>From the SF Chronicle:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...UGM6DTAOM1.DTL

"Scharffen Berger, a Berkeley company that specializes in premium dark
chocolates, will continue making its products as normal but said it
will have greater access to resources and growth opportunities by
joining forces with Hershey.
....
"Scharffen Berger markets to the refined palate and seeks to be
approached like a fine wine. Its best-selling products include
bittersweet and extra-dark chocolates. The company has retail stores in
Berkeley, San Francisco and New York. Its products also are available
in high-end supermarkets."

(quoted under fair use)

Leila

In article .com>,
Leila > wrote:
>"Scharffen Berger markets to the refined palate and seeks to be
>approached like a fine wine. Its best-selling products include
>bittersweet and extra-dark chocolates. The company has retail stores in
>Berkeley, San Francisco and New York. Its products also are available
>in high-end supermarkets."

This gives me more confidence in my theory: Scharffen Berger is a
sham. Here they are, announcing that they are being acquired by the
king of mass market, low quality chocolate, and simultaneously
claiming the high end of the market.

I've tasted their packaged goods many times, and I find them lacking.
The chocolate has a weird sour (not bitter) taste that is not
pleasant.

It is also quite expensive.
--
David Arnstein

David Arnstein wrote:

> This gives me more confidence in my theory: Scharffen Berger is a
> sham. Here they are, announcing that they are being acquired by the
> king of mass market, low quality chocolate, and simultaneously
> claiming the high end of the market.
>
> I've tasted their packaged goods many times, and I find them lacking.
> The chocolate has a weird sour (not bitter) taste that is not
> pleasant.
>
> It is also quite expensive.

Yep. It doesn't hold a candle to Michel Cluizel or Valrhona. It's
decidedly one-dimensional. It's the typical American thing -- some
rich guys start a company in an area that interests them, learn as
much as they can, and hang out a shingle. European chocolatiers
have decades of experience, access to growers, etc. There's
just no substitute for the kind of knowledge in depth that comes
from growing up in what has been a hereditary craft.

Of course, that's what's great about America -- you don't have to
apprentice for seven years to become a sushi chef. OTOH that's
what's not so great about America -- you eat sushi made by guys who
didn't study for seven years to become a sushi chef.

In article >,
Michael Sierchio > wrote:

> access to growers, etc.

Those growers in South America, you mean?

> There's just no substitute for the kind of knowledge in depth that
> comes from growing up in what has been a hereditary craft.

True, but it seems to me that there is less and less of that in
Europe as well. People no longer want to do what the family always has
done, they are more individualistic.

In any case, I still prefer Ghiradelli chocolate. Call me a plebe if
you will.

Regards,
Ranee

Remove do not & spam to e-mail me.

"She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13

http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/
http://talesfromthekitchen.blogspot.com/

