The Two by Four of Cake Pans: Real Baking with Rose Levy Beranbaum

We’re all familiar with the concept and it’s so omnipresent we’ve all but accepted that when a piece of lumber is called a two by four it refers literally to what it once had been and NOT what it is now. Just in case you don’t know, it’s not bigger, it’s smaller. And having succeeded in gaining the mute acceptance of the American public, other areas of industry have followed suit. Think of all the money this is saving them, shaving off pieces of wood. It’s become a metaphor for clever merchandising (read cheating the public and getting away with it).

Although I detest the concept on principal, it doesn’t directly affect me when it comes to many things but when it comes to cake pans, my most vital piece of equipment for cake baking, it makes me MAD.

When I create a recipe for a 9 inch by 2 inch high pan whose volume is 8 2/3 cups and people find 9 inch pans that actually are 8 1/2 inches at the bottom and just under 9 inches at the top, the recipe will overflow the pan. I’ve taken to saying how much to fill the pan (with most batters no more than 2/3 full). Also a slope-sided pan is an extreme inconvenience when you stack one layer on top of the other and hope for even sides to ice.

So when you go shopping for cake pans (or pie plates for that matter) carry a tape measure with you. Being the daughter of a cabinet maker my first toy was an industrial wooden fold out ruler, and I still remember the cute little bronze mini measure that slid out from the end—of course it was my favorite part. I would never leave the house without my own purse size version.

From the kitchen of Rose on 04.29.06 at 4:12 PM in Announcements

Comments

bread browns beautifully (bottom and sides against the silicone) but of course it bakes for much longer. for blonde madeleines you may want to raise the oven temp. by 25 degrees if you want them to be browner. but it pays off in perfect release when prepared properly!

Reply to this Posted by: Rose Levy Beranbaum | June 14, 2007 10:20 AM #

Rose,
I'm interested in your statement that you prefer silicone pans for madeleines. I've always felt that you can't get good browing using silicone pans. Isn't that a problem when using a silicone pan for madeleines?

Reply to this Posted by: Mark | June 14, 2007 9:09 AM #

This one makes sence "One's first step in wisdom is to kuesstion everything - and one's last is to come to terms with everything."

Reply to this Posted by: Charles Hamm | June 14, 2007 4:21 AM #

Just got my 06509 Chicago Metallic 9x1.5" pans. The metal is pretty thick, nice, and fairly non-stick. But the sides are slightly flared, not completelly straight. Will these do? Genoise, Biscuit de Savoie, and other Cake Bible recipes calling for the 1.5"

I do remember my Mom had a few of those 1.5" high round pans with very straight edges. They were aluminum on the outside, and non stick on the inside. Rims were rolled. She used them to make Chinese Look Fun, sheet by sheet. Are these the ones you have for years? I think they were popular back then and she may have just gotten them from the grocery store.

Reply to this Posted by: Hector | May 5, 2007 2:14 PM #

thank you! non-stick is the best.

Reply to this Posted by: Rose Levy Beranbaum | March 5, 2007 5:55 PM #

Am looking forward to your new book....which type of material is most ideal for baking genoise & sponge type of cakes - plain aluminum or nonstick?
thanks, Florian.

Reply to this Posted by: Florian Defregger | March 5, 2007 3:58 PM #

i just had my first meeting with the photographer for my upcoming book and it's so exciting. i'm glad you're getting started with two of my very favorite other books now bc fall of 2008 you won't be able to resist making some of the new cakes!!!

Reply to this Posted by: Rose Levy Beranbaum | March 1, 2007 5:35 PM #

Wow, thank you for the quick response. I'm impressed! Am in the process of purchasing your Bread Bible and Christmas Cookie books.

Reply to this Posted by: Judy Wilson | March 1, 2007 5:29 PM #

if you make 2/3 the recipe you can simply divide the batter between the 6 depressions in the pans. alternatively, i seem to remember about 2/3 full.
so glad your enjoying the weighing system!

Reply to this Posted by: Rose Levy Beranbaum | March 1, 2007 5:17 PM #

Hi Rose,

I just got your Cake Bible cook from my library and want to know how much to fill the little mini-bundt cake pans? I couldn't find it listed in your book.

