/ck/ - Food & Cooking

>>16726105
cookies, specifically chocolate chip, but i have a lot of options on the other varieties of cookie. sounds dumb but it's because i just like them and have existed for enough years and it's been my mild niche in food. as in it's the thing that i enjoy enough to specifically go for but not enough to be my favorite and be burned out in a few years. chocolate chip cookies should be
>a good base that can be tasty on it's own but will likely be missing something without chocolate chip
>NOT DRY OR CRUMBLY OR CRISPY
>favoring buttery flavor over sweetness, this isn't to say that it should taste buttery. it's to distinguish the flavor, as in it should not be too sweet. if it does then it's bad, but many chocolate chip cookies are just very sweet and that's not good. the primary sweetness should come from the chocolate chunks in it
>on the topic of the chocolate, it's chunks of chopped chocolate. not too big, but medium sized. although it's called a chocolate chip cookie, it shouldn't actually have traditional "chocolate chips" in them.
>oily chocolate chips exist and they are bad
>they should be chewy, in a nearly approaching brownie texture
>it's easy to overshoot the chewiness and make the cookie too oily, and this is bad.
>many many many cookies are just straight up crumbly or dry in texture. chewy cookies are where it's at.
getting into nuances here
>any sort of toffee cookie ends up being a good cookie base in my experience, like if it was chocolate chip it'd be a very good chocolate chip
>browned butter is good in chocolate chip
>a bit of vanilla is often the element that can add dimension to the base but at the same time it's like the butter, you shouldn't be able to taste it really.
>for whatever reason those m&m type cookies are often a horrible base.

the best chocolate chip cookie that most people can easily find is the two pack from quickcheck. that sounds insane, i know, but it's very good.