Sad, isn't it? I don't expect it will remain the same for very long.

```````````````````````

On 26 Jul 2005 09:32:29 -0700, Leila wrote:

> >From the SF Chronicle:
>
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...UGM6DTAOM1.DTL
>
> "Scharffen Berger, a Berkeley company that specializes in premium dark
> chocolates, will continue making its products as normal but said it
> will have greater access to resources and growth opportunities by
> joining forces with Hershey.
> ...
> "Scharffen Berger markets to the refined palate and seeks to be
> approached like a fine wine. Its best-selling products include
> bittersweet and extra-dark chocolates. The company has retail stores in
> Berkeley, San Francisco and New York. Its products also are available
> in high-end supermarkets."
>
> (quoted under fair use)
>
> Leila

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:01:05 +0000 (UTC), David Arnstein wrote:

> I've tasted their packaged goods many times, and I find them lacking.
> The chocolate has a weird sour (not bitter) taste that is not
> pleasant.
>
To each his own. I like their product.

> It is also quite expensive.

The price is very reasonable, considering it's high end chocolate.

Michael Sierchio wrote:

> It's the typical American thing -- some
> rich guys start a company in an area that interests them, learn as
> much as they can, and hang out a shingle. European chocolatiers
> have decades of experience, access to growers, etc. There's
> just no substitute for the kind of knowledge in depth that comes
> from growing up in what has been a hereditary craft.

That's what I figured -- I was very prejudiced against SB
before trying it. However, their ~70% bittersweet is currently
my favorite chocolate. My others are certain chocolates from
Valrhona and Chocovic.

What some people don't like about SB is that they
roast their beans less than other makers. This preserves
certain flavors that get burnt out by most other chocolate
makers. Many people don't seem to like these flavors,
but I enjoy them very much. I find burnt chocolates
uninteresting and unsatisfying.

On 2005-07-26, Michael Sierchio > wrote:

> rich guys start a company in an area that interests them, learn as
> much as they can, and hang out a shingle. European chocolatiers
> have decades of experience, access to growers, etc. There's
> just no substitute for the kind of knowledge in depth that comes
> from growing up in what has been a hereditary craft.

> Of course, that's what's great about America -- you don't have to
> apprentice for seven years.....

Building up a specialty business and then relentlessly promoting it to
attract the attention of the big boys and then selling it so as to be
able to afford luxury homes, jets, and planes is what Americans
apprentice at. This isn't ol' John's first time.

nb

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> Sad, isn't it? I don't expect it will remain the same for very long.

First, they'll start adding a lot of wax to it, just like their
own Hershey bars. Damn they used to be good.

nancy (great, just what I need, another craving)

In article >,
Michael Sierchio > wrote:
>Yep. It doesn't hold a candle to Michel Cluizel or Valrhona.

I find Valrhona overpriced (and thus on par with SB). I prefer
Chocovic, although nothing beats TJ's Pound Plus 70% chocolate for
value.

rone
--
"If the movie was an episode of 'Battlestar Galactica' with a guest appearance
by the Smurfs and everyone spoke Dutch, the graphic novel is 'Citizen Kane'
with added sex scenes and music by your favourite ten bands and everyone in
the world you ever hated dies at the end." -- Warren Ellis, on 'From Hell'

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:58:04 GMT, Mark Thorson >
wrote:

>Michael Sierchio wrote:
>
>> It's the typical American thing -- some
>> rich guys start a company in an area that interests them, learn as
>> much as they can, and hang out a shingle. European chocolatiers
>> have decades of experience, access to growers, etc. There's
>> just no substitute for the kind of knowledge in depth that comes
>> from growing up in what has been a hereditary craft.


Hershey has been around since 1893. Have access to growers, have
decades of experience. have there own milk processing plant for the
production of milk chocolate. They employ 13,700 people, export to 90
countries and have $4 billion in sales a year. Not bad for something
that started with a penniless 30 year old.

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:12:09 GMT, day dreamer@dream .com@ wrote:

>On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:58:04 GMT, Mark Thorson >
>wrote:
>
>>Michael Sierchio wrote:
>>
>>> It's the typical American thing -- some
>>> rich guys start a company in an area that interests them, learn as
>>> much as they can, and hang out a shingle. European chocolatiers
>>> have decades of experience, access to growers, etc. There's
>>> just no substitute for the kind of knowledge in depth that comes
>>> from growing up in what has been a hereditary craft.
>
>
>Hershey has been around since 1893. Have access to growers, have
>decades of experience. have there own milk processing plant for the
>production of milk chocolate. They employ 13,700 people, export to 90
>countries and have $4 billion in sales a year. Not bad for something
>that started with a penniless 30 year old.
>

Hershey made it possible for the masses in the US to have chocolate at
all. Before that, it was affordable only for the rich. As a
company, its history is very admirable with regard to treatment of
workers, the surrounding community, and needy children.

I'm pleased and proud to support Hershey's by eating Reeses peanut
butter cups and Skor Toffee bars and Whatchamacallit and Mr. Goodbar
and kisses and Almond Joy. :>

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

Curly Sue wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:12:09 GMT, day dreamer@dream .com@ wrote:

>>On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:58:04 GMT, Mark Thorson >
>>wrote:

>>>Michael Sierchio wrote:

>>>>It's the typical American thing -- some
>>>>rich guys start a company in an area that interests them, learn as
>>>>much as they can, and hang out a shingle. European chocolatiers
>>>>have decades of experience, access to growers, etc. There's
>>>>just no substitute for the kind of knowledge in depth that comes
>>>>from growing up in what has been a hereditary craft.
>>
>>Hershey has been around since 1893. Have access to growers, have
>>decades of experience. have there own milk processing plant for the
>>production of milk chocolate. They employ 13,700 people, export to 90
>>countries and have $4 billion in sales a year. Not bad for something
>>that started with a penniless 30 year old.
>>
> Hershey made it possible for the masses in the US to have chocolate at
> all. Before that, it was affordable only for the rich. As a
> company, its history is very admirable with regard to treatment of
> workers, the surrounding community, and needy children.
>
> I'm pleased and proud to support Hershey's by eating Reeses peanut
> butter cups and Skor Toffee bars and Whatchamacallit and Mr. Goodbar
> and kisses and Almond Joy. :>
>

> Sue(tm)
Hershey's chocolate tastes from boiled milk. I do not like milk
chocolate, but Hershey's is the worst of the popular brands. Their
Special, the dark chocolate would not be bad, if they made it a little
less sweet. Dark chocolate should have that bittersweet taste, but in
this case it does not.

As for Scharffen Berger, I cannot eat their chocolate at all. As
