100% Full Strength Flour
24-hour dough (but intended to be 48-hour dough).
Baked at 550 for 7 minutes.
350 g of cheese. (Sorry Josh, 250 g just ain't enough for me. Nor is 350 g, probably.)
I have real issues with making NY style pizzas as thick as they should be. I'm not sure why, but my brain always seems to tell me it should be thinner, even when I know it's too thin. Even with the added dough this time, since the rim was a little thick on this one, the rest still ended up pretty thin, but probably not as thin as they were coming out when I used 20 oz of dough (and the pizzas were coming out more like 17"). I think maybe the reason my pizzas were shrinking so much is because I just wasn't using enough dough for 18" pizzas, and the dough knew it. Or something like that.
Regardless of all that, I definitely like the 22 oz results more than the 20 oz results. People on here, including me, tend to get maybe a little too focused on making NY style as thin as possible. I've had a lot of pizza in New York, and none of it was anywhere near as thin as I had been making my NY style pizzas, or even as thin as the one in the pictures below.
I think my hydration revelation has been both confirmed and whatever word means the opposite of confirmed. I do like a slightly stiffer dough than most members for NY style (because I want mine to be like pizza you get in New York), but I think a big part of why my hydration was so low when I started this thread was because the flour I was using at the time can't hold as much water as the flour I use now. I may still try increasing the hydration even more, but I'm inclined to think most NY style pizza (in New York) does not have a higher hydration than what I've been doing.
I think it's easy to tell from these pictures that my dough was less than two days old. There's just something magic about two-day-old dough to me, and this pizza didn't have that magical quality. Still a very good pizza, though.
This one also gave me some ideas regarding the Vincent dough. However, I'm going to keep it to myself because a lot of people on here take offense to being told they might not be right when they're probably not right, even though the entire premise of their thread is based on the fact that they are already aware that they don't know a lot of what they need to know. Similarly, even if almost all of someone's contributions are based on untested hypotheses, they tell you how wrong you are about things you're most certainly not wrong about, right after you've been more critical of your own work than anyone else could ever be. And if you try to explain to people what they need to know, instead of lying to them by telling they're doing everything right (even though they're obviously not doing everything right), which doesn't help them at all, you get flamed and ostracized.
I literally don't have time to BS people or be BSed by people, because I will probably no longer be physically able to do this stuff in a year, if I'm even still alive by then. If I'm doing something that you think may be wrong, I'd like you to tell me; for both my sake and yours. But even if you do tell me, it doesn't mean I'm just going to take your word for it. In fact, I might counter what you say. And if I do, it's not to be obstinate or argumentative. Rather, it's because to get better at things, you usually have to be critical; critical of your own ideas, as well as other people's ideas. It's not the same thing as being negative or condescending, and I'm really sick of being treated like it is.