Apparently my great-grandmother liked graham cracker cakes enough to save two of them.
| Graham Cracker Cake ⅔ cup flour ¾ cup granulated sugar 2½ tsps baking powder ½ tsp salt 1⅔ cups graham cracker crumbs (or 7½ oz by weight) ½ cup shortening ¾ cup milk 2 eggs (medium-size if you can get them)* Heat oven to 375°. Cut parchment or waxed paper circles to fit the bottoms of two 8-inch round pans. Coat the pans with cooking spray, then press the paper into place. Press out as many bubbles from under the paper as you can. Then spritz the top of the paper with more cooking spray. Into a large bowl, sift together the flour, sugar, baking powder, and salt. Stir in the crumbs. Drop in the shortening by spoonfuls on top of everything. Then pour in the milk and vanilla. With electric mixer at low speed, beat just until dry ingredients are wet. Then beat two minutes at low to medium speed. Scraping the bowl and beaters as necessary. Add the eggs and beat 1 minute longer. Pour into pans. Spread the batter, making it just a little lower in the center than at the edges. Bake 25 minutes or until done. Cool in pans on cake racks ten minutes. Remove pans, peel off paper, cool on cake racks and frost as desired. (I used plain white icing with a lot of almond extract.) *The store near me does not sell medium eggs. Swapping in extra-large eggs didn't hurt a thing.
Source: Unknown clipping, probably from a Chicago-area newspaper, likely 1930s-1940s
|
I didn't know you could make a cake of graham crumbs until I tried the recipe she wrote on random scrap of paper. This one was good enough to get neatly pasted into "The Book," so we will see if it's actually better.
I wasn't going to sift everything, then I read the directions and saw that we're supposed to more or less dump everything in and then turn on the mixer. So I figured the sifter would help break up any flour clumps.
![]() |
| The bowls are already piling up! |
After stirring in the graham cracker crumbs, I could see that we would have a lot of cake.
The directions now tell us to dump in everything (except the eggs). I've seen a fair handful of cake recipes that go like this from the 1940s and 1950s. I think it was supposed to replace the tedious, allegedly old-fashioned way. (You know, the instructions that go something like "Cream the butter and sugar. Beat in eggs one at a time, then alternately add flour and milk...") But with a few exceptions, this cake method seems to have faded out of cooking as soon as the paper advertisements crumbled into unarchival dust.
Moving down the ingredient list, we are told to use "emulsifier-type" shortening. From what I understand, that is shortening that has some extra emulsifier added so that water won't separate out of it (or at least, not as easily). You can get it from commercial suppliers (in massive commercial-size boxes of course), but it's not very common in grocery stores. I decided to hope that our ordinary store-brand shortening was good enough. Fortunately, nothing in the cake is so expensive that an oven failure would break the budget.
We dropped everything in, turned on the mixer, and after two minutes (plus time to dampen) we had a sludgy light-brown mixture. At first I thought it looked too heavy, then I remembered we hadn't added the eggs yet.
After adding the eggs and letting the mixer go some more, it looked like cake batter. It occurred to me that since I have a kitchen scale, I could have weighed the bowl before and after putting a cake batter in it, and then used the scale to divide the batter into perfectly equal halves. Then I decided that only insane people and wedding bakers do that.
Speaking of getting batter into pans, I love that this recipe has us papering the bottoms first. It's so reassuring to know that no matter what happens, the cake absolutely cannot stick to the bottom of the pan. We may have to cut around the sides, but we have a guarantee that we will get the cake to fall out in one piece.
In addition to the pan size, this recipe tells us how tall the cakes should come out. I couldn't help getting out a ruler, which showed me that today's cakes fell short of the specified 1¼ inch. (I shouldn't be surprised. Recipes tend to vastly overestimate the yield of servings too.)
Having reached final assembly, I ignored the icing that came with the recipe because I already know what whipped corn syrup would taste like. Instead, I made white icing and added a thoroughly unnecessary amount of almond extract.
This brings us to the worst part of cake making: competently getting icing onto it. I've said this before, but I like to spread my icing thin. I think it's best as a sweet finish to the cake, not as something you have to scrape off and put in a mound on the side of the plate. Unfortunately, the only way to get a cake to really look nice is to smear so much icing on that your spatula can't get anywhere near the cake itself. And I have to agree with longtime commenter Freezy who said that what decorators call a crumb coat, the rest of us call "a disgusting amount of frosting."
With that in mind, I made only a small batch of icing. I got a little bit between the layers, and managed to coax the last spatula scrapings from the bowl onto the top.
At this point, I stepped back for good look at our cake-in-progress, watching its bare sides gently drop a few crumbs onto the plate as the air blew in from the heater vent. I could have made another batch of icing and tried to cover the sides without making an ugly wreck of it, but I decided "It's cute as it is. This is the look." Seriously, put this in a freshly sterilized all-white kitchen and I think it'd look like it came right out of Pinterest.
This tasted oddly like banana bread without bananas in it. I don't mean like the result of omitting the bananas from the recipe. Imagine if the bananas had departed from the banana bread and left their spirits behind.
The cake has nearly the same texture as those supermarket sheet cakes that punctuate so many birthdays and office parties. It felt professional when I sliced it. But if we're going with graham-cracker cakes, I think the one my grandmother wrote down herself tastes a lot better. (I think it's the butter. The other cake doesn't use shortening.)
As a postscript, I wondered if the cake had reached its specified height in the center. (It rose into a dome instead of flat on top.) So after cutting a slice, I got out a ruler and found that the two layers are exactly the correct height. Maybe if I tried that trick of tying wet rags around the sides of the pans, the whole thing would be.











