someone mentioned, it tastes sour, as if it were spoiled. There is
another American Chocolate maker, Guittard's and those chocolates are
incredibly good but, unfortunately they are difficult to find in New
York City.

Let's hope that the merger will produce a new, wonderfully good
chocolate bar.

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005, rone wrote:

> In article >,
> Michael Sierchio > wrote:
> >Yep. It doesn't hold a candle to Michel Cluizel or Valrhona.
>
> I find Valrhona overpriced (and thus on par with SB). I prefer
> Chocovic, although nothing beats TJ's Pound Plus 70% chocolate for
> value.

TJs has often had Valrhona at reasonable prices. There's no obvious
indication that it's any different from what's sold for a lot more
elsewhere, although I've not recently enough bought the latter for
direct comparison.
--

Al Eisner
San Mateo Co., CA

On 2005-07-26, Margaret Suran > wrote:

> another American Chocolate maker......

Yeah! ...let's not forget Baker's, the oldest chocolate company in the
US and having the distinction of never buying chocolate from suppliers
who used slaves.

nb

"Mark Thorson" > wrote in message
...
> Michael Sierchio wrote:
>
>> It's the typical American thing -- some
>> rich guys start a company in an area that interests them, learn as
>> much as they can, and hang out a shingle. European chocolatiers
>> have decades of experience, access to growers, etc. There's
>> just no substitute for the kind of knowledge in depth that comes
>> from growing up in what has been a hereditary craft.
>
> That's what I figured -- I was very prejudiced against SB
> before trying it. However, their ~70% bittersweet is currently
> my favorite chocolate. My others are certain chocolates from
> Valrhona and Chocovic.
>
> What some people don't like about SB is that they
> roast their beans less than other makers. This preserves
> certain flavors that get burnt out by most other chocolate
> makers. Many people don't seem to like these flavors,
> but I enjoy them very much. I find burnt chocolates
> uninteresting and unsatisfying.
>

I don't know where I got the idea that SB tastes the way they do because of
the near-burnt or close-to-burnt flavor; haven't I read something on their
site about the fantastic way of roasting that they get the taste out of
their beans vs. other chocolatiers? It was my thinking that they roasted
more heartily than other companies do.
Anyway, you probably know from reading this posting that SB is NOT one of my
choices of chocolate. But then neither is Starbucks choice of roasting
their beans or various beans. However, I wouldn't mind having a little
stock in either company.
Dee Dee

"rone" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Michael Sierchio > wrote:
>>Yep. It doesn't hold a candle to Michel Cluizel or Valrhona.
>
> I find Valrhona overpriced (and thus on par with SB). I prefer
> Chocovic, although nothing beats TJ's Pound Plus 70% chocolate for
> value.
>
> rone
> --
> "If the movie was an episode of 'Battlestar Galactica' with a guest
> appearance
> by the Smurfs and everyone spoke Dutch, the graphic novel is 'Citizen
> Kane'
> with added sex scenes and music by your favourite ten bands and everyone
> in
> the world you ever hated dies at the end." -- Warren Ellis, on 'From Hell'

TJ's - I swore I'd never go there again because it looks and feels like a
package store - you know, packages of this, packages of that and dinky
isles. Their produce section is small compared to the Whole Foods I've been
to; even though TJ's has a nice cheese selection. On my way to CT last
week, the traffic forced me to get off at Darien, CT, where I found
Girrhadeli (sp?) 70% chocolate for $3.99 a lb. and 100% pure organic
cranberry juice (TJ's brand) for $3.99 vs. Knudsen's brand at anywhere from
$5.99 to 7.50 for the same amount. TJ's cranberry juice is far superior.
Another thing I liked -- is that the people who worked there were quite
helpful and pleasant even though the store was busy on a Friday night. I
went back on the way home and got their Giradelhi (sp?) white chocolate at
$4.39 lb., I believe it was.
My last chocolate purchase at Whole Foods was Callabaut dark unsweetened
$6.99#; El Rey Apamate Choc 73.5% at $7.99#; and Mitica
Artisan -Spanish-Dark Chocolate at $12.99# (I'd never heard of Mitica - just
thought I'd try it.)
I can't comment on any of these chocolates. I only buy -- tee hee. (My
f-i-l has had two different types of cancer in the 18 months and has
recovered from both lymphoma and colon cancer. Last week they said that
they would be doing a biopsy for lung cancer, but today they said that it
was probably a false test -- perhaps I will be able to use my hoard of
chocolates before long.
Hot here today, when I came home from town, the thermometer said 100F. I
dont' think it was in the sun.
Dee

Margaret Suran > wrote:
: As for Scharffen Berger, I cannot eat their chocolate at all. As
: someone mentioned, it tastes sour, as if it were spoiled. There is
: another American Chocolate maker, Guittard's and those chocolates are
: incredibly good but, unfortunately they are difficult to find in New
: York City.

: Let's hope that the merger will produce a new, wonderfully good
: chocolate bar.

I tried Guittard thanks to a shipment from Alex Rast and it
is very good, but I can't get it around here.

We use a *large* amount of Scharffenberger's 99%, and I don't
even bake with it. We use it for cocoa and 'chocolate soda';
I crumble it over fruit desserts [usually mixed with pecans
or almonds or walnuts or coconut]; late at night, i.e. early
in the morning, my husband eats it straight as a snack
--thelma

day, dreamer@dream, .com@ wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:58:04 GMT, Mark Thorson >
> wrote:
>
> >Michael Sierchio wrote:
> >
> >> It's the typical American thing -- some
> >> rich guys start a company in an area that interests them, learn as
> >> much as they can, and hang out a shingle. European chocolatiers
> >> have decades of experience, access to growers, etc. There's
> >> just no substitute for the kind of knowledge in depth that comes
> >> from growing up in what has been a hereditary craft.
>
> Hershey has been around since 1893. Have access to growers, have
> decades of experience. have there own milk processing plant for the
> production of milk chocolate. They employ 13,700 people, export to 90
> countries and have $4 billion in sales a year. Not bad for something
> that started with a penniless 30 year old.

Several years ago Nestles bought my favorite Mexican drinking chocolate
"Abulita" so far there has been no noticable diminuation in the quality
of the product, i was fearing an adulturation of ingredients and
quantities of ingredients till it reached the blandness of "Ibara".
---
Joseph Littleshoes

On 2005-07-27, Dee Randall > wrote:

> the near-burnt or close-to-burnt flavor; haven't I read something on their
> site about the fantastic way of roasting that they get the taste out of
> their beans vs. other chocolatiers?

.......and how JS scraped around Europe looking for old mothballed
chocolate equipment so he could make his chocolate in the "real"
old-world traditional way. Now he's sucking big sugar daddy tit to
get at that real new-world production equipment to increase profits.
Obviously, good PR works.

nb

In article > , Dog3
> wrote:

>
> They had best not mess with the Hershey Kisses or I'll have to learn how to
> make them myself


They'll only increase the price.

"Prices for Hershey products are expected to rise, but we believe this