I mainly got the book for the ounce measurements. I can't believe what a difference it makes in my baking!! Everything come out perfect with my weighing the dry ingredients.

Thank you.

Reply to this Posted by: Judy Wilson | March 1, 2007 4:22 PM #

cast aluminum is the best because cast iron is slow to heat. what would be very interesting to try, however, is preheating the cast iron and then pouring in the batter. because once heated, cast iron is extraordinarily even!

Reply to this Posted by: Rose Levy Beranbaum | February 27, 2007 11:18 AM #

Is cast iron better or just as good as cast aluminium for baking large fluted cakes? Thanks, Florian.

Reply to this Posted by: Florian Defregger | February 27, 2007 1:10 AM #

I juz wanted to tell you how wonderful your advice is. The Chicago Metallic pans that I ordered from Ace Hardware came (they are one of the few firms that ship internationally). They are so wonderful & sturdy. Thank you!

I juz reread your post to me re lekué pans & think I'll get the muffin pans from Chicago Metallic instead of lekue. Thanks again!

Reply to this Posted by: Serene | February 21, 2007 2:06 PM #

i just got through writing on the equipment section for the new book that no one is using metal madeleine molds now that silicone is available and so much more non-stick! but if you insist on metal, try jb prince in ny

Reply to this Posted by: Rose Levy Beranbaum | February 13, 2007 3:09 PM #

I am looking for madeliene molds specifically from Paris that are heavier and don't stick as much. Do you have a source? Thanks, Phil

Reply to this Posted by: Reverend Phil Bratcher | February 13, 2007 10:04 AM #

i already addressed this. i'm happy with the non-stick chicago metallic pans. i don't know if you'd consider the crust thicker but i never noticed this. and i've never used the celphalon pans. last word!

Reply to this Posted by: Rose Levy Beranbaum | January 22, 2007 3:28 PM #

Dear Rose,

Ace Hardware has the heavier 9" x 1.5" pans that you'd mentioned(06509).

Mentioned about getting 2 x 9" x 1.5" pans, but am thinking if I should get a set of 8" pans too. Chicago Metallic has both the Professional line(that you recommended) as well as the non nonstick commercial line. Both lines are heavy-guaged. A reviewer mentioned that non nonstick aluminium bakeware would create pasty cakes. How true is that? Would the professional Chicago Metallic line cause a thick crust on the cake?

What's your view with regards to Calphalon cake pans?

Thanks alot!

Reply to this Posted by: serene | January 22, 2007 3:25 PM #

it will take a little less time since more surface area. by the way, i found my chicago metallics catalogue and they do indeed make the 9 x 1/2 pan in two weights--the "gourmetware"#06509 is 4.86 and the one listed on their duncan hines page # 28509 is 4.1. needless to say i'd go for the heavier. their # is 1-800-238BAKE, www.chicagometallic-bakeware.com

Reply to this Posted by: Rose Levy Beranbaum | January 22, 2007 12:51 PM #

I want to make a recipe that calls for an 8 x 2" pan. If I make it in a 9 x 1.5" pan , would the baking time be the same since the capacity is the same?

serene

Reply to this Posted by: serene | January 22, 2007 12:46 PM #

just a response to Brian: I'm not sure if they are 8.25" at the bottom. But you can contact the customer service pple at Ace hardware. Have got swift responses from them. The pans are non-nonstick...& that's why I remembered reading about them in the Cake Bible.

Rose, I dunno how true this is...but the german baking books say that aluminium bakeware is more suitable for gas ovens & the nonstick type for electric ovens. what do you think?

After all your help, think I'll settle For 2 x 9.5" round pans Chicago Metallic, non nonstick. Will the alumninium pans stick? I had pretty bad experiences with Wilton aluminium bakeware coz everything kept sticking on them. In the end, I juz gave them away (tho the cookie molds are great).

Thanks again!

Reply to this Posted by: Serene | January 21, 2007 1:15 PM #

actually my 9 x 1 1/2 pans are not chicago metallic-they have no brand on them and they are not non-stick. they are very old so i have no idea even where i got them--probably the bridge co.
parrish magic line in la might have true 9 inch of that size and yes they are 9 top and bottom.

