Torted Cakes Vs. 3-1" Layers - What Do You Do?

Decorating By mrsgreshcakes Updated 9 Jun 2014 , 9:14pm by mrsgreshcakes

mrsgreshcakes Posted 9 Jun 2014 , 7:47pm
post #1 of 11

I'm entertaining the idea of ditching the "torting" of cakes to make 4 cake layers and using 1" tall pans to have 3 cake layers for my wedding cakes.  Do any of you who have way more experience than I do have a definitive opinion about this?  I see pros and cons to both sides (less labor vs. less materials) and before I invest in all new pans, I'm very curious as to your thoughts.

 

Thanks in advance!!

Mrsgreshcakes

10 replies
-K8memphis Posted 9 Jun 2014 , 7:52pm
post #2 of 11

sure i have an opinion on almost everything--

 

don't buy new pans--just bake shorter cakes--

 

in fact i have a special hot fudge cake that gets an italian cream filling that i bake in a half sheet then cut & stack it into a quarter sheet layer cake--10,000 times easier this way --

 

great idea-- good thinking

MBalaska Posted 9 Jun 2014 , 7:56pm
post #3 of 11

What problem are you having with your current wedding cakes.......that you want to lower your height

mrsgreshcakes Posted 9 Jun 2014 , 7:57pm
post #4 of 11

Quote:

Originally Posted by -K8memphis 
 

sure i have an opinion on almost everything--

 

don't buy new pans--just bake shorter cakes--

 

in fact i have a special hot fudge cake that gets an italian cream filling that i bake in a half sheet then cut & stack it into a quarter sheet layer cake--10,000 times easier this way --

 

great idea-- good thinking

 

Thanks K8memphis!  So I would need to do some experimenting to see how much to fill each pan with to only get them half full.  Do you happen to know if there are any resources out there that has this info already?

shannonann Posted 9 Jun 2014 , 8:00pm
post #5 of 11

I did an experiment on this exact subject a couple of weeks ago. I filled my pans with much less batter. They didn't dome nearly as much as usual and required very little, if any, trimming and leveling. I was using doctored box mixes. I tried it with yellow, devils food and red velvet mixes and the results were the same on all three. So I decided that baking more layers and making them thinner with less waste was the way to go for me.

mrsgreshcakes Posted 9 Jun 2014 , 8:02pm
post #6 of 11

Quote:

Originally Posted by MBalaska 
 

What problem are you having with your current wedding cakes.......that you want to lower your height

 

MBalaska - not problems, just trying to find ways to be more efficient.  I'm a horrible torter (lol) and truly am just looking for a cleaner, more professional looking solution that makes life easier.  I recently attended a wedding and that is what the inside looked like - 3 one inch layers with 1/2 in layers of filling in between.  Clean, crisp, easy.

 

I also think that making this move will help me better streamline my costs - add a 6" layer and this is what your cost is.  Easy peasy lemon squeezy.

 

What do you think?

mrsgreshcakes Posted 9 Jun 2014 , 8:04pm
post #7 of 11

Quote:

Originally Posted by shannonann 
 

I did an experiment on this exact subject a couple of weeks ago. I filled my pans with much less batter. They didn't dome nearly as much as usual and required very little, if any, trimming and leveling. I was using doctored box mixes. I tried it with yellow, devils food and red velvet mixes and the results were the same on all three. So I decided that baking more layers and making them thinner with less waste was the way to go for me.

 

Shannonann - I knew it!!  My brain isn't completely fried - LOL!  Did you happen to write down the weights of the batter that you filled the pans with?  If so, I'd love to know what they were if you would be willing to share.

-K8memphis Posted 9 Jun 2014 , 8:16pm
post #8 of 11

shannonann might already know but i'd just use this chart and use half the amount called for

 

http://www.wilton.com/wedding/wedding-cakes/wedding-cake-data.cfm

 

the fourth column gives the batter amounts and yields 2" layers so if you want a 1" use half -- no? yes!

 

but me i would use the half plus just a bit more batter to be sure everything baked up nice all the way around-- just me--

shannonann Posted 9 Jun 2014 , 8:17pm
post #9 of 11

AI only used 6" pans for the experiment. I got four 6" layers from each doctored box mix. I'm sorry I don't have weights.

winniemog Posted 9 Jun 2014 , 8:34pm
post #10 of 11

A

Original message sent by -K8memphis

shannonann might already know but i'd just use this chart and use half the amount called for

[URL=http://www.wilton.com/wedding/wedding-cakes/wedding-cake-data.cfm]http://www.wilton.com/wedding/wedding-cakes/wedding-cake-data.cfm[/URL]

the fourth column gives the batter amounts and yields 2" layers so if you want a 1" use half -- no? yes!

but me i would use the half plus just a bit more batter to be sure everything baked up nice all the way around-- just me--

K8 is spot on, use your normal recipe and halve the amount you add to each pan. I normally weigh my batter to divide it equally among the pans so it's easy enough to make the calculation to halve the amounts at this point. And I would go with K8's other suggestion of a little more batter in each pan for luck to get a nice even thickness!

On the other hand, have you tried a leveller to torte your cakes evenly?

mrsgreshcakes Posted 9 Jun 2014 , 9:14pm
post #11 of 11

Quote:

Originally Posted by winniemog 


K8 is spot on, use your normal recipe and halve the amount you add to each pan. I normally weigh my batter to divide it equally among the pans so it's easy enough to make the calculation to halve the amounts at this point. And I would go with K8's other suggestion of a little more batter in each pan for luck to get a nice even thickness!

On the other hand, have you tried a leveller to torte your cakes evenly?

 

Winniemog-

 

I think I'll experiment a bit with the batter weights and see what I get.  I don't have a leveler because I've been holding out for an Agbay (best on the market), but at $300.00+ compared to a $35.00 set of pans, the price difference is quite extreme.

Quote by @%username% on %date%

%body%