will make Hershey products more attractive to the Starbuck's
Generation," said Hershey spokesbimbo Dakota Q. Washington.


--Tim May

Just going to add a shout out to Callebaut for my fave chocolate... dark is
so goooood.

Bob

"Mark Thorson" > wrote in message
...
> Michael Sierchio wrote:
>
>> It's the typical American thing -- some
>> rich guys start a company in an area that interests them, learn as
>> much as they can, and hang out a shingle. European chocolatiers
>> have decades of experience, access to growers, etc. There's
>> just no substitute for the kind of knowledge in depth that comes
>> from growing up in what has been a hereditary craft.
>
> That's what I figured -- I was very prejudiced against SB
> before trying it. However, their ~70% bittersweet is currently
> my favorite chocolate. My others are certain chocolates from
> Valrhona and Chocovic.
>
> What some people don't like about SB is that they
> roast their beans less than other makers. This preserves
> certain flavors that get burnt out by most other chocolate
> makers. Many people don't seem to like these flavors,
> but I enjoy them very much. I find burnt chocolates
> uninteresting and unsatisfying.
>
>
>

In article >, "rone" >
wrote:

> In article >,
> Michael Sierchio > wrote:
> >Yep. It doesn't hold a candle to Michel Cluizel or Valrhona.
>
> I find Valrhona overpriced (and thus on par with SB). I prefer
> Chocovic, although nothing beats TJ's Pound Plus 70% chocolate for
> value.

I should try theirs. I like Ghiradelli quite well, and _really_ like
Belgian dark chocolate.

Regards,
Ranee

Remove do not & spam to e-mail me.

"She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13

http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/
http://talesfromthekitchen.blogspot.com/

In article >,
Margaret Suran > wrote:

> There is another American Chocolate maker, Guittard's and those
> chocolates are incredibly good but, unfortunately they are difficult
> to find in New York City.

Oh! I forgot about them! I won two 10 pound bars of chocolate from
them a few years ago. They were soooo good!

Regards,
Ranee

Remove do not & spam to e-mail me.

"She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13

http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/
http://talesfromthekitchen.blogspot.com/

On 26 Jul 2005 13:00:19 -0700, rone wrote:

> although nothing beats TJ's Pound Plus 70% chocolate for
> value.

shhhhh.... don't tell secrets.

In article >,
David Arnstein > wrote:
>In article .com>,
>Leila > wrote:
>>"Scharffen Berger markets to the refined palate and seeks to be
>>approached like a fine wine. Its best-selling products include
>>bittersweet and extra-dark chocolates. The company has retail stores in
>>Berkeley, San Francisco and New York. Its products also are available
>>in high-end supermarkets."
>
>This gives me more confidence in my theory: Scharffen Berger is a
>sham. Here they are, announcing that they are being acquired by the
>king of mass market, low quality chocolate, and simultaneously
>claiming the high end of the market.
>
>I've tasted their packaged goods many times, and I find them lacking.
>The chocolate has a weird sour (not bitter) taste that is not
>pleasant.
>
>It is also quite expensive.

Donelly's Chocolate in Santa Cruz is the best I've ever had, although
inexpensive it isn't.

http://www.donnellychocolates.com/

As a calibration of my tastes: I think Valhrona is better than Scharffen
Berger, I dislike Ghirardelli's, and I mostly eat Trader Joe's Pound
Plus bittersweet because it's a good chocolate at a great price.

--
Stef ** avid/sensible/sensual/wise/essential/elemental/tangle
** <*> http://www.cat-and-dragon.com/stef
**
Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done.
-- James J. Ling

Several posters replied to in one follow-up. Responses below.

at Tue, 26 Jul 2005 16:32:29 GMT in
.com>,
(Leila) wrote :
....
>
>"Scharffen Berger, a Berkeley company that specializes in premium dark
>chocolates, will continue making its products as normal but said it
>will have greater access to resources and growth opportunities by
>joining forces with Hershey.

I'm not surprised. It never really seemed as though S-B were as much into
it from a chocolate-for-chocolate's sake as from a chocolate-as-marketing-
concept angle. Sure, they have produced good chocolate, and quality hasn't
been the lowest of their priorities, but I felt that they viewed it very
much as a commercial venture as opposed to a pure labour of love so that if
the right suitor came along, they'd be gladly acquired.

However, don't discount the possibility that Hershey's essentially offered
them a "plata o plomo" proposition, i.e. either you take our money and
accept our offer or we destroy you. Hershey's can afford a much more
heavyweight legal team and if they wanted to acquire S-B they probably
could have found ways of manipulating the legal system to achieve that aim
regardless of what S-B did.

at Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:11:48 GMT in >,
(Michael Sierchio) wrote :

>Yep. It doesn't hold a candle to Michel Cluizel or Valrhona. It's
>decidedly one-dimensional. It's the typical American thing -- some
>rich guys start a company in an area that interests them, learn as
>much as they can, and hang out a shingle....

At the outset, I felt that Scharffen Berger started out with very fixed
ideas in their head about what quality chocolate would be like. It doesn't
seem to me that they tried very hard to explore the style-choice boundaries
by tasting many chocolates from many manufacturers. Now, it must be said
that at the time they started, they might have been frustrated by the
comparative lack of quality chocolate in the USA, but this situation is
being rectified. And, to give credit where credit is due, S-B with their
powerful marketing played a large role in making American consumers aware
of the potential to be found in chocolate. So they've been a positive
influence on the U.S. chocolate market in any case.

Recently they've started being, I think, more adventurous with style,
evidence that now they've actually started to learn about the possibilities
and flavour choices one can make. Where their initial chocolates were one-
sidedly fruity, invariably, their newer ones have other components and have
been more interesting. Nonetheless, I don't think they've reached the
heights of Cluizel or Valrhona yet. But Cluizel is a company widely
acknowledged to be among the very best of the best - in an elite class that
puts them, perhaps, even slightly above Valrhona in reputation, rather as
Rolls-Royce might have slightly more cachet than Mercedes. Valrhona has for
a long time been an unusually excellent high-end manufacturer, if not quite
the truly small, artisanal manufacturer at this point.

at Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:58:04 GMT in >,
(Mark Thorson) wrote :

>That's what I figured -- I was very prejudiced against SB
>before trying it. However, their ~70% bittersweet is currently
>my favorite chocolate. My others are certain chocolates from
>Valrhona and Chocovic.
>
>What some people don't like about SB is that they
>roast their beans less than other makers. This preserves
>certain flavors that get burnt out by most other chocolate
>makers....

I think it's a little inaccurate to say "burnt out". Pretty much only the
cheap chocolate manufacturers (such as Hershey's) roast, or need to roast,
their beans to the point where they're actually slightly burnt. Roasting
time depends on bean type, because the longer you roast, the more you can
