# level teaspoon



## Cub Pilot

Reading 'The Pastel Book' by Bill Creevy I came across the word _level teaspoon_. What is a _level teaspoon_?
The quote:
I have found a successful solution for the technique described above to be about 1 to 48, or 1 level teaspoon of gum tragacanth per 1 cup water.

Many thanks in advance


----------



## entangledbank

A teaspoonful, but flat, not heaped (as you could for a substance like sugar).


----------



## Cub Pilot

OK, I understand. Thank you very much for your prompt answer


----------



## Wordy McWordface

The upper picture shows a level teaspoon of e.g. sugar, the lower one a heaped teaspoon.


----------



## Myridon

level - WordReference.com Dictionary of English


> 3 filled to a height even with the rim of a container:  *a level teaspoon* of salt.


----------



## AutumnOwl

Today the measure of a teaspoon is 5 ml, as in the set of these measuring spoons. VARDAGEN Measuring spoons, set of 4 - IKEA


----------



## kentix

It's a level teaspoon because no more precision than that is needed. It's a rough amount.


----------



## Keith Bradford

AutumnOwl said:


> Today the measure of a teaspoon is 5 ml, as in the set of these measuring spoons. VARDAGEN Measuring spoons, set of 4 - IKEA


Yes, but I don't think we take instructions from Ikea.

What Kentix said in #7.


----------



## JulianStuart

Keith Bradford said:


> Yes, but I don't think we take instructions from Ikea.
> 
> What Kentix said in #7.


The example was to demonstrate that most measuring spoons that are called "teaspoons" contain 5 ml, not that it was Ikea's idea (see what I did there ?)  

In everyday language, a "teaspoon" may be a vague description, but in cooking and pharmacy recipes, it has been standardized by many (even the ones sold in the UK) on 5 ml.  For liquids, this obviously follows the definition in #5, but for solids, specifying "level" implies the author was being specific/precise and that a heaped one would be too much.  So I suppose "rough" is in the eye of the writer/reader/context.


----------



## kentix

What I mean is, there is no need to measure milliliters. For this example, mixing painting materials, close enough is close enough.



Cub Pilot said:


> *about* 1 to 48


Scoop up a spoonful and shake it a bit until it's more or less level - you're done. Not a milliliter in sight.


----------



## Keith Bradford

Yes.  It all depends on which spoon you use.

If you're using a measuring spoon, pick the one marked 1tsp or 5ml.
If you're using a spoon from your silver service, choose the one you'd stir your tea with.  It should be somewhere around 4-6 ml.


----------



## JulianStuart

kentix said:


> What I mean is, there is no need to measure milliliters. For this example, mixing painting materials, close enough is close enough.


No, in the US (and perhaps still for some in the UK?) one measures teaspoons and, only if you need to know how many ml that is, do you need to multiply by five.  For a colour technician mixing a specific paint colour, close enough isn't close enough.  For someone who is not concerned about the _exact_ colour, it may be  For gum tragacanth the author in the OP says "about 1:48" so they allowed for some imprecision (I doubt whether the precise viscosity of the resulting fluid is supercritical).  It's the same everyday (vague) versus a measuring context (more precise) as for "cup".  If a cup is 8 fl oz or ~237 ml, 1/48 of a cup is 4.94 ml or a ~teaspoon.  The context will generally determine how much accuracy/precision is appropriate.  The use of "level" by the author (as opposed to just "a teaspoon of gum") tells us that they intend to be reasonably precise.  If I used a smaller spoon to stir my tea in a big cup (bigger than the measuring 8 fl oz cup), and used them to make the tragacanth solution, I would not achieve the desired result.


----------



## kentix

I think you're just reinforcing my point. It's got nothing to do with the U.S. also. There is not an ounce in sight, either. It's not a scaled measurement. It's a ballpark figure using a common household spoon and a description. It's no different than a heaping teaspoon. It's an approximation by eye for a low-precision situation.


----------



## JulianStuart

kentix said:


> I think you're just reinforcing my point. It's got nothing to do with the U.S. also. There is not an ounce in sight, either. It's not a scaled measurement. It's a ball park figure using a common household spoon and a description. It's no different than a heaping teaspoon. It's an approximation by eye for a low-precision situation.


