A while back, I posted about extra dark chocolate bars that I liked (those
that have high cocoa content).

Since then, I have been trying various types whenever I spot a new one in
the store.

Two that I tried recently (71% cocoa bars), and which have become new
favorites, are "Unique Origin Guaranda - Ecuador" and "Unique Origin
Ocumare - Venezuela". I lack the experience and vocabulary to articulate
what is unique about those bars, but their flavor has decidedly more
character than just rich & chocolatey.

I read the "Tasting notes" on the wrappers: "[...] fruity, acid notes and
floral tones [...] exotic wood nuances [...]" It all sounds good, but
does not communicate to me the taste of the chocolate bar.

How does one talk about the tastes of various chocolate? What are some of
the differentiating characteristics?

- David

at Fri, 12 Mar 2004 18:01:02 GMT in ,
(David D.) wrote :

A while back, I posted about extra dark chocolate bars that I liked
(those that have high cocoa content).

Since then, I have been trying various types whenever I spot a new one
in the store.

Two that I tried recently (71% cocoa bars), and which have become new
favorites, are "Unique Origin Guaranda - Ecuador" and "Unique Origin
Ocumare - Venezuela". I lack the experience and vocabulary to
articulate what is unique about those bars, but their flavor has
decidedly more character than just rich & chocolatey.

I read the "Tasting notes" on the wrappers: "[...] fruity, acid notes
and floral tones [...] exotic wood nuances [...]" It all sounds good,
but does not communicate to me the taste of the chocolate bar.

How does one talk about the tastes of various chocolate? What are some
of the differentiating characteristics?

- David

People generally use a similar approach to that used to describe wine - you
pick various flavours bearing similarities to one or another components of
the flavour of the chocolate, and use them as descriptors. For instance,
you might describe a chocolate with terms like "raspberry" or "coffee", or
"tobacco". In a complete description, it's customary also to evaluate the
aroma (using similar terms), the mouthfeel (using appropriate texture
adjectives like creamy, gritty, pasty, etc.), and the snap (how the
chocolate breaks, using adjectives like crumbly, crisp, splintery, etc.)

There are several broad groups of flavour components that chocolate
typically may have, including fruity, nutty, earthy, spicy, and various
others. Fruity flavours are quite often those of berries (in different
chocolates you can find tastes reminiscent of almost all the berries),
tropical fruits like mango and papaya, and some of the stone fruits like
cherries and plums. Chocolate is itself a nut, so it's perhaps not
surprising that it often tastes much like other nuts, especially hazelnuts,
walnuts, coconuts, and almonds. Spicy flavours seem to be most commonly
those of cinnamon and clove. Flavours of tobacco and leather I would also
categorize as "spicy"

There are many, many more adjectives you could use. Speaking a bit more
objectively, much of the flavour depends on 2 factors - the balance of
tannins to anthocyanins, and the depth of roasting. Chocolates that taste
fruity tend to have fewer tannins - as a result, Criollo chocolate, with
measurably lower tannins than Forastero or Trinitario, tends to taste quite
fruity. Nutty chocolates, by contrast, are high on the tannin level, and
when it becomes extreme they can taste woody - a syndrome common to
Forasteros.

Roasting breaks down both the anthocyanins and tannins, and reduces
acidity, and as a result it tends to smooth out the flavour of chocolate
with greater depth of roasting, eliminating "peakiness". Anthocyanins break
down somewhat faster than tannins, and so if you want to reduce a tannic
bite, you have inevitably to accept some loss of flavour. As a result of
the interplay, a Criollo chocolate needs less roasting time than a
Forastero, at least on average. Sometimes Forasteros taste somewhat
"flat" - the result of roasting long enough to eliminate aggressive tannic
flavour, which means that by that point the anthocyanins are almost
completely gone. At some point roasting leans towards the overdone, as
caramelisation turns to scorching. Chocolates with coffee-like flavour
represent about the upper extreme on appropriate roasting time, although
there are plenty of chocolates roasted for too long which taste smoky and
bitter.

The chocolates you tried, Guaranda and Ocumare, are nice ways to contrast a
Criollo against a Forastero (Ocumare is a Criollo, Guaranda a Forastero).
The manufacturer, Chocovic, leans towards a dark roast, and hence the
chocolate has, across the board, something of a coffee background, but it's
still easy to tell the Ocumare and Guaranda apart, Ocumare with its classic
Criollo tropical-fruit taste and Guaranda carrying the bitter, tannic bite
along with flavours strongly reminiscent of tobacco. It's perhaps
unfortunate that the Ocumare is roasted so long, becoming rather flat in a
relative sense.

Roasting time tends to be characteristic of a manufacturer. For instance,
Scharffen Berger and Valrhona are known for light roasting, and hence a
very fruity flavour, El Rey and Domori seem to head for a medium roast, and
are often reminiscent of caramel and cream, and Pralus virtually defines
"dark roast" - all of his chocolates being very much like coffee. A few
manufacturers, notably Michel Cluizel and Bonnat, appear to try to tune
their roast to the beans used, but it's also easier to notice this effect
with them because they produce a lot of single-origin or varietal chocolate
(made with one type of bean or chocolate from one farm or region, as
opposed to a blend)

There's a lot to learn - the best way to find out is as you are doing: try
as many different chocolates as you can. In time you can recognise quite a
few features of chocolate.

--
Alex Rast

(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)