eliminate harsh bitter components. So for more bitter beans, the classic
example being the lower-grade Forastero beans (which most cheap chocolate
manufacturers use), you must roast longer or the chocolate will be terribly
bitter. Better beans, such as Criollos, need less roasting. However, roast
too lightly and the result will be sour, bright, and overly fruity. There's
a balance that really depends on the bean. Personally I think Scharffen
Berger always roasted too lightly. At the other extreme, another high-
quality manufacturer, Pralus, roasts very heavily. The result is a very
dark, smoky flavour. Both Pralus and S-B are quality chocolate. However,
which you like better is a matter of personal preference. A company like
the aforementioned Cluizel tends to be more in the middle in terms of
roasting time - so that his chocolates aren't decisively fruity or dark and
earthy/coffee, but sort of shades in between, tobacco, molasses, and the
like.

at Tue, 26 Jul 2005 22:04:44 GMT in >,
lid (Margaret Suran) wrote :
....

>Hershey's chocolate tastes from boiled milk. I do not like milk
>chocolate, but Hershey's is the worst of the popular brands....

It has a decided cooked-milk taste. I do agree it's pretty unpleasant. Some
people like that. Of larger concern I think is that it's not very
chocolatey. S-B has, by contrast, an awe-inspiring milk chocolate, one of
the best in the world (better than Valrhona, for example, although Cluizel
still sets the benchmark with the Plantation Mangaro Lait 50%)

>
>As for Scharffen Berger, I cannot eat their chocolate at all. As
>someone mentioned, it tastes sour, as if it were spoiled. There is
>another American Chocolate maker, Guittard's and those chocolates are
>incredibly good...

Guittard is IMHO the best of the American manufacturers. I also think
they're better than Valrhona, and most of the European chocolate
manufacturers. Country of origin is never a reliable indication of quality.
American chocolate can be every bit as good as chocolate from anywhere
else. Especially try: Gourmet Bittersweet 63%, L'Harmonie 64%, or Chucuri
65%. BTW, it's easy to buy it these days from http://www.chocosphere.com,
for those who didn't already know.

at Tue, 26 Jul 2005 22:48:04 GMT in >,
(notbob) wrote :
....
>
>Yeah! ...let's not forget Baker's, the oldest chocolate company in the
>US and having the distinction of never buying chocolate from suppliers
>who used slaves.

Perhaps we should forget Baker's, whose quality is so low that while they
may not use slave labour, the chocolate they produce is as if they imagined
they were *feeding* slave labour! Ever had poor success with chocolate
baked goods, especially compared to something from a high-end bakery, and
wondered why? It's probably the chocolate, if you used Baker's brand.
Remember that it is completely unnecessary to use chocolate marked "baking
chocolate" for baking. You can use any good chocolate bar and your baked
goods won't explode. In fact, any chocolate, such as Baker's, that tastes
bad eaten straight shouldn't be used for baking either. If it tastes bad,
it *is* bad - not just for eating straight, but as a general principle.
Almost any chocolate you care to name, including Hershey's, is better for
baking or any other use than Baker's.

at Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:00:19 GMT in >, ^*&#
(rone) wrote :
....
>I find Valrhona overpriced (and thus on par with SB). I prefer
>Chocovic, although nothing beats TJ's Pound Plus 70% chocolate for
>value.

Which is nothing more than Callebaut 7030. Callebaut is also available at
cheap prices. However, generally the cheapest quality chocolate you can buy
in the USA is Guittard because it's a domestic brand. And it's worth it - a
great case of amazing bang for the buck.

Don't discount chocolate manufacturers simply by virtue of high price,
however. Companies like Amedei and Domori make some fantastically high-
priced chocolates which justify their price by being superb. Amedei's Chuao
is $55/kg (assuming you get the large 1kg size) but is arguably the best
chocolate in the world. Domori's Porcelana and Puertomar are $3.75 for a
25g bar (smaller sizes always mean higher price per quantity) but also
revelatory. So sometimes you do get what you pay for.

at Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:58:52 GMT in >,
(Nancy Young) wrote :
....
>
>First, they'll start adding a lot of wax to it, just like their
>own Hershey bars. Damn they used to be good.

AFAIK, Hershey's doesn't add wax to their chocolate. The texture might make
it seem so, but this is probably more likely the result of lower cocoa
butter contents combined with shorter conching times (conching is a process
where chocolate is slopped around in vats to make it smooth and creamy)

As to what will happen to S-B, in the short term I think very few changes
will occur. However, one can expect that after about a year of little
change, small changes in formulation, generally to achieve cheaper results,
will creep in. For instance, they might start using milkfat to replace some
cocoa butter - which gives a smoother texture at lower cost. That's not a
big deal but it's illustrative of what happens. Next, the bean sourcing
might change. It might become a little blander in flavour as a result. They
might also try to get away with using vanillin. (this is more unlikely but
it's possible). So over time there will be an almost imperceptible
diminishment of the quality, wherein with each reformulation you get a bar
almost as good as the previous formulation at substantially cheaper prices.
Over time the bars would then decrease quite a bit in quality, as the
cumulative effect of small tweaks will be large, but most people won't
notice because it happens gradually. And this isn't the result of some
grand design at corporate HQ. They themselves don't realise the process of
attrition as it happens. It's merely the result of decisions that seem
appropriate at the time, but which nobody ever takes the time to assess how
they add up over the long run.

Later, we can expect the Hershey brand name to appear somewhere on the bar.
Eventually, it might become entirely Hershey-branded and the S-B name will
disappear. Other changes will also happen. Some percentages or products
will be discontinued, with the manufacturer claiming the demand wasn't
there. Some of those will probably be excellent, unique products. New
products will also appear, with an emphasis on appealing to a broad
audience rather than to the original target niche market of Scharffen
Berger. They may also try line-extending the Scharffen Berger brand name
into lower-quality chocolate. So over time we can expect a watering-down of
the position of S-B. I suspect for a very long time they'll try and keep S-
B as a high-end-positioned brand line, but the actual quality will probably
be somewhat less and there will be some overlap with consumer-quality
chocolate, hence they will turn into a premium consumer brand as opposed
to a truly high-end chocolate.

--
Alex Rast

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

In article >, notbob
> wrote:

> On 2005-07-26, Margaret Suran > wrote:
>
> > another American Chocolate maker......
>
> Yeah! ...let's not forget Baker's, the oldest chocolate company in the
> US and having the distinction of never buying chocolate from suppliers
> who used slaves.
>
> nb


Hmmmmmm. Nice distinction. Guess we'd better reconsider the Declaration
of Independence and The Bible.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On 26 Jul 2005 13:00:19 -0700, rone wrote:
>
>> although nothing beats TJ's Pound Plus 70% chocolate for