In many cases, but not all.  That's why they specified a "level" teaspoon.  If you've ever taken medicine or cooked with spices, or baked, you will understand the benefit of using standardized measuring devices to get reproducible results (for hot spices, baking powder or dosing a child with a meidicine).  The definition of a teaspoon has *two* entries: it is both a standardized measuring device (in situations that call for it) and a 'ball park" device when a rough and variable outcome is fine. For many "household" things: for example, it doesn't matter what size teaspoon you *stir* your tea (or even coffee  ) with.  It's quite possible, too, that I (and others who write recipes) am more precise than you when following recipes 
(The reason I mentioned the US, is that when doing measurements in this range, the rest of the world is already familiar with ml and in US recipes and conversion charts from pints, quarts, cups to spoons of various sizes, the teaspoon is very close to 5 ml).


----------



## Wordy McWordface

kentix said:


> Scoop up a spoonful and shake it a bit until it's more or less level - you're done. Not a milliliter in sight.



Shake it a bit?  Not at all. You run a knife over the top.

Like this:


----------



## kentix

You get my point. There is no scale involved. There is no such thing as 7/8ths of a level teaspoon. Or 1 1/4 level teaspoons.



JulianStuart said:


> In many cases, but not all.  If you've ever taken medicine or cooked with spices...


I don't know what question you're answering but I'm answering the OP.



Cub Pilot said:


> to be about 1 to 48,


He's not talking about spices or medicines or anything like that. Have you ever seen artists mix paint on their palettes? They take a glob of red and a glob of blue and swirl it just a little bit and add a trace of yellow. It's not high precision mixing. If he wanted to be precise and thought it was important, he would have been precise.



Cub Pilot said:


> What is a _level teaspoon_?



It is what I said it is. It's a rough amount, not a precise scaled measurement. I don't know any medicines dosed in "level teaspoons".


----------



## Myridon

kentix said:


> There is no such thing as 7/8ths of a level teaspoon. Or 1 1/4 level teaspoons.


A level teaspoon and a level 1/4 teaspoon give you a level 1 1/4 teaspoon.


kentix said:


> It is what I said it is. It's a rough amount, not a precise scaled measurement.


It is as precise an amount as can be achieved using measuring spoons. It's more precise than just "a teaspoon" and certainly more precise than "a heaping teaspoon".  I don't see medicines dosed in kilograms or metric tonnes but that doesn't mean the measurement isn't precise.


----------



## JulianStuart

kentix said:


> You get my point. There is no scale involved. There is no such thing as 7/8ths of a level teaspoon. Or 1 1/4 level teaspoons.
> 
> 
> I don't know what question you're answering but I'm answering the OP.
> 
> 
> He's not talking about spices or medicines or anything like that. Have you ever seen artists mix paint on their palettes? They take a glob of red and a glob of blue and swirl it just a little bit and add a trace of yellow. It's not high precision mixing. If he wanted to be precise and thought it was important, he would have been precise.
> 
> 
> 
> It is what I said it is. It's a rough amount, not a precise scaled measurement. I don't know any medicines dosed in "level teaspoons".


Not sure what point you are making.  No-one has used the word "scale" or fractions of level teaspons.  Some artists and paintmakers are precise if they want reproducible results (ever had a custom colour paint made at a store? They are very precise in additions of various tinting agents - they don't do "roughly" or the customer will say it is not what they ordered). Others don't care so much.
For liquids, how would you imagine a heaped treaspoonful  ?

The author was quite precise, using 1:48 *not* 1:46 or 1:50 (someone who was not trying to give precise directions would be far more likely to round to 1:50  . That's why they specified a level teaspoon and a cup.  A "heaped" teaspoon is much more vague, depending on the substance and operator.  There are MANY people who do use a teaspoon for relatively precise measurments, so there's no point in denying that.

You may not accept other dictionary definitions besides "a general vague measure" but one that many people all use  the same way to mean 5 ml or ⅓ tablespoon etc.

This has been on my fridge for several *decades*


----------



## kentix

That's a level teaspoon and a heaping teaspoon. Show me how you're going to get a quarter of one of those.

