I just got some of this stuff based on some recommendations by Alex and
the web. Im not sure I understand why this stuff tastes so good but I
have a theory that I wanted to run by y'all. BTW, Happy New Year and
here's to hoping the new year is filled with just enough chocolate!!!

So all the package says (and its worth getting a bar just for the
packaging; its very cool) is "100% cocoa mass."

But the nutritional information says 53.2 gms of fat per 100 gms of
product. So if they put in 53.2 gms of cocoa butter (which as far as I
understand is pretty tasteless) then there can be only 46.8 gms of "taste."

I can't really describe how it tastes but it reminded me a lot of a very
"fatty" milk chocolate like Terra Nostra. I was very surprised that my
wife didn't like it as it reminded me so much of milk chocolate. Im not
saying it tastes like milk chocolate but rather that it tastes good
(good chocolate) and it has the consistency and mouth feel of milk
chocolate.

So unlike the Michel Cluziel 99% which really tastes like 99%, the Puro
and 100% from Domori taste like "butter" with some cocoa in it. Now my
theory is that you could call pure cocoa butter 100% cocoa "mass" but it
would have almost no taste. So in a way is Domori getting away with a
different interpretation of 100%?

The other reason Im questioning this is that to me even 72% Valhrona
tastes "darker" than either the Puro or 100%. Possibly even the 60 or so
Callebaut's taste "darker" but then I question what we all mean by
"dark." The point is that even though the 100% and Puro are 100% is that
they don't taste what I would call "dark." Whereas the MC 99% tastes
like the darkest of darks. So can someone explain what I'm tasting here?

k

p.s. if you only get one, I prefer the 100% to the Puro, but the
packaging on both is so cool that its worth getting both.

Hi Karstens,

I've tried all the 99%+ bars and I agree, Domori is hands-down the best. I
should qualify this and say that I believe there is a good reason the
introduction of chocolate to Europe was not successful until sugar was
added. Even a slight amount of sugar makes it edible.

That being said, if there is a 100% bar that comes close to being enjoyable,
Domori makes it. Either the Puro or the 100% Pasta Di Cacao bars are
pleasant. And of course, there is no chocolate maker that approaches the
heavenly smell of the Domori line of chocolates.

> But the nutritional information says 53.2 gms of fat per 100 gms of
> product. So if they put in 53.2 gms of cocoa butter (which as far as I
> understand is pretty tasteless) then there can be only 46.8 gms of
> "taste."

I think you're a bit misled - the fat is not from added cocoa butter. It's
already there from the roasted and pulverized bean. Yes, you can actually
make a chocolate bar from the smashed cacao bean with no other ingredients.

> I can't really describe how it tastes but it reminded me a lot of a very
> "fatty" milk chocolate like Terra Nostra.

Ouch, it pains me to hear a comparison with Terra Nostra. I know Alex Rast
likes their bars, but to me their very strong fruity and woody/earthy flavor
notes led me to rate them among the absolute worst chocolate I've ever
tasted. On the other hand, Domori is worthy of comparison to Pralus at the
high end of the "awesome" scale.

> Now my theory is that you could call pure cocoa butter 100% cocoa "mass"
> but it would have almost no taste. So in a way is Domori getting away with
> a different interpretation of 100%?

Pure cocoa butter would be just that. "Mass" refers to the natural result
of processing a roasted cacao bean: you roast the bean, smash it up, and
you get cacao mass. Use hydraulic presses to smash the cacao mass and you
will separate the cocoa butter out, leaving (mostly) dry cocoa powder.

> The other reason Im questioning this is that to me even 72% Valhrona
> tastes "darker" than either the Puro or 100%. Possibly even the 60 or so
> Callebaut's taste "darker" but then I question what we all mean by "dark."
> The point is that even though the 100% and Puro are 100% is that they
> don't taste what I would call "dark." Whereas the MC 99% tastes like the
> darkest of darks. So can someone explain what I'm tasting here?

Taste is pretty individual - as for me, there are 60% bars that taste darker
than some 70%, but personally I have not found a lower-percentage bar that
tastes like 100%.

> p.s. if you only get one, I prefer the 100% to the Puro, but the packaging
> on both is so cool that its worth getting both.

Yes indeed. Even better, keep these bars sealed and open them now and then
for a "smell hit"! :-)

Geoff

Hi Karstens,

I've tried all the 99%+ bars and I agree, Domori is hands-down the best. I
should qualify this and say that I believe there is a good reason the
introduction of chocolate to Europe was not successful until sugar was
added. Even a slight amount of sugar makes it edible.

That being said, if there is a 100% bar that comes close to being enjoyable,
Domori makes it. Either the Puro or the 100% Pasta Di Cacao bars are
pleasant. And of course, there is no chocolate maker that approaches the
heavenly smell of the Domori line of chocolates.