>> value.
>
> shhhhh.... don't tell secrets.

shhh again -- hope they don't raise the price
Dee Dee

"Alex Rast" > wrote in message
...
> Several posters replied to in one follow-up. Responses below.
>
> at Tue, 26 Jul 2005 16:32:29 GMT in
> .com>,
> (Leila) wrote :
> ...
>>
>>"Scharffen Berger, a Berkeley company that specializes in premium dark
>>chocolates, will continue making its products as normal but said it
>>will have greater access to resources and growth opportunities by
>>joining forces with Hershey.
>
> I'm not surprised. It never really seemed as though S-B were as much into
> it from a chocolate-for-chocolate's sake as from a chocolate-as-marketing-
> concept angle. Sure, they have produced good chocolate, and quality hasn't
> been the lowest of their priorities, but I felt that they viewed it very
> much as a commercial venture as opposed to a pure labour of love so that
> if
> the right suitor came along, they'd be gladly acquired.
>
> However, don't discount the possibility that Hershey's essentially offered
> them a "plata o plomo" proposition, i.e. either you take our money and
> accept our offer or we destroy you. Hershey's can afford a much more
> heavyweight legal team and if they wanted to acquire S-B they probably
> could have found ways of manipulating the legal system to achieve that aim
> regardless of what S-B did.
>
> at Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:11:48 GMT in
> >,
> (Michael Sierchio) wrote :
>
>>Yep. It doesn't hold a candle to Michel Cluizel or Valrhona. It's
>>decidedly one-dimensional. It's the typical American thing -- some
>>rich guys start a company in an area that interests them, learn as
>>much as they can, and hang out a shingle....
>
> At the outset, I felt that Scharffen Berger started out with very fixed
> ideas in their head about what quality chocolate would be like. It doesn't
> seem to me that they tried very hard to explore the style-choice
> boundaries
> by tasting many chocolates from many manufacturers. Now, it must be said
> that at the time they started, they might have been frustrated by the
> comparative lack of quality chocolate in the USA, but this situation is
> being rectified. And, to give credit where credit is due, S-B with their
> powerful marketing played a large role in making American consumers aware
> of the potential to be found in chocolate. So they've been a positive
> influence on the U.S. chocolate market in any case.
>
> Recently they've started being, I think, more adventurous with style,
> evidence that now they've actually started to learn about the
> possibilities
> and flavour choices one can make. Where their initial chocolates were one-
> sidedly fruity, invariably, their newer ones have other components and
> have
> been more interesting. Nonetheless, I don't think they've reached the
> heights of Cluizel or Valrhona yet. But Cluizel is a company widely
> acknowledged to be among the very best of the best - in an elite class
> that
> puts them, perhaps, even slightly above Valrhona in reputation, rather as
> Rolls-Royce might have slightly more cachet than Mercedes. Valrhona has
> for
> a long time been an unusually excellent high-end manufacturer, if not
> quite
> the truly small, artisanal manufacturer at this point.
>
> at Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:58:04 GMT in >,
> (Mark Thorson) wrote :
>
>>That's what I figured -- I was very prejudiced against SB
>>before trying it. However, their ~70% bittersweet is currently
>>my favorite chocolate. My others are certain chocolates from
>>Valrhona and Chocovic.
>>
>>What some people don't like about SB is that they
>>roast their beans less than other makers. This preserves
>>certain flavors that get burnt out by most other chocolate
>>makers....
>
> I think it's a little inaccurate to say "burnt out". Pretty much only the
> cheap chocolate manufacturers (such as Hershey's) roast, or need to roast,
> their beans to the point where they're actually slightly burnt. Roasting
> time depends on bean type, because the longer you roast, the more you can
> eliminate harsh bitter components. So for more bitter beans, the classic
> example being the lower-grade Forastero beans (which most cheap chocolate
> manufacturers use), you must roast longer or the chocolate will be
> terribly
> bitter. Better beans, such as Criollos, need less roasting. However, roast
> too lightly and the result will be sour, bright, and overly fruity.
> There's
> a balance that really depends on the bean. Personally I think Scharffen
> Berger always roasted too lightly. At the other extreme, another high-
> quality manufacturer, Pralus, roasts very heavily. The result is a very
> dark, smoky flavour. Both Pralus and S-B are quality chocolate. However,
> which you like better is a matter of personal preference. A company like
> the aforementioned Cluizel tends to be more in the middle in terms of
> roasting time - so that his chocolates aren't decisively fruity or dark
> and
> earthy/coffee, but sort of shades in between, tobacco, molasses, and the
> like.
>
> at Tue, 26 Jul 2005 22:04:44 GMT in >,
> lid (Margaret Suran) wrote :
> ...
>
>>Hershey's chocolate tastes from boiled milk. I do not like milk
>>chocolate, but Hershey's is the worst of the popular brands....
>
> It has a decided cooked-milk taste. I do agree it's pretty unpleasant.
> Some
> people like that. Of larger concern I think is that it's not very
> chocolatey. S-B has, by contrast, an awe-inspiring milk chocolate, one of
> the best in the world (better than Valrhona, for example, although Cluizel
> still sets the benchmark with the Plantation Mangaro Lait 50%)
>
>>
>>As for Scharffen Berger, I cannot eat their chocolate at all. As
>>someone mentioned, it tastes sour, as if it were spoiled. There is
>>another American Chocolate maker, Guittard's and those chocolates are
>>incredibly good...
>
> Guittard is IMHO the best of the American manufacturers. I also think
> they're better than Valrhona, and most of the European chocolate
> manufacturers. Country of origin is never a reliable indication of
> quality.
> American chocolate can be every bit as good as chocolate from anywhere
> else. Especially try: Gourmet Bittersweet 63%, L'Harmonie 64%, or Chucuri
> 65%. BTW, it's easy to buy it these days from http://www.chocosphere.com,
> for those who didn't already know.
>
> at Tue, 26 Jul 2005 22:48:04 GMT in >,
> (notbob) wrote :
> ...
>>
>>Yeah! ...let's not forget Baker's, the oldest chocolate company in the
>>US and having the distinction of never buying chocolate from suppliers
>>who used slaves.
>
> Perhaps we should forget Baker's, whose quality is so low that while they
> may not use slave labour, the chocolate they produce is as if they
> imagined
> they were *feeding* slave labour! Ever had poor success with chocolate
> baked goods, especially compared to something from a high-end bakery, and
> wondered why? It's probably the chocolate, if you used Baker's brand.
> Remember that it is completely unnecessary to use chocolate marked "baking
> chocolate" for baking. You can use any good chocolate bar and your baked
> goods won't explode. In fact, any chocolate, such as Baker's, that tastes
> bad eaten straight shouldn't be used for baking either. If it tastes bad,
> it *is* bad - not just for eating straight, but as a general principle.
> Almost any chocolate you care to name, including Hershey's, is better for
> baking or any other use than Baker's.
>
> at Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:00:19 GMT in >, ^*&#
> (rone) wrote :
