|
|
|
|
Guittard gourmet bittersweet
at Wed, 28 Apr 2004 08:28:22 GMT in >,
(Blake Jones) wrote :
>In article >, Alex Rast wrote:
>>> I use a steady supply of 10 lb blocks of Guittard gourmet bittersweet.
>>> For those who are familiar with it, how does this chocolate rate?
>>
>> Unbelievably great. This is one of the best chocolates in the world,
>> *at any price*.
>
>Out of curiosity, Alex, why (besides "versatility") do you rate this
>chocolate so highly? It doesn't seem to be made with particularly
>highfalutin' beans, and the original poster's ingredient list suggests
>that it's not even made with pure cocoa butter.
One important fact to remember is that there is nothing that makes a
chocolate with highly pedigreed beans, especially pure formulations, or
anything else automatically better. It all comes down to how it tastes, and
in that respect there can be good chocolates made with cheaper ingredients
just as much as more expensive ones. There is a *statistical* correlation
between the more elite beans and the better chocolates, but it's not
automatic.
Why so highly? This is going to take a bit of explanation. When tasting
different chocolates, it's typical to assign various flavour descriptors to
them, like "strawberry", "licorice", or "hazelnut. This denotes flavour
components, reminiscent of their descriptor, that you detect in the
chocolate. Some are more desirable, some rather less so. It may seem self-
evident, but the most desirable flavour characteristic of all is
"chocolatey". Namely, there is a flavour that you can only describe using
this adjective, which literally seems to capture the essence of the
chocolate flavour.
Most chocolates have a mix of different flavour components, e.g.
strawberry, cream, and tobacco; woody/molasses; hazelnut and coffee. A
better chocolate will have these components well balanced, so that no one
flavour characteristic is so assertive that it becomes distracting,
overwhelming, or harsh, so that the combination of characteristics don't
clash, and so that the combination of characteristics don't cluster too
closely around a single basic type. For instance, a chocolate which had
flavour components of cherry, strawberry, and currant would be imbalanced,
because it would be excessively fruity. A chocolate with components of
cinnamon, coconut, and currant would introduce clashing flavours. And a
chocolate that tasted entirely of blackberry would be too overwhelming and
harsh.
But, some components can be present at higher intensities and not be harsh,
and others blend together better with other flavour components present. For
instance, strawberry flavour can be present at pretty high intensity, and
doesn't usually cause a big problem. Almond flavours blend very well with a
wide variety of other typical chocolate flavour components. So you can get
away with more one-dimensional chocolates, or ones with higher intensities,
with the right characteristics. In particular, you can get away with
"chocolatey" as much as you want, by definition, because it's the center-
point of the chocolate flavour spectrum and a chocolate that tastes
chocolatey is inherently balanced.
In fact, the "perfect" chocolate would be one where the *only* flavour
component present were chocolatey, at infinite intensity. This idealised,
archetypal chocolate would literally embody chocolate, conveying its very
essence with every bite.
And as it turns out, Guittard Gourmet Bittersweet's taste is almost
*entirely* chocolatey, with very, very few other components detectable, and
better still, it delivers this flavour with a powerful wallop - in fact
relative to its percentage (63%) it seems unusually strong. Thus it is a
very close approximation to our idealised prototype.
Its biggest fault, indeed, is not in flavour, but in texture, where, as you
might suspect from the ingredient list you have, it's not as good as
certain other chocolates, being a bit rough, not quite so incredibly
creamy. I'll also point out that I don't consider including milkfat in
chocolate to be dishonourable - it is, after all, a noble ingredient with a
traditional place in the chocolate industry - otherwise wherefore milk
chocolate? Or truffles? There's a fine line - where does it end? I respect
and give credit to companies that don't use soy lecithin (e.g. Cluizel or
Domori), but again, I won't downgrade companies solely on their decision to
use it: lecithin use has been established in the elite companies for a long
time now. Vegelate, by contrast, I think crosses the line - when you start
using palm kernel oil or worse still, Crisco, to substitute for cocoa
butter not only are you using a product that has no traditional place in
the chocolate industry, but also which worsens the flavour and texture very
noticeably.
Interestingly, Guittard seems to do much better in the 60-65% class than in
other cocoa percentage classes. L'Harmonie, at 64%, is also world-class,
and Lever du Soleil, at 61%, along with Sur Del Lago, at 65%, are
excellent. But La Nuit Noir, at 55%, is pretty poor, and Coucher Du Soleil,
at 72%, is good but could use some tweaking. My suspicion is that this
percentage is the personal preference of a key person there, such as the
president, or the head taster, or possibly the group of senior executives.
So there you have it, the breakdown on Gourmet Bittersweet. Where are you
at? I can probably either point you at a source or send you some, depending
on your situation. Then you'll know what the fuss is all about.
--
Alex Rast
(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)
|