But if we are talking Giordano's, what is the measuring stick? An objective standard that exists today and can be readily measured against by many tasters, or a historical (apocryphal?) recipe that cannot be verified by anyone, except maybe BTB or someone else who dined there regularly 40 years ago?
The measuring stick is the fact that there are no pictures on the internet, either here or elsewhere, of pizzas that look remotely like Giordano's, except these
and a few of the pics I've shared lately. Chicago Rules!!!'s pizzas look great--probably better than mine--but he (or she?) didn't share much about them, other than the fact that the dough "was very similar to Buzz's
." So the way I see it, there isn't a measuring stick. First of all because Buzz measures everything by volume, but also because I think his recipe is pretty far off the mark in at least one area. I'm not even sure if anyone has expressed a prospective Giordano's recipe in bakers' percents prior to the dough formulations I've shared lately.
All I know is that if the "inside information" I've shared recently is legit, even though it is almost 40 years old and has surely been changed more than once, then that information is probably still more accurate than any other information that has been shared either here or anywhere else on the internet. And I consider that very relevant information.
I'm not trying to pretend I'm any kind of expert when it comes to this kind of pizza, because I'm not. I've never even had Giordano's. But there's just no reliable information out there, and I knew after one try that I was probably closer to replicating this pizza than anyone else has been so far, at least with the dough/crust. Yeah, I'm impressed with my results so far, although I know there's a lot of room for improvement. You would be, too, if you had just accomplished what I feel like I've accomplished. And I may sound full of myself for a while. If I do, then shoot me down. But also realize that if I sound full of myself, it may just be that I'm simply trying to share what I think is some pretty valuable information (and that you're misinterpreting my intentions).
Just look at it this way, Garvey: After I speculated that the fat percentage in Giordano's dough is much less than half of what everyone else has tried, before any of this "inside information" came out, YOU seconded my low-fat interpretation. As far as I know, that had not happened prior to the other day. I think someone (probably Peter) may have speculated that the fat percentage should be lower than what everyone has tried prior to my participation, but I don't think anyone ever seconded that idea. Then the other day, you did
. Which means you and I may have just permanently changed the direction of how most people approach their view of how to clone a style of pizza that previously had no direction.
Regardless of what the "inside information" says, I feel pretty sure that the fat percentage for this dough needs to be in the neighborhood of 6-8%. That's how I felt before this information was even shared with me. But to have such information available to perhaps confirm what I already thought I'd figured out on my own, I think that's big. Having said that, I think it's very unlikely that the hydration of Giordano's dough is a drop over 50%, even though the "inside information" says 58%. I like 48%, and I'm gonna stick with it for a while.
So you're right: the old recipes may be *better*. That is absolutely true. But that would also mean qualitatively and factually *different*. That's all. No judgment passed...just reiterating facts.
Yes, the "inside information" I've shared is different. We know that. Even the person who shared it with me acknowledged that it's not the same thing they're making today. I wasn't trying to say "this is the answer." It's not the answer, but it seems to be a useful tool that will ultimately help us figure out the answer.