> ...
>>I find Valrhona overpriced (and thus on par with SB). I prefer
>>Chocovic, although nothing beats TJ's Pound Plus 70% chocolate for
>>value.
>
> Which is nothing more than Callebaut 7030. Callebaut is also available at
> cheap prices. However, generally the cheapest quality chocolate you can
> buy
> in the USA is Guittard because it's a domestic brand. And it's worth it -
> a
> great case of amazing bang for the buck.
>
> Don't discount chocolate manufacturers simply by virtue of high price,
> however. Companies like Amedei and Domori make some fantastically high-
> priced chocolates which justify their price by being superb. Amedei's
> Chuao
> is $55/kg (assuming you get the large 1kg size) but is arguably the best
> chocolate in the world. Domori's Porcelana and Puertomar are $3.75 for a
> 25g bar (smaller sizes always mean higher price per quantity) but also
> revelatory. So sometimes you do get what you pay for.
>
> at Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:58:52 GMT in >,
> (Nancy Young) wrote :
> ...
>>
>>First, they'll start adding a lot of wax to it, just like their
>>own Hershey bars. Damn they used to be good.
>
> AFAIK, Hershey's doesn't add wax to their chocolate. The texture might
> make
> it seem so, but this is probably more likely the result of lower cocoa
> butter contents combined with shorter conching times (conching is a
> process
> where chocolate is slopped around in vats to make it smooth and creamy)
>
> As to what will happen to S-B, in the short term I think very few changes
> will occur. However, one can expect that after about a year of little
> change, small changes in formulation, generally to achieve cheaper
> results,
> will creep in. For instance, they might start using milkfat to replace
> some
> cocoa butter - which gives a smoother texture at lower cost. That's not a
> big deal but it's illustrative of what happens. Next, the bean sourcing
> might change. It might become a little blander in flavour as a result.
> They
> might also try to get away with using vanillin. (this is more unlikely but
> it's possible). So over time there will be an almost imperceptible
> diminishment of the quality, wherein with each reformulation you get a bar
> almost as good as the previous formulation at substantially cheaper
> prices.
> Over time the bars would then decrease quite a bit in quality, as the
> cumulative effect of small tweaks will be large, but most people won't
> notice because it happens gradually. And this isn't the result of some
> grand design at corporate HQ. They themselves don't realise the process of
> attrition as it happens. It's merely the result of decisions that seem
> appropriate at the time, but which nobody ever takes the time to assess
> how
> they add up over the long run.
>
> Later, we can expect the Hershey brand name to appear somewhere on the
> bar.
> Eventually, it might become entirely Hershey-branded and the S-B name will
> disappear. Other changes will also happen. Some percentages or products
> will be discontinued, with the manufacturer claiming the demand wasn't
> there. Some of those will probably be excellent, unique products. New
> products will also appear, with an emphasis on appealing to a broad
> audience rather than to the original target niche market of Scharffen
> Berger. They may also try line-extending the Scharffen Berger brand name
> into lower-quality chocolate. So over time we can expect a watering-down
> of
> the position of S-B. I suspect for a very long time they'll try and keep
> S-
> B as a high-end-positioned brand line, but the actual quality will
> probably
> be somewhat less and there will be some overlap with consumer-quality
> chocolate, hence they will turn into a premium consumer brand as opposed
> to a truly high-end chocolate.
>
> --
> Alex Rast
>
> (remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)

Alex, I'm posting at the end of your long, knowledgeable answer to include
these two chocolate brands I picked up at the Global (Asian and Mexican)
market. They a 1) Luker, mfr. Manizales, Product of Colombia, which on
the ingredients is listed as 100% cocoa in English language - but is in
chunk form and appears as a dark chocolate;
http://www.casaluker.com/detalle_pro...to=1&idsu b=0
says "LUKER es un chocolate de mesa en barra sin azúcar, hecho a base licor
de cacao y es 100% natural."
2) Corona, mfr. by Compania Nacional de Chocolates, Product of Colombia,
which is listed as 100% selected cocoa beans in English language.
http://www.eatwashington.com/the_ame....htm#Chocolate
says:
"Corona is a chocolate from Columbia used for traditional hot chocolate that
contains no sugar and lists as its ingredients 100% selected cocoa beans;
available from Latin American supermarkets."
I have tried neither, but am hoping you or someone else has ever tried
either of these dark chocolate brands and make a comment.
Thanks,
Dee Dee.

Alex Rast wrote:

Excellent, well-informed post.

> ... Country of origin is never a reliable indication of quality.

When I first read that I thought you were talking about the raw
material. It is interesting to taste those "estate" chocolates
from a single confectioner.... I don't think it's just a gimmick,
there are cultivar and terroir, etc. to provide differences.

Leila wrote:

>>From the SF Chronicle:
>
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...UGM6DTAOM1.DTL
>
> "Scharffen Berger, a Berkeley company that specializes in premium dark
> chocolates, will continue making its products as normal but said it
> will have greater access to resources and growth opportunities by
> joining forces with Hershey.
> ...
> "Scharffen Berger markets to the refined palate and seeks to be
> approached like a fine wine. Its best-selling products include
> bittersweet and extra-dark chocolates. The company has retail stores in
> Berkeley, San Francisco and New York. Its products also are available
> in high-end supermarkets."
>
> (quoted under fair use)
>
> Leila
>
Well, I do hope Hershey's doesn't dumb down SB's products.

--
Jean B.

Mark Thorson wrote:

> Michael Sierchio wrote:
>
>
>>It's the typical American thing -- some
>>rich guys start a company in an area that interests them, learn as
>>much as they can, and hang out a shingle. European chocolatiers
>>have decades of experience, access to growers, etc. There's
>>just no substitute for the kind of knowledge in depth that comes
>>from growing up in what has been a hereditary craft.
>
>
> That's what I figured -- I was very prejudiced against SB
> before trying it. However, their ~70% bittersweet is currently
> my favorite chocolate. My others are certain chocolates from
> Valrhona and Chocovic.
>
> What some people don't like about SB is that they
> roast their beans less than other makers. This preserves
> certain flavors that get burnt out by most other chocolate
> makers. Many people don't seem to like these flavors,
> but I enjoy them very much. I find burnt chocolates
> uninteresting and unsatisfying.

Crud. Now I have to go down and get a hunk of chocolate--and
it is only 11:33 AM here.

--
Jean B.

Dee Randall wrote:
>
> I don't know where I got the idea that SB tastes the way they do because of
> the near-burnt or close-to-burnt flavor; haven't I read something on their
> site about the fantastic way of roasting that they get the taste out of
> their beans vs. other chocolatiers? It was my thinking that they roasted
> more heartily than other companies do.
> Anyway, you probably know from reading this posting that SB is NOT one of my
> choices of chocolate. But then neither is Starbucks choice of roasting
