Reviewed: Nov. 2, 2009

I have been wanting to try and make these cookies for a long time. My grandma, who died in 1991 would bring these cookies to our family picnics when I was small. She would pack them in an "Old Dutch" chip box all stacked up inside. They were heavenly, and when I made these, it brought back a lot of good memories. I miss Grandma though. Thanks for the recipe! I would have given it five stars, but I can't betray my grandmother.

Was this review helpful? [ YES ]
0 users found this review helpful

Reviewer:

Mary M

My Profile | Cooks I Like | Reviews
Photos | Recipes | Blog

Reviewed: Dec. 23, 2008

YUM~I followed the advice of other reviewers and used butter, omitted the milk, used 3 Tbsp of cocoa. Really good taste. I chilled the the dough too long though and had to warm it up to get it to roll.

Was this review helpful? [ YES ]
1 user found this review helpful

Reviewer:

Elsie

My Profile | Cooks I Like | Reviews
Photos | Recipes | Blog

Reviewed: Dec. 19, 2008

After reading many of the reviews on this recipe, I also altered it a little. I made a double batch, and I used butter instead of shortening, 1.5 cups of sugar (total for the double batch), and also used the whole eggs. Lastly, I added 3-4 tbsp of unsweetened cocoa powder to the chocolate half of the dough and omitted the milk. I also took the advice of another reviewer and baked them at 350 degrees for 8 minutes, which was perfect! They came out very pretty (with the exception of a few "uglies" from the ends of the roll), but they just tasted okay for the effort. One bit of advice I can give: it is VERY important for the dough to be chilled well for rolling, and also for slicing. I chilled it the first time for about 4 hours, made the roll, and let that sit overnight. Even once you start handling the roll of cookie dough and it sits at room temp for a while, slicing gets to be a bit difficult. So, I would slice a few, put them in the oven, and stick the dough back in the fridge in the mean time. All in all, they were pretty good. They don't taste bad, but just not nearly as good as I hoped.

Was this review helpful? [ YES ]
0 users found this review helpful

Reviewer:

Karen

Cooking Level: Intermediate

My Profile | Cooks I Like | Reviews
Photos | Recipes | Blog

Reviewed: Dec. 16, 2008

When I made these cookies they turned out beautiful, but the taste was not what I expected. I think the recipe should have use more sugar as the cookies were really bland and had more of a cake-like texture than a cookie type texture. The cake part really isn't that bad but they should definately be sweeter and I do plan on making the recipe again. Next time I'm going to add an extra cup of sugar.

Was this review helpful? [ YES ]
0 users found this review helpful

Reviewer:

DebbyCake2537

Cooking Level: Beginning

My Profile | Cooks I Like | Reviews
Photos | Recipes | Blog

Reviewed: Dec. 12, 2008

I've only made one batch so far and i need to make so i may try the whole egg. I ended up using double the milk and the cocoa powder. Also i made a double batch and ended up with 7 dozen cookies. Delicious chocolate taste and very pretty!

Was this review helpful? [ YES ]
0 users found this review helpful

Reviewer:

Kristin

My Profile | Cooks I Like | Reviews
Photos | Recipes | Blog

Reviewed: Nov. 16, 2008

I heeded advice given in the reviews and then added my own twist...here's my rendition: Make TWO batches of the recipe listed, using one whole egg and leave out the milk. I also substituted butter for shortening and used 3/4 c. sugar instead of the 1/2 c. listed. For the 2nd batch (chocolate), I used 4 Tablespoons of powdered (unsweetened) cocoa instead of the chocolate square. I baked them at 350 for 8 minutes -at a higher temp they'll be a bit too crispy. Letting the dough refrigerate long enough is important, otherwise the chocolate will bleed into the vanilla. Making the recipe this way, I yielded 4 dozen cookies (enough cookies to make this recipe worth while - as it takes time to refrigerate the dought twice)! I gave this recipe 4 starts because this is a good "solid cookie" - it has it's own very cool look and it's tasty. The downfall of the recipe is the prep time to refrigertate the dough.

Was this review helpful? [ YES ]
8 users found this review helpful

Reviewer:

foose1965

Cooking Level: Intermediate

Home Town: Tempe, Arizona, USA

Living In: Puyallup, Washington, USA

My Profile | Cooks I Like | Reviews
Photos | Recipes | Blog

Reviewed: Aug. 31, 2008

I read through previous reviews on this recipe before making it, and I decided to make a few alterations. I used butter instead of shortening, one cup of sugar instead of 3/4, and a whole egg and no milk in the batter. Also, I used 2 tablespoons of cocoa powder instead of the chocolate square and milk when making the chocolate dough. The end result was amazing! Although time consuming because of chilling the dough, these were a lot of fun to make and I was very proud of what I ended up with. Friends and family all found them delicious--nice and sweet with a bit of chocolate =)

Was this review helpful? [ YES ]
16 users found this review helpful

Reviewer:

Kimberly

My Profile | Cooks I Like | Reviews
Photos | Recipes | Blog

Reviewed: Dec. 28, 2007

I wasn't wild about these cookies. They were good, just not great. Maybe I didn't refrigerate the dough long enough to allow the ingredients to meld together properly, but I thought the salt in the dough was a little too noticable. However, my co-workers that tried them all seemed to like them, so maybe it's just me. The look of the cookies is beautiful, but the taste was a bit lacking for me.