A measuring set teaspoon is basically always measured level so that's redundant. That's not even worth mentioning in a recipe. If there is some exception, it will have to be specifically noted. A level teaspoon, implies a teaspoon like in the picture because it's a teaspoon that is frequently utilized non-level. In this case, it should be level. It's still only an approximation of a ml or oz value. 





You don't need a knife to get a level teaspoon, although it doesn't hurt.


----------



## Packard

I always considered a "level teaspoonful" as a highly *repeatable* measure.  It is not particularly _*relatable*_ because not all teaspoons are the same.  But if you are using the same teaspoon each time, then the level teaspoon is _repeatable with pretty good accuracy.  _


It is not relatable in that the amount of product that my teaspoons hold may not be the same as the amount that your teaspoons hold.  That can be remedied by using calibrated measures.  If all parties are using calibrated spoons, then the results should be highly repeatable and highly relatable.

Note:  Human error can come into play, but similar levels of care will get similar results.


----------



## Myridon

I have a set of measuring spoons that goes down to 1/32 of a teaspoon (0.16ml).  I got them for measuring out pure chemicals for tiny aquariums. I've seen sets with a 1/64 spoon.


kentix said:


> That's a level teaspoon and a heaping teaspoon. Show me how you're going to get a quarter of one of those.
> View attachment 63723


You're showing tableware spoons not measuring spoons. Those aren't going to even be the same size from pattern to pattern of silverware.   You use the 1/4 teaspoon measuring spoon to measure 1/4 teaspoon.


----------



## Packard

Myridon said:


> I have a set of measuring spoons that goes down to 1/32 of a teaspoon (0.16ml).  I got them for measuring out pure chemicals for tiny aquariums. I've seen sets with a 1/64 spoon.
> 
> You're showing tableware spoons not measuring spoons. Those aren't going to even be the same size from pattern to pattern of silverware.   You use the 1/4 teaspoon measuring spoon to measure 1/4 teaspoon.


I agree.  But if you are just looking for _consistent_ results, you just need to use the same teaspoon each time.  But if you are looking for accuracy, then calibrated spoons are a must.  

For some products, weight is a more accurate way to measure, but for gunpowder, it is generally agreed upon that volume is more accurate.  Whereas drugs are usually weighed.

I don't know the reason for that distinction, but it is widely reported so I suspect that there is some merit in the distinction.


----------



## kentix

And why do you keep talking about irrelevancies.



JulianStuart said:


> They are very precise in additions of various tinting agents - they don't do "roughly" or the customer will say it is not what they ordered


We're not talking about customers buying things or precise tints. I've never seen "level teaspoon" used in the paint department at Home Depot.

I'll say it again - I'm talking about the OP and the clear context of the OP where the word "about" is used prominently. Hyper-precision is not important. That's why he said "a level teaspoon" and "about" and not "precisely 5 ml". He's giving you his rule of thumb discovered through personal experience. Nothing more.

That refrigerator chart is pretty and all, but I don't see a translation for level teaspoon or heaping teaspoon anywhere on there. As you yourself even say, they aren't precise measurements. You can't use them to mix paint tints. Your chart is a chart of precise measurements. But level teaspoon is good enough when you are aiming for something that is _about_ 1 in 48. If you need more precision, don't use it.


----------



## Myridon

Packard said:


> I agree.  But if you are just looking for _consistent_ results, you just need to use the same teaspoon each time.  But if you are looking for accuracy, then calibrated spoons are a must.


You can use tableware teaspoons to measure sugar for your tea, but you can't use them to cook because you do need 1/8 teaspoon increments in cooking.  You might also like for your tablespoons to be 3 teaspoons which isn't going to be true in tableware.


----------



## Myridon

kentix said:


> That refrigerator chart is pretty and all, but I don't see a translation for level teaspoon or heaping teaspoon anywhere on there.


The chart is assumed to be for level teaspoons. A teaspoon of liquid is always a level teaspoon.  Heaping teaspoon is not meant to be an exact measurement and it only works for dry ingredients - even using the same spoon, it's going to be different for different ingredients due to coefficients of friction, etc.


