A long time ago I swore I’d never use those bake-and-break chocolate chip cookies. They’re too sweet and the Nestle Toll House Chocolate Chip Cookies recipe is so darn good and easy. Then I saw the New York Times Chocolate Chip Cookies recipe on the little kitchen. I hadn’t been looking for a new chocolate chip cookie recipe but the blogger claimed they’re good. What’s more, they used bread flour and cake flour; they must sit in the fridge for 24 hours before baking. I was intrigued. But are they better than the classic?
I found the weights for the recipe curious. “2 cups minus 2 Tbsp (8 1/2 ounces) cake flour” and “1 2/3 cups (8 1/2 ounces) bread flour” — they’re the same weight but different if measured by cups? Also I used table salt for in the dough (as opposed to sea salt; I did use sea salt for sprinkling on top though) and semi-sweet chocolate chips (instead of dark chocolate chips).
So were they good? Definitely. Usually with the classic cookies, if I leave them in the oven too long the edges get brown and burnt. These, although the edges were brown, they weren’t burnt and were soft and chewy. They’re just a different kind of cookie than the traditional Toll House ones. Although I didn’t think there was anything especially special about them. It did get me thinking though, what would the Toll House ones taste like with bread and/or cake flour? Or how about these cookies with dark brown sugar instead of light brown? Experiments for another day.
1 thought on “New York Times Chocolate Chip Cookies”
Pingback: Christmas Cookie Recap - Reverberations