What is the difference between frosting and icing?

Why do I think this is some kind of a joke?

I think icing is thinner and is kind of dripped down on the cake. Frosting is thicker, and you need a knife to frost the cake.

I am not sure, though!

Now, Kalleh - it's a serious, scholarly question!

quote:

Originally posted by Caterwauller:
What is the difference between frosting and icing?

Spelling and pronunciation.

Tinman

Actually I think that 'frosting' is more af an American term as it's not as commonly used over here. To me a cake is either covered in icing or it's not but I never refer to a cake with 'frosting' on it.

Indeed. Frosting is what you get on your car's (automobile's) windscreen (windshield) if you've left it parked outside on the pavement (sidewalk).

What US/UK difference do you mean? ;-)

Whenever I've seen references to "frosting" I've always assumed from the context that it was the American word used instead of the British word "icing", much as "fall" is used instead of "autumn". "Frosting" is certainly not used here in this context.

quote:

Spelling and pronunciation.

Smartass!

Oh ok - so it looks like it's just a US word . . . frosting.

I thought it was the sting of a fro, as a beesting is from a bee.

quote:

beesting

I've only seen that in the plural, beestings, meaning "The first milk given by a cow after calving."

Oh! Did you perhaps mean bee sting?

Icing does too just dribble. Frosting is the more substantial stuff you get to scoop out of the bowl, even if the cake gets short-changed!

Amnow is completely on my wavelength with this. Interesting that you Brits don't use "frosting" like this. We also, Richard, have "frosting" on our Chicago cars on a wintery morning.

The lovely stuff adorning cakes (and other tasty bits, if the mood is right!) is frosting. The icey stuff on the car windsheild in the morning is FROST, but not frosting.

For me, anyway.

From that authoritative source, KidsFood.com:

Frosting v. Icing
There is a big difference between frosting and icing. Frosting is thick and holds shapes like rosettes and shells like those you see piped around the edges of a birthday cake. It remains soft to the touch and has a creamy texture, and most people think it tastes better because of the creamy buttery flavor. Icing, on the other hand, is a thinner, more liquid substance, and as it dries it thins out, becomes very smooth across the surface of your cookie, and hardens. This is the icing to use for the most beautiful, professional results.

P.S. I made the mistake of researching this further, in cookbooks. Suddenly I'm very very hungry ...

You're right, Shu - sounds delicious!

I wonder how prevalant the use of Fondant is in the UK for cake decorating. We used fondant to cover a cake for the cub scout decorating contest and auction a few months ago, and Simon used some food coloring markers to draw on the surface - it worked out great!

True story: I was an air traffic controller in the Air Force for a year before the stress drove me nuts (a long story I'll tell you some day, maybe, if you get me good and drunk) but back when I was in training school for this job, the U.S. was in the process of training Iranian fighter pilots on this same base. One of my instructors also taught them and he reported that while they were very attentive students who took copious notes, they almost never asked questions in class. Everything was conducted in English and the feeling of the students seemed to be that if there was something that they did not understand, the most likely cause was their own less than perfect command of the language. This, combined with some sort of sense of national pride, would cause them to consistently answer in the negative when the instructors would ask if there were any questions, something they would do many, many times throughout the school day. Rather than ask a question about something they didn't understand, they would write down almost every syllable the instructors uttered and then go back to their barracks rooms after class and work things out with their English/Iranian dictionaries.

This system worked well enough for them until one day when the class subject dealt with the danger of ice forming on an aircraft's wings. Again and again, the instructor asked if there were any questions and again and again the answer was no UNTIL the following day when one brave Iranian pilot raised his hand to confess that none of them understood how cake frosting would get on their aircrafts' wings at high altitude.

The word they had looked up in their dictionaries was "icing."

I think Chris is onto something with this. The imagery of the words is related to the weather phenonenon. Rime frost, hore frost, ground frost. De-frosting refrigerators. Icing on roads or pavement (or indeed wings), de-icing windscreens. Shufitz has differentiated the words in a technical way that I doubt originaly existed.
"De-icing" Licking the icing off before eating the cake.

Welcome Quark. It's good to have you on board, especially as I think you are in fact my brother. To everyone else, I mentioned the virtues of this site to my brother this morning and it looks like he listened for a change. I am hopeful that his better half will also join up as she is a French Canadian and will provide an interesting insight into the way the English language is used. Keep it in the family, that's what I say

Welcome to the board, Quark! Good job recruiting, Doad!

Hello Quark! Hope you stay the journey!

Are you as annoying as your brother can be?

Quark, is it? Are you up, down, top, bottom, charm, or strange? Based on what little I've learned of your brother, I have my suspicions!

Welcome all the same!

If it looks like a quark and writes like a quark, then it must be ..... Doad's brother !!

Welcome, Quark !!

quote:

Originally posted by Quark:
The imagery of the words is related to the weather phenonenon. Shufitz has differentiated the words in a technical way that I doubt originaly existed.