> But the nutritional information says 53.2 gms of fat per 100 gms of
> product. So if they put in 53.2 gms of cocoa butter (which as far as I
> understand is pretty tasteless) then there can be only 46.8 gms of
> "taste."

I think you're a bit misled - the fat is not from added cocoa butter. It's
already there from the roasted and pulverized bean. Yes, you can actually
make a chocolate bar from the smashed cacao bean with no other ingredients.

> I can't really describe how it tastes but it reminded me a lot of a very
> "fatty" milk chocolate like Terra Nostra.

Ouch, it pains me to hear a comparison with Terra Nostra. I know Alex Rast
likes their bars, but to me their very strong fruity and woody/earthy flavor
notes led me to rate them among the absolute worst chocolate I've ever
tasted. On the other hand, Domori is worthy of comparison to Pralus at the
high end of the "awesome" scale.

> Now my theory is that you could call pure cocoa butter 100% cocoa "mass"
> but it would have almost no taste. So in a way is Domori getting away with
> a different interpretation of 100%?

Pure cocoa butter would be just that. "Mass" refers to the natural result
of processing a roasted cacao bean: you roast the bean, smash it up, and
you get cacao mass. Use hydraulic presses to smash the cacao mass and you
will separate the cocoa butter out, leaving (mostly) dry cocoa powder.

> The other reason Im questioning this is that to me even 72% Valhrona
> tastes "darker" than either the Puro or 100%. Possibly even the 60 or so
> Callebaut's taste "darker" but then I question what we all mean by "dark."
> The point is that even though the 100% and Puro are 100% is that they
> don't taste what I would call "dark." Whereas the MC 99% tastes like the
> darkest of darks. So can someone explain what I'm tasting here?

Taste is pretty individual - as for me, there are 60% bars that taste darker
than some 70%, but personally I have not found a lower-percentage bar that
tastes like 100%.

> p.s. if you only get one, I prefer the 100% to the Puro, but the packaging
> on both is so cool that its worth getting both.

Yes indeed. Even better, keep these bars sealed and open them now and then
for a "smell hit"! :-)

Geoff

at Sun, 02 Jan 2005 03:30:53 GMT in <NVJBd.8124$3m6.3902@attbi_s51>,
(Karstens Rage) wrote :

>I just got some of this stuff ...
>Im not sure I understand why this stuff tastes so good but I
>have a theory...
>
>So all the package says (and its worth getting a bar just for the
>packaging; its very cool) is "100% cocoa mass."
>
>But the nutritional information says 53.2 gms of fat per 100 gms of
>product. So if they put in 53.2 gms of cocoa butter (which as far as I
>understand is pretty tasteless) then there can be only 46.8 gms of
>"taste."

53.2% cocoa butter is fairly typical for unsweetened chocolate. Pure
unsweetened chocolate generally has from about 45% to 55% cocoa butter,
depending on the bean variety. They don't actually "put in" cocoa butter -
they're simply using the natural cocoa butter that's in the beans they're
grinding up.

>I can't really describe how it tastes but it reminded me a lot of a very
>"fatty" milk chocolate ... Im not
>saying it tastes like milk chocolate but rather that it tastes good
>(good chocolate) and it has the consistency and mouth feel of milk
>chocolate.

That's also fairly common for unsweetened. The more cocoa butter you add,
the smoother and more creamy the texture will be. Meanwhile, milk chocolate
also has this effect because the milkfat (more or less butter) has
different melting properties because of its different fat profile, thus
leading to a creamier consistency, pretty much by definition, because,
after all, the adjective "creamy" refers to the mouthfeel of cream, which
gets it from the milkfat. Milk chocolate, however, is typically also
somewhat fudgier than unsweetened because of the milk proteins. If you add
pure milkfat to chocolate (as some manufacturers do), you can make the
texture much more creamy very easily.

>So unlike the Michel Cluziel 99% which really tastes like 99%, the Puro
>and 100% from Domori taste like "butter" with some cocoa in it. Now my
>theory is that you could call pure cocoa butter 100% cocoa "mass" but it
> would have almost no taste. So in a way is Domori getting away with a
>different interpretation of 100%?

Not really. The difference is in the beans used. Each of these
manufacturers uses a different bean blend, and this has an impact on the
final taste. Cluizel chooses beans with a more assertive character, while
Domori's, on the whole, are milder but perhaps also a bit smoother. In
addition, Cluizel and Domori use different roasts. A dark roast produces a
smoother but less characterised taste, where a light roast is much more
lively but also sharper. Domori's is slightly more darkly roasted.

>The other reason Im questioning this is that to me even 72% Valhrona
>tastes "darker" than either the Puro or 100%.