----------



## JulianStuart

kentix said:


> And why do you keep talking about irrelevancies.
> 
> 
> We're not talking about customers buying things or precise tints. I've never seen "level teaspoon" used in the paint department at Home Depot.
> 
> I'll say it again - I'm talking about the OP and the clear context of the OP where the word "about" is used prominently. Hyper-precision is not important. That's why he said "a level teaspoon" and "about" and not "precisely 5 ml". He's giving you his rule of thumb discovered through personal experience. Nothing more.
> 
> That refrigerator chart is pretty and all, but I don't see a translation for level teaspoon or heaping teaspoon anywhere on there. As you yourself even say, they aren't precise measurements. You can't use them to mix paint tints. Your chart is a chart of precise measurements. But level teaspoon is good enough when you are aiming for something that is _about_ 1 in 48. If you need more precision, don't use it.


I don't think you heard me say anything about them using teaspoons for mixing paint ( they use ml because the need to be precise ) it was you who referred to (sloppy) artists mixing globs on a palette. I doubt they even use teaspoon  .  NO-ONE has said "Precisely 1.00000 teaspoons".

You still seem to reject the notion that a teaspoon in the usage of many people is 5 ml.  That's the issue I've been focused on.  Do you accept that?

For me, using 1:48 rather than 1:50 is quite a high degree of precision: the author did not want 4% error!


----------



## kentix

Myridon said:


> I have a set of measuring spoons that goes down to 1/32 of a teaspoon (0.16ml).  I got them for measuring out pure chemicals for tiny aquariums. I've seen sets with a 1/64 spoon.
> 
> You're showing tableware spoons not measuring spoons. Those aren't going to even be the same size from pattern to pattern of silverware.   You use the 1/4 teaspoon measuring spoon to measure 1/4 teaspoon.


You keep making my point for me. A level teaspoon _is not_ a precisely calibrated amount because it's not a calibrated spoon down to 1/64. All measuring spoons in precision sets are automatically understood to be measured level. That's why they are made the shape they are and why, if you have ever tried you'll know, they are almost impossible to use as normal spoons. They don't fit your mouth. Trying taking 5ml of medicine from a measuring set teaspoon. It's quite difficult. The edges are even all the way around but your mouth is not. The fact that he mentions "level teaspoon" shows he's not talking about a teaspoon that is always level, like a measuring teaspoon in a set. "Level" for those doesn't even warrant mentioning. That's how they are used. He's talking about something that might be used non-level. He wants to make sure you get closer to his intended mark than just referring to it as a teaspoon.


----------



## Packard

When I go to the paint store they will mix the colors while I wait.  The machine spits out tints of various colors into the base paint.  Very often there are 5 or more colors mixed in and they are dispensed in differing amounts.  I do wonder about the accuracy of those machines, though the results I get from my paint store are remarkably consistent. 

But judging a book by its cover (I know it is risky), Creevy seems to use sticks of pastel.  I don't know where the teaspoons came in.


----------



## Myridon

JulianStuart said:


> You still seem to reject the notion that a teaspoon in the usage of many people is 5 ml.  That's the issue I've been focused on.  Do you accept that?


I use pre-metric teaspoons so they're only 4.92892 ml. 


kentix said:


> You keep making my point for me. A level teaspoon _is not_ a precisely calibrated amount because it's not a calibrated spoon down to 1/64. All measuring spoons in precision sets are automatically understood to be measured level. That's why they are made the shape they are and why, if you have ever tried you'll know, they are almost impossible to use as normal spoons. They don't fit your mouth. Trying taking 5ml of medicine from a measuring set teaspoon. It's quite difficult. The edges are even all the way around but your mouth is not. The fact that he mentions "level teaspoon" shows he's not talking about a teaspoon that is always level, like a measuring teaspoon in a set. "Level" for those doesn't even warrant mentioning. That's how they are used. He's talking about something that might be used non-level. He wants to make sure you get closer to his intended mark than just referring to it as a teaspoon.


Sure, measuring spoons aren't meant for eating out of.  Cough syrup comes with a little cup which is measured in teaspoons so you don't have to use a teaspoon to take a teaspoon of cough syrup. 
It is often necessary to mention level teaspoons in recipes.  People usually don't measure the teaspoon exactly but sometimes the recipe needs it. You are the one who is misconstruing the idea of "level teaspoons."