Welcome aboard, pal!

Actually, when I posted that quotation, I felt that it did make sense, precisely because of the weathter phenomenon you mention. On a cold winter day, frost crystals form a rough surface on your window, while ice is smooth and slick. So too, frosting on a cake holds its shape, with all the swirls and swatches with which it was placed, while icing on a cookie "seeks its own level" and, under gravity, flows to form smooth ice-like surface.

I would bet the terms as used in cooking were originally distinguished based on their difference in meteorology.

quote:

Originally posted by Cat:Are you as annoying as your brother can be?

I'm so hurt I'm sure he can be just as annoying if he puts his mind to it but as he's nearer to you than I am he will have to be significantly more careful in his postings in case you decide to vent your considerable anger in his direction and beat him up with one of your many shoes (or do you have that rolling pin yet?)

to you, Doad.

One of my many shoes? A mere NINE pairs? (Or was it 10? *Can't be bothered to check*)

No rolling pin as yet, but still have the hammer and screwdriver, thanks.

And yes, I can get to Redditch in about 10 minutes on the train. Hehe.

Hi everyone,
I lack the ambition to be top although I achieve just enough never to be bottom. We all have our ups and downs but my predeliction is to a strange charm. The exact ratio of the two will depend on your point of view though you may remain uncertain.
I did not think Central Trains could get anywhere in ten minutes.

quote:

I lack the ambition to be top although I achieve just enough never to be bottom. We all have our ups and downs but my predeliction is to a strange charm. The exact ratio of the two will depend on your point of view though you may remain uncertain.

Yup - I think you will fit in here just fine.

Doad? Is it possible that he's more of a smartass than you?

quote:

I did not think Central Trains could get anywhere in ten minutes.

They're better than the ones in Kent (at least back in the 80s, I don't know what they're like now). I was living in Peterborough (on the east coast of England) and had a Family Railcard which enabled any combination of four adults and four children (not necessarily related) to travel on off-peak trains for £1 each for children and 33% off normal fare for adults.

One of my kids had a birthday and I said that, rather than have a party (which they were getting too old for anyway), they could ask one friend each and I'd take them all out for the day on the train.

We all decided that we would go to Canterbury (in the south east of England). We'd had a great day out and were on our way to London to catch our onward connection back home when the train just stopped in the middle of nowhere - with no explanation . This was before the days of the mobile phone (cellphone) and we were getting worried because there was no way we could let anyone know where we were and what had happened and we had visions of the parents pacing the platform. Eventually, the guard came through the train and told us all that the engine had caught fire and had to be replaced ! The people around us were regulars on that line and said that this was a common occurrence because of the extreme age of the rolling stock in that area.

We DID make it back home - and just in time .

In this part of the USA we understand "mobile" and "cellphone" equally. What I do not understand is how these phones are thought of as biological! "Cell" phone?

Your bit about the locomotive catching fire reminded me - goodness knows why - of the two elderly English gentlemen who had not seen each other in some time. One met the other and, after exchanging greetings, commented, "I understand from the newspaper that you buried your wife recently." The other replied, "Yes - had to. Dead, you know."

quote:

I did not think Central Trains could get anywhere in ten minutes.

It is a common habit of the English to denigrate their achievements and their public services. Our railways, while not perfect, are very much better than those in some other countries - and I use them very regularly throughout the country. Of course, whenever I make this point then someone will come up with their own particular railway horror story to make the point that our railways are chronically unreliable, or expensive, or inadequate, or slow. Why is, quite simply, not true.

Dianthus's comment, "...the people around us were regulars on that line and said that this was a common occurrence because of the extreme age of the rolling stock in that area..." is typical. Whereas it may be true there had been occasional other instances of engine failure it would not have been "common". Our Railways are bound by very strict rules governing their operation and the Railway Inspectorate would rapidly have withdrawn the operating licence from any company whose locomotives habitually burst into flames. The age of the rolling stock or the locomotive has nothing to do with the matter. However old the equipment it must meet operational standards.

I need to get to an appointment in London this Thursday in Tottenham Court Road. From my local station (about 28 miles out) I have a choice of 7 trains between 0727 and 0818 that will get me to one of London's mainline stations (London has 16 of them) by 0900, the journey taking about 30 minutes. I can then catch a tube (subway) for which I will probably have to wait less than a minute - 5 minutes is exceptionally long - and that will get me to Tottenham Court Road in about seven to ten minutes. And if I didn't want to take the tube, then I could take any one of several buses or even a taxi (whose driver will know EXACTLY how to get where I want to get to). And I know that each and everyone of those services will be, around 98% of the time, spot on.

I have been doing these kinds of journey for nearly half a century and, for all that time, have heard the moans of travellers complaining about the service which has usually been fine. Once, and once only (about 40 years ago) was I in a train whose engine failed, and once (an once only) I was in an electric multiple unit that had "gapped" (that is, it had stopped at a point where the collector shoes were off the live rail). In both instances, within 30 minutes, another train was brought up to push us. In neither case was I seriously inconvenienced and was at my destination in good time.