This makes me suspect that, rather ironically, what you interpret as
"darker" is in fact the taste of a *lighter* roast - i.e. one that tastes
fruity and sharp, acid, lively, with some bitterness. That's typical of
Valrhona and also closer to Cluizel's Noir Infini than the Domori 100%'s

> Possibly even the 60 or so
> Callebaut's taste "darker" but then I question what we all mean by
>"dark." The point is that even though the 100% and Puro are 100% is that
>they don't taste what I would call "dark." Whereas the MC 99% tastes
>like the darkest of darks.

The MC I think tastes the strongest, too. It's got the most assertive bean
blend and IMHO a better-balanced roast. The Domori 100%'s are both superb,
but still, Cluizel bests them both. I think Domori aims for a smoother and
more subtle flavour in all their chocolates, which is why their very best
chocolates are the ones where the bean type is smooth and subtle to begin
with : Puertofino (Ocumare 67) and Porcelana (especially Porcelana).
Cluizel's best are the beans that are assertive and powerful : Los Ancones
and Noir Infini.

Of course, if you want *really* assertive and powerful, you need to try
Chuao, the strongest of all t

--
Alex Rast

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

at Sun, 02 Jan 2005 03:30:53 GMT in <NVJBd.8124$3m6.3902@attbi_s51>,
(Karstens Rage) wrote :

>I just got some of this stuff ...
>Im not sure I understand why this stuff tastes so good but I
>have a theory...
>
>So all the package says (and its worth getting a bar just for the
>packaging; its very cool) is "100% cocoa mass."
>
>But the nutritional information says 53.2 gms of fat per 100 gms of
>product. So if they put in 53.2 gms of cocoa butter (which as far as I
>understand is pretty tasteless) then there can be only 46.8 gms of
>"taste."

53.2% cocoa butter is fairly typical for unsweetened chocolate. Pure
unsweetened chocolate generally has from about 45% to 55% cocoa butter,
depending on the bean variety. They don't actually "put in" cocoa butter -
they're simply using the natural cocoa butter that's in the beans they're
grinding up.

>I can't really describe how it tastes but it reminded me a lot of a very
>"fatty" milk chocolate ... Im not
>saying it tastes like milk chocolate but rather that it tastes good
>(good chocolate) and it has the consistency and mouth feel of milk
>chocolate.

That's also fairly common for unsweetened. The more cocoa butter you add,
the smoother and more creamy the texture will be. Meanwhile, milk chocolate
also has this effect because the milkfat (more or less butter) has
different melting properties because of its different fat profile, thus
leading to a creamier consistency, pretty much by definition, because,
after all, the adjective "creamy" refers to the mouthfeel of cream, which
gets it from the milkfat. Milk chocolate, however, is typically also
somewhat fudgier than unsweetened because of the milk proteins. If you add
pure milkfat to chocolate (as some manufacturers do), you can make the
texture much more creamy very easily.

>So unlike the Michel Cluziel 99% which really tastes like 99%, the Puro
>and 100% from Domori taste like "butter" with some cocoa in it. Now my
>theory is that you could call pure cocoa butter 100% cocoa "mass" but it
> would have almost no taste. So in a way is Domori getting away with a
>different interpretation of 100%?

Not really. The difference is in the beans used. Each of these
manufacturers uses a different bean blend, and this has an impact on the
final taste. Cluizel chooses beans with a more assertive character, while
Domori's, on the whole, are milder but perhaps also a bit smoother. In
addition, Cluizel and Domori use different roasts. A dark roast produces a
smoother but less characterised taste, where a light roast is much more
lively but also sharper. Domori's is slightly more darkly roasted.

>The other reason Im questioning this is that to me even 72% Valhrona
>tastes "darker" than either the Puro or 100%.

This makes me suspect that, rather ironically, what you interpret as
"darker" is in fact the taste of a *lighter* roast - i.e. one that tastes
fruity and sharp, acid, lively, with some bitterness. That's typical of
Valrhona and also closer to Cluizel's Noir Infini than the Domori 100%'s

> Possibly even the 60 or so
> Callebaut's taste "darker" but then I question what we all mean by
>"dark." The point is that even though the 100% and Puro are 100% is that
>they don't taste what I would call "dark." Whereas the MC 99% tastes
>like the darkest of darks.

The MC I think tastes the strongest, too. It's got the most assertive bean
blend and IMHO a better-balanced roast. The Domori 100%'s are both superb,
but still, Cluizel bests them both. I think Domori aims for a smoother and
more subtle flavour in all their chocolates, which is why their very best
chocolates are the ones where the bean type is smooth and subtle to begin
with : Puertofino (Ocumare 67) and Porcelana (especially Porcelana).
Cluizel's best are the beans that are assertive and powerful : Los Ancones
and Noir Infini.

Of course, if you want *really* assertive and powerful, you need to try
Chuao, the strongest of all t

--
Alex Rast

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