Reply to this Posted by: Rose Levy Beranbaum | January 21, 2007 10:30 AM #

Serene,

Are these 9 x 1.5 inch pans truly 9" wide on the bottom? I've been looking for true 9 x 1.5" pans and I couldn't find any through Chicago Metallic a couple of months ago (the 9 x 2" were a full 9" on the bottom, but the 9 x 1.5" were only about 8.25"). If they are 9" on the bottom, could you give me some more specific information on the sub-brand (I know that Chicago Metallic has several different lines).

Thanks,

Brian

Reply to this Posted by: Brian | January 21, 2007 10:23 AM #

i adore the nordicware fluted tube pans of all shapes especially (big surprise) the rose. but i prefer the professional version of these pans which does not have the dark coating (jb prince carries them). kyser pans are excellent too but i like the nordicware shapes.

i would get two 9 x 1 .5 inch pans so then you can do a nice size two layer cake that isn't towering. oh and be sure to have him bring back some cake flour for those cake that require it!

Reply to this Posted by: Rose Levy Beranbaum | January 20, 2007 9:35 AM #

Thanks for your prompt responses. I read your posts, but still have some questions hanguing out there:

1. which type of material do you recommend for a bundt pan? I have the Ksyier La forme pan (which is made of coated steel) as well as Nordic ware's platinium series.

2. Ace Hardware does carry the Chicago Metallic 9 x 1.5 inch layer pans. Should I get them too (other than the professional Chicago Metallic pans that I've decided to get)? I think its the ones that you'd recommended in your cake Bible, but I'm not too sure. i sent them an email & they said its light, like any other aluminium pan.

Thanks a billion!

Serene

Reply to this Posted by: Serene | January 20, 2007 8:36 AM #

i'm so glad you'll have the opportunity to have some great pans and that i was here to answer. i LOVE the chicago metallics professional line that is non-stick. non stick means you don't have to use parchment except for choc. cakes but you still have to use flour/shortening spray. ask you husband to bring back some baker's joy--it's the only one that doesn't smell odd and works. it will be good for many many cakes and has a seemingly endless shelf-life!

Reply to this Posted by: Rose Levy Beranbaum | January 19, 2007 6:09 PM #

I can't get the layer cake pans here in germany but my husband will be going to US for a business trip next month. So am going to order some pans for him to pick up. Which brand would you recommend for cake pans? In your book (ie. The Cake Bible), you recommended Chicago Metallic Professional. Noticed that Chicago metallic have nonstick & the traditional aluminium version. Which one is better? Is the brand better than Calphalon? I only have Calphalon cookie sheets (which are wonderful) so am unsure if the layer cake pans produced by them are just as good. (had an angelfood cake pan by them but it was awful cleeaning the pan & stuck to my traditional 2-pieced aluminium angelfood cake pan that's filled with plenty of scratches instead). Thanks so much for your help!

Reply to this Posted by: Serene | January 19, 2007 5:52 PM #

no one i know of is now manufacturing 9 x 1 1/2 inch pans so in my cake bible revision i suggested making 2/3 the reicpe for a 9 x 2 inch pan or 1 1/3 recipe for two 9 x 2 inch pans. but don't fill the pan more than 2/3 full. most of my layer cakes bake best filled between 1/2 and 2/3 full so you can use any excess batter to make cupcakes.

if you opt for metal pans, i would chose ones that are light aluminum on the outside and non-stick on the inside bc chocolate cakes tend to stick even when sprayed with baker's joy except if using the non-stick together with baker's joy or the silicone.

you'll have to try out the silicone to see if you like it. lékué will be producing a 9 x 2 inch silicone pan according to my specifications but right now only kitchen aid (to my knowledge) does this. other ones are slightly higher and slightly larger which bake differently.

layer cakes baked in silicone pans to my taste have a better flavor and more even texture though slightly less high.