----------



## kentix

Myridon said:


> The chart is assumed to be for level teaspoons. A teaspoon of liquid is always a level teaspoon.


Exactly. Since he feels the need to mention level, he's not referring to that.


----------



## kentix

Every recipe that says

1 tsp Cream of tartar

assumes you will measure it level. The whole system is predicated on you already knowing that.

How often do you see this recipe?

1 level tsp of sugar
1 level tbsp of butter
1/2 level tsp of salt

Never. If you are using calibrated measuring spoons and a recipe, it's a given.

The fact that he feels the need to mention it, shows you he doesn't take it as a given.


----------



## JulianStuart

kentix said:


> Exactly. Since he feels the need to mention level, he's not referring to that.


The "level" is added to make sure people (including those who do not cook or measure medicines or are not familiar with the practice of leveling) appreciate the precision he needs) will use a level one in this "non-cooking" related context, not one vaguely heaped or "shaken a bit".
What exactly is the issue you are discussing in this thread?


----------



## Myridon

kentix said:


> Every recipe that says
> 
> 1 tsp Cream of tartar
> 
> assumes you will measure it level. The whole system is predicated on you already knowing that.
> 
> How often do you see this recipe?
> 
> 1 level tsp of sugar
> 1 level tbsp of butter
> 1/2 level tsp of salt
> 
> Never. If you are using calibrated measuring spoons and a recipe, it's a given.
> 
> The fact that he feels the need to mention it, shows you he doesn't take it as a given.


I see it all the time. I promise.


----------



## kentix

JulianStuart said:


> to make sure people (including those who do not cook or measure medicines or are not familiar with the practice of leveling) appreciate the precision he needs



I seriously doubt it. I think you don't understand the meaning of "about" and the nature of what he's doing.


JulianStuart said:


> For me, using 1:48 rather than 1:50 is quite a high degree of precision: the author did not want 4% error!



This is a pitifully small difference for his purposes. I know you spent your life in a high-precision science lab, but he's a painter. He's mixing colors by eye. He's working with natural materials that vary in consistency. He's experimenting as he goes along, developing and refining techniques. He doesn't have to publish his results in journals. He is not implementing a formula for growing bacteria at a predictable rate using a precisely formulated nutrient ratio.

Gum of tragacanth is a gooey substance that seeps from plants. It's like a sap. It's used as a fixer, essentially a glue to hold the paint together. It's apparently difficult to turn into a powder but I assume that's what his level teaspoon is. It absorbs water when used. Think back to the last time you glued something together. Did you precisely measure the glue or did you apply some and see how well it did the job? I'm sure if the formula he mixed up wasn't right that day he would have been fine adjusting the mixture - adding a bit more tragacanth or diluting it with a bit of water. That's how he worked every day - freely combining materials based on his artist's eye and his years of experience. He wasn't in a science lab.


----------



## kentix

Myridon said:


> I see it all the time. I promise.


Show me. Meaning an ingredient list like that with common ingredients like salt and sugar.


----------



## JulianStuart

It is available as a powder, that CAN be scooped into a teaspoon and be leveled to get the "right" amount.

The first few posts explained to the OP what a "level teaspoon" is and it's well established that such measuring spoons are  ~5 ml.  So I'm not clear what the key point of the rest of the discussion is.


----------



## kentix

The key point is, "level" is unnecessary to add with dedicated measuring spoons. That's just a given. It's included in the whole concept. That's how they are calibrated. The fact that he's using the word means he's not talking about that context of a precise measuring spoon that is always measured level. Mentioning unnecessary things is unnecessary. Since he mentioned it, he had to be contrasting it with some other possibility. The only other immediate possibility is a heaping teaspoon (and levels in between). But as you yourself repeatedly point out, measuring spoons are instruments for precise measurements. A heaping measuring spoon is pointless and irrelevant as a concept, precisely because it is not precise. It defeats the purpose. So that is not what he's talking about. Who would go out of their way to say "Don't use this tool the way you never use it." Instead he is saying, of the two ways this is commonly used, use it this way for this purpose. In other words, in the diagram in #4, use it the top way, not the bottom way.


----------



## JulianStuart

kentix said:


> I seriously doubt it. I think you don't understand the meaning of "about" and the nature of what he's doing.