Was this review helpful? [ YES ]
0 users found this review helpful

Reviewer:

Bake-ette

Cooking Level: Intermediate

Home Town: Ventura, California, USA

Living In: Las Vegas, Nevada, USA

My Profile | Cooks I Like | Reviews
Photos | Recipes | Blog

Reviewed: Dec. 9, 2007

I love these cookies. I used 3 tbsp of cocoa powder instead of the chocolate square to make the chocolate half of the dough. I got 24 good looking cookies but also 6 not nice looking ones because they were the ones cut from the ends of my roll - so that was expected. These cookies are very impressive looking and have a light chocolate flavor to them.

Was this review helpful? [ YES ]
12 users found this review helpful

Reviewer:

CHRISSY4585

My Profile | Cooks I Like | Reviews
Photos | Recipes | Blog

Reviewed: Dec. 8, 2007

The cookies were ok but one side of the pan of cookies cooked faster than the other so half of them got burnt. They were also kind of hard to roll out. I may try them again to see if I can get them right.

Was this review helpful? [ YES ]
2 users found this review helpful

Reviewer:

ladyofshallot

Cooking Level: Intermediate

My Profile | Cooks I Like | Reviews
Photos | Recipes | Blog

Reviewed: Apr. 27, 2007

good not 100% great though

Was this review helpful? [ YES ]
2 users found this review helpful

Reviewer:

Darissel

Cooking Level: Intermediate

My Profile | Cooks I Like | Reviews
Photos | Recipes | Blog

Reviewed: Aug. 2, 2005

These were an absolute disaster! The different doughs ran together and mixed. The cookies, once I finally got them sliced, baked up crispy. They didn't have much taste to them either. They might be better if you had time to play around with the recipe some, and find the right technique for slicing those things. Maybe it was just me...

Was this review helpful? [ YES ]
2 users found this review helpful

Reviewer:

ARKIENICOLE

My Profile | Cooks I Like | Reviews
Photos | Recipes | Blog

Reviewed: Mar. 2, 2004

I used a whole egg and no milk for this; I also added 1 Tbs. cocoa powder to one half instead of the melted chocolate, and it turned out fine. I had difficulty rolling out the dough, even on waxed paper. It just wouldn't get any bigger than about 8 in., so I just left it at that. I also only got 2 dozen cookies; there is no way you can get more than this. There simply is not enough dough. Anyway, nice cookie, pretty to look at. I might add a touch more sugar next time asd it wasn't very sweet.

Was this review helpful? [ YES ]
4 users found this review helpful

Reviewer:

Karen_M

Cooking Level: Intermediate

Home Town: Eugene, Oregon, USA

My Profile | Cooks I Like | Reviews
Photos | Recipes | Blog

Reviewed: Dec. 27, 2003

Thank you for sharing the recipe but I'm just not sure if this recipe is for me. I'm not sure how old the shortening I used was - so that might have contributed to the texture problem I had. I wish I would have added the cocoa powder to the chocolate dough as one of the reviewers wrote too. To me, it just needed a little more flavoring. I cut thin slices and only got ~2 dozen cookies. Cooking time was perfect.

Was this review helpful? [ YES ]
2 users found this review helpful

Reviewer:

Jennifer : )

Cooking Level: Intermediate

Home Town: Royal Oak, Michigan, USA

Living In: West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA

My Profile | Cooks I Like | Reviews
Photos | Recipes | Blog

Reviewed: Dec. 27, 2001

Ithought this recipe was great. I reworked it a little and added some 2 tablespoons of cocoa powder to the chocolate half and rooled out each half to 8x5 instead and I got nice sized cookies that were uniformed. I also agree with the other reviewer, i sliced thinly and got about 2 1/2 dz. Great recipe overall and weell worth the effort.

Was this review helpful? [ YES ]
15 users found this review helpful

Reviewer:

BOOCHANG

My Profile | Cooks I Like | Reviews
Photos | Recipes | Blog

Reviewed: May 22, 2000

These cookies are a lot of fun to look at and are worth making just because they are so novel. They have a nice taste that's not overly-sweet. I sliced the dough very thin and I only got 2 dozen cookies out of it instead of the suggested 4-6 dozen.

Was this review helpful? [ YES ]
6 users found this review helpful