Monday, November 29, 2004

Mondays with Maida - Big Old-Fashioned Chocolate Cookies


Page 22 in the old book / page 40 in the new book

First, a couple of administrative details… I’ve decided to add the nutrient facts to each post. I’m not sure this will be welcomed, so I’ve set it up so that you don’t have to look at it. There’s a link at the end of the post that will take you to another page where you can find out the number of calories, grams of fat, etc. I’ve calculated these using Living Cookbook (which, by the way, is a great program if you’re in the market for cookbook software). The program actually calculates the amounts of many other nutrients, so if there's something missing that you'd like me to include, let me know. I’ve also created an archive of all the Mondays with Maida posts and have put links to both the archive and the nutrient facts on the sidebar.

Now on to the important stuff! The next recipe in the “Drop Cookies” section of the book is for Big Old-Fashioned Chocolate Cookies. These are big, cakey cookies that are covered with a rich chocolate glaze. There is nary a hint of crunch in them, not even at the edges. They’re the sort of cookie I imagine would go over big with kids. They’re big, beautiful cookies and it took all my willpower to refrain from eating one until after dinner.



This is another easy cookie that doesn’t even require a mixer. The dough is mixed in a saucepan, and since the recipe makes only 18 cookies (I actually ended up with a few more), forming and baking the cookies is quick work. I had no trouble with these and found that the actual baking time fell within the recommended range. Unsweetened chocolate is used in both the cookie and the glaze.



These cookies are good, though I prefer something with a little more textural interest. I have to say, though, that the glaze makes them quite enticing. There’s a good amount of dark brown sugar in them, but I didn’t notice it as I did in the Chocolate Chocolate-Chip Cookies. That may be because I was distracted by the glaze and the cakey texture and wasn’t paying attention to such subtleties. I wish I could have another so that I could more accurately report on these things, but if you check out the nutrition facts you’ll see why I can’t.

Next time – Key West Chocolate Treasures.

Nutrition Facts

9 comments:

debbie said...

Oh my god, they're BEAUTIFUL! Completely professional-looking. And I will never, ever make them, because I fell for your little tease and peeked at the calorie count. You'll have to enjoy them for me.

Zarah Maria said...

I haven't looked - and I won't, 'cause I have to try these sometime. They look delish!

Anonymous said...

hi Cathy,
*revives from faint*
yes, I looked...
sigh! these are gorgeous cookies but I'll just have to resign myself to tasting this vicariously through your blog...
great little feature though... the nutritional facts... thanks for adding it.

oh, and like you, I like a little crunch in my cookies : )

Renee
www.shiokadelicious.com

Reid said...

Hi Cathy,

Thanks for making these... =P ...and then posting the nutritional details! I could have polished off the entire plate of these without a care until I realized that I'd probably have consumed all of my allowed calories for the day...and then some...in one sitting! Good job though. I normally don't like "cake-y" style cookies, but since these are chocolate, I might give them a chance. =)

Anonymous said...

Yum, those look good! I also like some crunch in my cookies,though, so I'll trust your judgment on those. I also like chewiness a lot, but not soft cakiness chewy...am I even speaking English anymore? Thanks for adding the nutrition info...I'm of the type who wants to know what they're putting into their mouth. Yes, it does ruin it sometimes, but other times makes it all the more special!
Alice

Cathy said...

Thank you Debbie! Yes, I'm afraid that's a bigger "investment" than I generally like to make in a single cookie! I'd much rather have one of the Chocolate Chocolate-Chip cookies which is about half the fat and calories of one of these (and is much more satisfying, too)! But these are awful pretty to look at...

Hi Zarah Maria! You don't have to look - that's why I hid it away. If you've made you're mind up to have something, you might as well enjoy it - right?

Thanks Renee! I was pretty shocked by the numbers on this one too. The funny thing is, they don't taste that decadant. I think it's mostly the size - they are pretty big cookies!

Hi Reed - you're very welcome! Wish I could share the real cookies with you and all the others, but sharing them this way is the next best thing (and does wonders for the waistline!).

Thanks Alice! Yes, I'd save the calories for something better. These are pretty plain - the icing is the only thing that livens them up. Glad you like the nutritional data. In a weird way it's kind of fun to do - it's interesting to me how one cookie compares to the other and I like to try to guess how it will turn out. I wish ALL cookbooks and magazines provided this kind of information - I like to factor it in when I'm deciding what to cook/eat.

Linda said...

Hi Cathy. Thanks for sharing this recipe. It looks great and despite the high calories I'll have to try it sometime. I've really been enjoying your "Mondays with Maida" series and the way you are archiving the posts and providing the nutritional information link is wonderful. Very helpful for readers; thanks!

Cathy said...

Thanks very much Linda, that is so nice to hear!

Anonymous said...

These are very cakey cookies. I once used them to make my version of Suzy-Qs. I made a marshmallow icing and sandwiched two together. I also tried out a vanilla buttercream in the middle. Both were very good. However, there is nothing wrong with eating them as is.
Pie Susan