I almost want to cut this recipe a little slack. Almost. It calls for oleo, and oleo is the common term for margarine during WWII. In fact, it's short for oleomargarine. Recipes with oleo listed as an ingredient are usually recipes from a time when there wasn't enough food for anyone to buy all they wanted. If you wanted a cup of sugar for a cake, you were going to have to go without any in your coffee for a couple weeks. You couldn't just buy more. You couldn't buy all the butter you wanted. It was rationed. There was more oleomargarine to go around.
Chances are this recipe is from that period.
But I don't cut it slack because there are a couple chances that could be made without sacrificing the integrity of the icing.
I knew that this couldn't be a bad-tasting product, but it was too thin for the job. Look at the spoon and you can see the wording on the bowl near the handle. This is after cooling.
Margarine will never set as firm as butter. Pull a tub of it out of the fridge and a stick of real butter, and you'll notice how one is spreadable and one needs to be set on the counter for a while. Changing the oleomargarine to butter would have made a product that is not so runny.
Another easy fix would be to use the margarine, but to instruct the maker to ass the powdered/confectioner's sugar until an icing consistency is reached. A box just wasn't enough with a little over 3/4c of wet ingredients.
Made according to the direction, I have what is more like pudding. It's tasty, but it's not going to do the job it's made for.
As an incing, I give this a 6/10 as it's written. With one or both of the changes I suggest, it would be an 8/10. But since I judge recipes on how they are written, it's a 6/10.
Overall I'd give it an 8/10, and eat if like pudding, which is what we just did. My daughter's still scraping the bowl. It's not the best pudding, but it's not awful. But this recipe isn't meant to be a pudding. So we're back to that 6/10.
No comments:
Post a Comment