Reply to this Posted by: Rose Levy Beranbaum | November 5, 2006 7:34 PM #

Rose,

You were very helpful on another thread with a question about thermometers, so now I hope you can help with cake pans. I am just starting out baking and I am treating your Cake Bible like... well, a bible. I want to do everything by the letter initially to make sure I've made a cake correctly. So I would like to make your Perfect All American Chocolate Butter Cake. I made cupcakes from the recipe and they turned out great. I don't have 9 x 1 1/2" cake pans so I would like to buy them. Ideally, I would like to avoid dark ones (since I read in your book that the dark pans can be problematic) or silicon - I'd just like traditional cake pans. I've been searching in stores and on the internet and have had trouble coming up with any. Many are only 8 1/2 on the bottom (as described above) or the ones I've found in a full 9" are 2" high (and I'm assuming I don't want 9 x 2" - I really need 9 x 1 1/2").

Can you offer any advice on where I can look for true 9 x 1 1/2" pans?

Thank you so much,

Reply to this Posted by: Brian | November 5, 2006 7:22 PM #

Oh, ok, thanks again.

Reply to this Posted by: Elaine | October 29, 2006 10:07 AM #

i forot to mention that you're absolutely right about the butter. for ex. 10 oz. 80 percent fat butter contains tablespoons more water than the 9 oz. 86 percent which would be the approx. = of butterfat so i would try adding some water as well as reducing the butter.

Reply to this Posted by: Rose Levy Beranbaum | October 29, 2006 9:15 AM #

Thanks again so much for the info. As for the cake bible, on the sites, it's not easy to distinguish the color, since they give you a postagestamp-sized picture, and the pixels are not too clear. The publisher is what i need - then there's no question. So now i can look again for it.

In british english, "corn" means any kernel or grain ("kernel" is actually i think a diminutive of "corn" - they have the same root). In general corn referred to the primary grain used, so "indian corn" in the new world, and wheat in the old, or possibly rye or barley (barleycorn). In old manuscripts in english, before the discovery of the new world, they spoke of "corn" meaning, more often than not, wheat. Therefore cornstarch would just mean starch from grains. In england, i believe they say maize for what we call corn. Though many words are creeping over to england from the states, and i believe i saw "cornflour" meaning cornstarch. (Or, perhaps it actually was wheatstarch there too?). Boy is this confusing.
In Italy there is no risk of mixing them up because they sell both, amido di mais and amido di grano, and i had amido di mais (= maize = corn).
I'm going to try the cookies again. I think i'll use a little less butter, because my feeling is not so much that they didn;t puff but that they just melted down, like there was not enough structure or flour for the greasiness of the butter - that's been my experience of baking things here - piecrust comes out a greasy mess, unless you reduce the butter. I'll let you know how they come out. They were unbelievably good, but so thin they really ALL fell apart when i took them off the sheets and/or moved them in any way.

Reply to this Posted by: Elaine | October 29, 2006 9:01 AM #

p.s. the us cake bible has a white background color and the uk version is distinctly beige.

Reply to this Posted by: Rose Levy Beranbaum | October 29, 2006 8:23 AM #

yes--i tried the italian flour for my cakes a while back and was delighted that finally there was one european flour that worked for them! i THINK it was the 00.
as for cookies, the higher the protein the more it binds up the moisture in the dough so the less it can turn to steam and make the cookie puff. you need to try lowering the protein so why don't you try that next or 50/50 0 & 00! by the way, in australia, corn starch is actually made from wheat--i think corn is geneticallly a wheat grain or some thing like that--in any case, if this is true in italy the corn starch may indeed be contributing protein forming gluten!
my guess re manitoba flour is that it comes from canada (not a brilliant mental leap there!)and therefore is high and protein and terrific for bread.
re the UK version of the cake bible, the publisher was macmillan. let usknow if that's the one you found-i'll be interested and also re the cookies.

Hi Rose,
Another post from the wedding cake person in italy. I just made your chocolate-dipped melting moments cookies for my upcoming christmas party (i start two months in advance) and they came out completely flat. I imagine it's either (or both) the different quality of european butter (i've heard it has less water than the american) or the flour being less strong (though i used the "0" flour instead of the "00" flour, and most of the starch comes from cornstarch). I always had to add more flour and reduce the butter in cakes and cookies and pastry here, but the cakes from your cake book came out perfect, and so i imagined i wouldn't have to make any adjustments for the cookies either. I'm guessing that there's more leeway in cakes than small, buttery things like cookies and piecrusts, also since you did suggest i add more butter to the chocolate wedding cake. I wondered if you can give me a tip on this. Not sure if this is like british flour, but I do believe it's like french flour, since the considerations Julia Child made in her book about making french bread in the states (the greater glutin in american flour) seems to hold.
By the way, about the cake bible british version, i went online and found some used editions, but am not sure if they are british or american. Do you know the british publisher? You can;t see the cover well enough in the picture to understand if it's with the boxed-in frame and some don't have pictures of the book at all. They have begun to sell "manitoba" flour here, for bread, and wondered if that might be like american all-purpose or if a mixture of the both is better.
thanks so much,
elaine