Our media, of course, like to foster this untruth and whenever London's public transport system (one of the best in the world - as I know from personal experience of many others) is mentioned then its name is always coupled with some adjective like "crumbling", "third world", or "creaking".

I heard a speech once from a Spaniard, now living in England, who referred to this common habit that the English have of denigrating their achievements and he sugggested it was actually a great strength since by so doing we avoided the complacency that bedevils many other nationals, and allows them to put up with inferior standards from their public services.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Richard English,

I agree with Richard. While I don't feel there is any reason to be complacent, UK train companies are not too bad, particularly compared with those abroad. They regularly fail to meet punctuality and reliability targets, admittedly, but they provide a reasonable service on the whole.

I take a suburban train service to and from work daily, and I can't really describe the service as bad. On occasion trains are cancelled or delayed, but the vast majority of journeys are without problems. Today the train I would normally catch was cancelled, so I had to wait five minutes for the next one. Because of the cancellation the train was uncomfortably crowded, and because the driver had difficulty closing the doors at some stations it was five minutes late. I therefore ended up in central London ten minutes later than usual. I concede that with a less frequent service the cancellation of a train would have a more serious effect.

While arnie and Richard have a point, they forget that they are talking about London transport, which is generally better, especially with the Tube (the capital always gets the best, of course :P).

Trains are my preferred method of public transport (I can't travel on coaches long distance), and I use them pretty regularly. I'd say it's about 25/50/25 good, mediocre and bad service, generally. It's a sad indictment of the service though that if I need to get somewhere by, say 14.00 and there's a train that'll get me in at 13.45 and one at 13.00 I'll go for the earlier one - even though it means hanging around at my destination - because I've had too much experience of being let down. This means that travelling by public transport takes longer and is more inconvenient than it could be.

The last two times I've been to Wales I've been delayed for more than an hour. The last time we had to get on a coach for 2 hours as there was no available train between Machynlleth and Shrewsbury - I HATE coaches and had the most horrendously nauseous and thus stressful journey for the last hour: I only got on because they'd originally said it'd be 45 minutes on the coach at most. Fortunately you get your money back for that leg of the journey if you're delayed for over an hour, so when I next go on Wednesday, my fare is only going to cost me a third of what it usually does. This time though, I will not be getting on any buses. I'll wait 5 hours for the next train if I have to

I have to go with cat on this.
I commute in to the college by taking a metro (tram) to Birmingham and then the train. The train service rarely runs to time. I long ago worked out that if the board shows that my 8:05 is either cancelled or running more than 10 minutes late I'm better walking across town to the bus stop and taking the number 6 bus. On average this happens about once in every six journeys in the morning and while the return service in the evening is more reliable I'm still on the bus about once on every dozen or so trips.

quote:

(the capital always gets the best, of course :P).

Indeed it does, and despite the protestations of those who don't live there, this is as it should be. Not simply because it's the capital but because it is far and away the largest, busiest and most important city in the UK, in Europe and one of the biggest in the world. Birmingham, which I have visited many times, is the UK's second city - but it is minute by comparison.

You can walk across the centre of Birmingham, between any two point on the inner ring road in just a few minutes; to walk across London between any two points on the Circle Line (London has no inner ring road) would take between one and two hours. The M25, London's orbital Motorway, is 118 miles long - that's how far it is around London.

Clearly the transport links outside London will be less intense but they're still pretty good beween urban centres. We no longer have the rail and bus networks we had before 90% of the population had cars but it's still possible to get around, even in quite small villages, by public transport. There are few other countries that are even half as good and plenty that are much worse.

I can only say how impressed Shu and I were with the public transportation in England. Yes, we were mostly in London, but we also took a train to Birmingham and got around there (with Bob and Cat) just fine, before going back to London.

Chicago's public transportation is good, but not nearly as frequent as London's is. Shu and I were just in Los Angeles, and public transportation there is atrocious! I have been in NYC, Boston, SF, and Washington DC, where public transportation is generally good, but that's about it for the U.S. You definitely have it better than we do, in my mind.

The word they had looked up in their dictionaries was "icing."

I had a similar experience while I was in Italy. I was looking for my "gate" at the airport, and I looked up the word in my Italian/English dictionary. I asked the next person where the "gate" was, and she looked at me like I was absolutely crazy. I realized that I had asked where a "gate" in a fence was!

Next time you're here in Portland, Kalleh, I'll have to show you around town via public transit! We have many busses, most on eight to ten minute schedules during the day, trollies in the downtown core, and a light rail train linking downtown with the suburbs as well as the airport. There is also a network of bike lanes and walkways. In Portland, Oregon, private automobiles aren't absolutely necessary!

I never asked, Kalleh, but how was your trip to Oxford? I assume you travelled with Thames Trains who are generally pretty good (they serve Redhill, my nearest station and I often use them to go north, changing at Reading rather than London).