – I think she’s made it 4-5 times in the last couple of years in various classes I’ve taken, all with a slightly different twist to them. But I really, REALLY liked this blackberry one. Part of why I like this is the vanilla bean, but it’s the sauce that makes it. But I also really liked the lemon one too. Obviously it was the lemon that hooked me since I’m a lemon nut. So maybe you need to make both!

All of Phillis’s recipes for panna cotta include sour cream or yogurt for part of the mixture. The sauce: you combine 2/3 of the blackberries with sugar and Zinfandel, whizz that up in the food processor. Then you strain out all the seeds so you’re left with a clear liquid. That is cooked for just a minute or so, cooled, THEN you add the remaining 1/3 of the fresh berries and just let it sit until cool.

The panna cotta itself is so easy – unflavored gelatin, lemon juice, whipping cream, sugar, salt, vanilla bean is cooked briefly, then once that has cooled some you whisk the cream mixture into the the sour cream. Pour into ramekins and chill. The topping is added just before serving.

The VANILLA BEAN one: (scroll down below for the lemon one):

printer-friendly PDF – created using CutePDF Writer not Adobe

MasterCook 5+ file and MasterCook 14 file

The LEMON one:

printer-friendly PDF – created using Cute PDF Writer, not Adobe

MasterCook 5+ file and MasterCook 14 file

Tweet