Reply to this Posted by: Elaine | October 29, 2006 2:06 AM #

there is indeed a british edition (please check out "crossing the atlantic by cookbook" on this blog. you can identify it by it's cover that has a boxed in frame on the cover and the background is beige instead of white. it is out of print but places like "books for cooks" in london 071-603-8489. or maybe the uk has an equivalent to e-bay.

Reply to this Posted by: Rose Levy Beranbaum | October 21, 2006 9:08 AM #

I'm the one who asked about a chocolate and raspberry wedding cake.
I promised to send the picture and account of the wedding cake, but have not had the time and don;t know how to get the pictures on internet. I haven';t forgotten and will describe the various difficulties i met and how i solved them (notably the slipping of the layers in the 100 degree heat). It was wonderful by the way, and many people said it was the best cake they ever ate.
my current problem is that I would like to give my daughter your cake bible, but she lives in england, and i remember reading, don;t remember where, that you did a special british edition of the book using for british ingredients? Or was it just some pointers on the adaptation of british self-rising "cake flour" in a separate article? On Amazon UK they only have an old cake bible edition available (could it be the american one?) - can you let me know if there is a british edition and how i can identify and find it?
thanks

Reply to this Posted by: Elaine | October 21, 2006 9:01 AM #

Lori,

I've bake often in sheet pans, having successfully done jaconde (giaconda), a white chocolate cake and just recently devil's food (all original recipes that were intended for 9" round pans). Jaconde (made with powdered sugar whipped with whole eggs and almond meal then folded in flour, whipped whites and melted butter) works great, but I've not done a classique genoise in this manner. What works so well for the jaconde and the other cakes that I do is that the cake is intended to bake thin so that multiple layers can be made, and thin cake of course doesn't really "collapse." It could be (just a guess) that if your trying traditional genoise, that batter is so deep when poured that the center collapses before the entire structure can set....not sure, but sounds like a possibility. Additionally, I've found that sheet pan cakes require a slightly higher temperature to get them to set quickly. There are some sponge cakes I'll bake at 425-450 and take them out as soon as they're just brown on top (one I make bakes only 4 minutes).

Not sure how you're using magi strips on a sheet pan and am not familiar with the heating core, but I would just say try to divide the batter over two pans to make the batter thinner and then make multiple layers to introduce enough cake into the final product. This is a topic interesting to me, too, so if you discover interesting successes, please post...I'll do the same. I'll be glad to post a jaconde recipe here if you'd like that I've had success with. What's an example of a cake you're trying to create and I'll think about what I've used that might work....

Zach

Reply to this Posted by: Zach Townsend | September 1, 2006 10:44 PM #

I have a question about cake pan sizes, using sheet pans in particular. While I use Cake Bible recipes for my 8", 9" and 10" rounds and they come out beautifully, I have awful luck with them in quarter and half sheets. I've tried the strips you soak and wrap around the pans, I've also tried a heating core... nothing seems to keep them from falling slightly and becoming more dense in the middle. Am I missing something here? Can I boost the baking powder to give it more oomph so it won't fall? I'm desperate to turn out sheet cakes that are as gorgeous as the smaller rounds. I'd be truly, truly grateful for any insight offered.

Reply to this Posted by: Lori M. | August 31, 2006

Real Baking with Rose Levy Beranbaum

This scratch baking blog, featuring baker and cookbook author Rose Levy Beranbaum, is an online journal of Rose’s baking adventures, cooking tips, and scratch recipes. Her cookbooks include Bread Bible, Pie and Pastry Bible, Rose’s Christmas Cookies, Passion for Chocolate and The Cake Bible.

The Two by Four of Cake Pans

Comments