What's the best way to score 3-3.5 oz. chocolate bars?
There seem to be four basic methods:

1. 2 x 4 pieces -- used by Valrhona.

2. 2 x 5 pieces -- used by Villars and Droste.

3. 5 x 7 (?) pieces -- I'm not sure how many
rows and columns, because I don't have an
example handy. Used by Lindt and Rapunzel (blech!).

4. Diagonal scoring -- only used by Sharffen Berger.

Because I'm usually progressing through two bars
of different types at once, I eat the same number
of pieces from each bar, when the pieces are
roughly the same size. For me, the first thing I
do when I get up in the morning is eat two pieces
off a Valrhona and two pieces of whatever bar
I've paired it with (usually SB). When I pair it
with a method 2 bar, that means I've got two
extra pieces to deal with. That's not a problem,
in fact it's more like a bonus. Two extra pieces,
for free!

I don't eat any method 3 bars, but even if I did,
the pieces are too small. I'd have to break them
into larger pieces, and (if I recall correctly) the
number of pieces in a section is odd -- not good,
it should be even so it can be broken into two
equal pieces.

Method 4 is insane. Whoever thought of this
method should be fired. These bars do not
break consistently into pieces of the intended
size. The SB design lacks a score line in the
central area, so that piece cannot be broken
into pieces of 1-unit size.

I like method 1 the best, because these pieces
seem to be the right size. Method 2 is second
best, but I wouldn't like to see the whole industry
go to method 2, because then I wouldn't get those
two extra pieces for free. Method 3 might make
sense if you were sharing a bar with a whole
classroom of schoolchildren, but it's too small
a unit for normal adult use. Method 3 would be
better if the rows and columns were all even
numbers. Method 4 makes no sense -- it's an
example of allowing an artsy design to triumph
over the practical needs of chocolate eaters.

at Thu, 25 Dec 2003 23:27:57 GMT in >,
(Mark Thorson) wrote :

>What's the best way to score 3-3.5 oz. chocolate bars?
>There seem to be four basic methods:
>
>1. 2 x 4 pieces -- used by Valrhona.
>
>2. 2 x 5 pieces -- used by Villars and Droste.
>
>3. 5 x 7 (?) pieces -- I'm not sure how many
>rows and columns, because I don't have an
>example handy. Used by Lindt and Rapunzel (blech!).
>
>4. Diagonal scoring -- only used by Sharffen Berger.
>

Method 2, because then you have each piece as exactly 10g. A 3.5 oz bar is
100g, and then you have 10 pieces. IMHO 50g is actually the right size for
taste-testing and basic eating (at least, for the non-chocoholic) - enough
to get the full experience of the complete spectrum of the chocolate
flavours and persistence, not so much that eating it becomes tedious or
overindulgent. 50 g bars should be shaped long and blocky - about as long
as a typical 100g bar, 1/4 the width, and twice the thickness. Likewise,
the 100 g bars should be 1/2 their current width and twice the thickness.
The reason is that the existing width is too big to fit into the mouth,
resulting in awkward biting - you have to turn your head at an angle, or
the chocolate, or both. In the narrower format, you'd score the bar deeply
into 10 g chunks, no grid, just a 1x5 or 1x10 set. That would make for
easiest breaking and greatest wrapping convenience, if you were to eat only
a portion of the bar.

--
Alex Rast

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

Alex Rast wrote:

> Method 2, because then you have each piece as exactly 10g.
> A 3.5 oz bar is 100g, and then you have 10 pieces.

I hadn't thought about that, but that's a good point.
Some people may be dieting in metric, and that
would make it easier to calculate.

However, some bars (e.g. Scharfen Berger) are 3 oz.

> IMHO 50g is actually the right size for taste-testing
> and basic eating (at least, for the non-chocoholic) - enough
> to get the full experience of the complete spectrum of the
> chocolate flavours and persistence, not so much that
> eating it becomes tedious or overindulgent.

I don't agree with that. I think half that amount is plenty.
But I'll defer to your expertise.

> 50 g bars should be shaped long and blocky - about as long
> as a typical 100g bar, 1/4 the width, and twice the thickness.

Gee, that sounds like a Godiva bar. (Although Godiva is
best known for their chocolate confections, they also
produce pure chocolate bars. I had their "Dark Chocolate"
bar recently. No cocoa solids % was listed, but it must
have been pretty low. I found it too sweet and rather
unsatisfying.)

> Likewise, the 100 g bars should be 1/2 their current width
> and twice the thickness. The reason is that the existing width
> is too big to fit into the mouth, resulting in awkward biting -
> you have to turn your head at an angle, or the chocolate, or
> both. In the narrower format, you'd score the bar deeply
> into 10 g chunks, no grid, just a 1x5 or 1x10 set. That would
> make for easiest breaking and greatest wrapping convenience,
> if you were to eat only a portion of the bar.

We obviously eat chocolate differently. I've never even
considered chomping down on the full width of the bar.
I always break the bar into pieces before eating.

I like the present thickness of bars, and prefer the dimensions
of the thinner bars like Sharfen Berger and Villars. But,
remember, I eat my chocolate at about 0 degrees C.
I want my bar to fracture in my mouth, preferably shatter.
A thicker bar feels differently, and fractures in a less
interesting way.