I agree- "filling the gaps" is a challenge, but I also think it's part of the charm of a passed down recipe. My grandma's recipe for pecan pie does not mention vanilla at the top as an ingredient, but in the directions, it's mentioned as an add-in with the eggs. I think that she'd made it so many times that she just skipped over it in the list! I eventually figured it out.
Yes indeed, that's part of what adds personality to these cherished recipes. All kinds of quirks and shorthand and little gaps here and there. Extra engaging that way!
Recipe card shorthand is a language all in itself. Thanks for shining a light on what I consider a true culinary skill: fitting a recipe on a tiny card. I’ve been using both 3 x 5 and their next gen 4 x 6 cards lately in pen pal recipe swaps with my subscribers, but the 4 x 6’s just don’t feel as genuine as the smaller cards. Always an achievement to squeeze a recipe on those babies!
What a great idea, pen pal recipes swaps. I didn't get to it this year, but have been thinking about encouraging a hand-written recipe or two (perhaps with the cooked version too, if appropriate, like a bread or snacky thing) as gifts for friends and family. Another type of recipe card I found in my old recipe folder is 5 x 6, meant to be folded in half for fitting in traditional 3 X 5 box. That helps a bit.
I ran into this issue with a something called Delicate Pudding (or at least I think that is what it was). I was supposed to beat some egg whites into water with cornstarch and sugar and whip to a froth... I'm still not sure what it was supposed to look like in the end, but needless to say, it did not go well and was definitely not what the cook intended.
I've been occasionally working on editing + expanding some family recipes into shareable form from a variety of sources (mostly cards and scrap bits of paper), and I've been dealing with the same sorts of gaps you're talking about. Like, I was very excited to share Nana's fudge recipe in our little family history newsletter, BUT I was not about to just put it out there without at least a note explaining what the heck "soft ball stage" is.
To your point — "And so often, these recipes cards served as a memory-jog, the cook quite familiar with the general process and not needing every detail to be spelled out for their own use."
When I finally realized this, those recipe cards became less frustrating to me. These cooks weren't TRYING to be mysterious, they just assumed that they (or someone else already in-the-know) would be the only ones reading it.
So true, part of the shorthand used in many older family recipes comes in the form of mentioning a technique easily understood by most home cooks, no further detail needed. Soft ball stage a great example. Rather different today, when "fold in the cheese" becomes a comedic moment of confusion on Schitt's Creek!
I agree- "filling the gaps" is a challenge, but I also think it's part of the charm of a passed down recipe. My grandma's recipe for pecan pie does not mention vanilla at the top as an ingredient, but in the directions, it's mentioned as an add-in with the eggs. I think that she'd made it so many times that she just skipped over it in the list! I eventually figured it out.
Yes indeed, that's part of what adds personality to these cherished recipes. All kinds of quirks and shorthand and little gaps here and there. Extra engaging that way!
Recipe card shorthand is a language all in itself. Thanks for shining a light on what I consider a true culinary skill: fitting a recipe on a tiny card. I’ve been using both 3 x 5 and their next gen 4 x 6 cards lately in pen pal recipe swaps with my subscribers, but the 4 x 6’s just don’t feel as genuine as the smaller cards. Always an achievement to squeeze a recipe on those babies!
What a great idea, pen pal recipes swaps. I didn't get to it this year, but have been thinking about encouraging a hand-written recipe or two (perhaps with the cooked version too, if appropriate, like a bread or snacky thing) as gifts for friends and family. Another type of recipe card I found in my old recipe folder is 5 x 6, meant to be folded in half for fitting in traditional 3 X 5 box. That helps a bit.
I ran into this issue with a something called Delicate Pudding (or at least I think that is what it was). I was supposed to beat some egg whites into water with cornstarch and sugar and whip to a froth... I'm still not sure what it was supposed to look like in the end, but needless to say, it did not go well and was definitely not what the cook intended.
I've been occasionally working on editing + expanding some family recipes into shareable form from a variety of sources (mostly cards and scrap bits of paper), and I've been dealing with the same sorts of gaps you're talking about. Like, I was very excited to share Nana's fudge recipe in our little family history newsletter, BUT I was not about to just put it out there without at least a note explaining what the heck "soft ball stage" is.
To your point — "And so often, these recipes cards served as a memory-jog, the cook quite familiar with the general process and not needing every detail to be spelled out for their own use."
When I finally realized this, those recipe cards became less frustrating to me. These cooks weren't TRYING to be mysterious, they just assumed that they (or someone else already in-the-know) would be the only ones reading it.
Also, good luck with your workshops!
So true, part of the shorthand used in many older family recipes comes in the form of mentioning a technique easily understood by most home cooks, no further detail needed. Soft ball stage a great example. Rather different today, when "fold in the cheese" becomes a comedic moment of confusion on Schitt's Creek!