I know a lot of people that don't cook and would* not* know/assume it was level that was intended.  I suppose that is where our discussion started. (And, of course, I know what the word "about" means).


----------



## kentix

Not in that context, it seems.

If it's not precisely 1 in 48, because it's only "about", what does that leave you? 1 in 49, 1 in 50, 1 in 47. Those are all _about_ 1 in 48, especially when averaged together. My guess is that is plenty close enough for gooey sap used as glue.


----------



## JulianStuart

kentix said:


> Not in that context.




Level teaspoon, heaping teaspoon


----------



## kentix

Yes, both terms exist. We know that. They are a contrast to each other. We know that.


----------



## JulianStuart

kentix said:


> Yes, both terms exist. We know that. They are a contrast to each other. We know that.


I still don't get the main point of this discussion - you seem to be arguing against something (something I said?) and I can't figure out what.


----------



## Roxxxannne

Packard said:


> When I go to the paint store they will mix the colors while I wait.  The machine spits out tints of various colors into the base paint.  Very often there are 5 or more colors mixed in and they are dispensed in differing amounts.  I do wonder about the accuracy of those machines, though the results I get from my paint store are remarkably consistent.
> 
> But judging a book by its cover (I know it is risky), Creevy seems to use sticks of pastel.  I don't know where the teaspoons came in.


Gum tragacanth, water, pigment, and some other ingredients are used to make your own pastels.  This is a recipe, not a (sloppy) artist mixing blue and yellow to get green.  A heaping teaspoon can hold much more stuff than a level teaspoon so it's important to say 'level' if you think the reader will not be precise.


----------



## kentix

Yes, you have to get close. But "about" means "about" everywhere I've ever lived. He clearly indicates the experimental, experiential nature of his comment. Everything he says is tinged with imprecision.



Cub Pilot said:


> I have found a successful solution


"I have found". Through trial and error. He's not following a manufacturer's recipe. He is not in a production facility. He's not in a science lab.

"A successful solution". Successful, whatever that means. He doesn't say "the only solution". He doesn't say "the precise solution". He's basically saying "something that works for me". It's successful in meeting my minimum needs. It doesn't say there aren't other solutions or better solutions. But this one works for him and it's *a* solution he's comfortable with.

And then he tells what it is. It's something in the neighborhood of 1 in 48. It's around there. When he throws a teaspoon into a cup of water it generally gets the job done. It wouldn't surprise me if he didn't make exactly a cup every time. If he needed less he could half fill his container and throw in half a teaspoon and it would work just as well. To call it a recipe is a bit of a stretch if it's just powder and water.

Speaking of cooking I've seen this with cooks. "Can you write down your recipe?" "Not really, I just sort of eyeball it...But if I have to." Then they figure out as best they can what proportions they are using. But they are approximate. (Yes, that won't work with baking. But it will do fine for stew.) Is glue stew? Or is it a cake?


----------



## Roxxxannne

This all depends on what you mean by 'recipe.'  Some recipes are more exact than others.  If I'm following directions for making soup and I'm reading a list of ingredients that includes something like 'one medium onion, chopped' I still consider what I'm looking at a recipe, even though it does not specify how many grams of onion and what the dimensions of each chopped piece should be.
This 'recipe' in the OP is comparable; he specifies a level teaspoon, which I take to mean that a heaping teaspoon is too much.  In the same way, my soup recipe specifies a medium onion because a large one would be too much.
As for the sentence in the OP not being a recipe because it has only two ingredients, we don't have the context.  Other recipes for making your own pastels include more ingredients.  This one must be incomplete because is definitely missing one ingredient: the pigment.


----------



## ewie

Curious that Americanpersons say _heap*ing* teaspoon_ while we say _heap*ed* teaspoon_   (Compare and contrast, if you like, AmE _ingrown toenail_ vs. BrE _ingrowing toenail_ )


----------



## Andygc

ewie said:


> BrE _ingrowing toenail_


Actually, Ewie, I've always called them _ingrown toenails_, and I dealt with a fair few when I was a lot younger (other people's, not mine). I suppose people didn't come to see me until after the ingrowing nail had become ingrown. But I would expect a _heaping teaspoon_ to be used for heaping stuff, not for measuring stuff.


----------