> their beans or various beans. However, I wouldn't mind having a little
> stock in either company.
> Dee Dee
>
SB is not my current favorite, but I do like it. Some of my
current favorites are Dagoba's New Moon (74%), and Maglio's
Africa (75% minimum). I also like TJ's ?Ocumare?.

For flavored chocolate/chocolate with inclusions, I like
Valrhona's Manjari (dark chocolate with candied orange peel),
although it is not nearly as good as it was before they
changed the label and the formula; Dagoba's Roseberry (a
recent discovery, which contains raspberries and rosehips);
and even TJ's Chocolate-Mint UFOs (which contain Girardelli's
sweet chocolate).

Boy, I am low on chocolate. The last time I typed up my list,
it was much more extensive.
--
Jean B.

Tim May wrote:

> In article > , Dog3
> > wrote:
>
>
>>They had best not mess with the Hershey Kisses or I'll have to learn how to
>>make them myself
>
>
>
> They'll only increase the price.
>
> "Prices for Hershey products are expected to rise, but we believe this
> will make Hershey products more attractive to the Starbuck's
> Generation," said Hershey spokesbimbo Dakota Q. Washington.
>
>
> --Tim May

Um, will the quality also improve? I don't buy their
chocolate because it doesn't appeal to me. That being said, I
have been trying to find their European-style cocoa ever since
a mag (I forget whether it was CI or Saveur) said it was the
best cocoa. That was many months ago. No sightings, although
I looked constantly in many stores. You'd think they might
have wanted to profit from that article.

--
Jean B.

Tim May wrote:

> In article > , Dog3
> > wrote:
>
> >
> > They had best not mess with the Hershey Kisses or I'll have to learn how to
> > make them myself
>
> They'll only increase the price.
>
> "Prices for Hershey products are expected to rise, but we believe this
> will make Hershey products more attractive to the Starbuck's
> Generation," said Hershey spokesbimbo Dakota Q. Washington.

Hershey prices will increase? Pity. I never have liked Hershey chocolate, and
never understood its popularity. Hiking their prices certainly won't help their
case.

Leila wrote:
>>From the SF Chronicle:
>
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...UGM6DTAOM1.DTL
>
> "Scharffen Berger, a Berkeley company that specializes in premium dark
> chocolates, will continue making its products as normal but said it
> will have greater access to resources and growth opportunities by

<snip>

I didn't want to sell, but they offered me so much money that I could
not refuse.

In article >, (Stef)
wrote:

> Donelly's Chocolate in Santa Cruz is the best I've ever had, although
> inexpensive it isn't.

But they're a chocolatier, not a chocolate manufacturer... a GREAT
chocolatier!

> As a calibration of my tastes: I think Valhrona is better than Scharffen
> Berger, I dislike Ghirardelli's, and I mostly eat Trader Joe's Pound
> Plus bittersweet because it's a good chocolate at a great price.

I *really* like Guittard Chocolates (in Burlingame, been around since
1868).

See http://www.eguittard.com/index.html


--
Glenn Tenney KCTJ CISSP CISM
The email address has been altered for display since spam
is not allowed here, but you can figure it out...

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 11:50:10 -0400, "Jean B." > wrote:

>Um, will the quality also improve? I don't buy their
>chocolate because it doesn't appeal to me. That being said, I
>have been trying to find their European-style cocoa ever since
>a mag (I forget whether it was CI or Saveur) said it was the
>best cocoa. That was many months ago. No sightings, although
>I looked constantly in many stores. You'd think they might
>have wanted to profit from that article.

Years ago when they sold things by mail order (I don't think they do
any more) I bought a case. I haven't done a comparison of cocoas so I
can't tell you how it rates.

I have seen it in grocery stores since then however. Perhaps it's
regional. There's a Hershey store in Times Square if you ever come
this a-way :>

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

at Wed, 27 Jul 2005 15:04:28 GMT in >,
(Michael Sierchio) wrote :

>Alex Rast wrote:
>
>Excellent, well-informed post.
>
> > ... Country of origin is never a reliable indication of quality.
>
>When I first read that I thought you were talking about the raw
>material. It is interesting to taste those "estate" chocolates
>from a single confectioner.... I don't think it's just a gimmick,
>there are cultivar and terroir, etc. to provide differences.

Yeah, when I said country of origin I meant country of origin of the
manufacturer. Country of origin of the cocoa beans themselves makes a big
difference in flavour, although even there you can't be assured of quality
based on bean source. For instance, although beans from the Ivory Coast are
generally thought of as "low-grade" and potentially involve slave labour to
boot, some Ivory Coast beans are excellent, and not all plantations use
slave labour either. Meanwhile although beans from Venezuela are generally
thought of as being "premium" beans, there are plenty of Venezuelan beans
whose quality is less than great. Even chocolate produced from the same
source can be different depending on the manufacturer. For instance, Dagoba
and Domori (2 quality chocolate manufacturers) both make a single-source
chocolate from the Conacado cooperative in the Dominican Republic. But the
Dagoba chocolate is really quite poor whereas the Domori chocolate (Chacao
Absolute) is one of the greatest chocolates that has ever been produced.

It is indeed interesting also to see how different factors play out in
single-source chocolates. There are influences from bean type, roasting
time, ferment time, and terroir among others. I generally believe bean type
and roasting time tend to have the largest impact. It's often hard to
separate bean type from location because a given region typically
specialises in a given bean variety. For instance, Barlovento in Venezuela
is a superb chocolate-growing region and tends to produce chocolates with
an exotic flavour of tropical fruits and sweet spices, but this is at least
as much because in the main the bean type there is Carenero Superior.
Madagascar chocolate usually has strong citrus notes, but there again, they
tend to be from similar Criollo bean genotype.

And there are cases that are hard to classify. For instance, Chuao, a
single village in Venezuela, produces a fantastic cacao, with very
characteristic, strong flavours of molasses and blueberry, along with an
unmistakeable power and a slight bitter hit at the end. And at the same
time there's a tendency to talk about the "Chuao" bean, even though beans
from Chuao have something of a mix of genestocks. But it's fair, by and
large, to speak of a Chuao varietal because they've used the same trees for
generations and not planted in new clones from elsewhere. So over time a
cacao type has emerged, with a mixture of backgrounds but with very
specific properties. As if that weren't enough, most people generally
classify the type as a Criollo even though it has a certain percentage of
Forastero genes (Criollo and Forastero are basic genotypes in cocoa).

Back to the single source, the roast and ferment times are likewise
variables that affect the result. A dark roast, for instance, tends to
flatten out individual distinctions of bean type and origin, but sometimes
this is in fact desirable because otherwise the chocolate might be too
"bright". For an Ecuador Arriba, a light roast would in fact be poor
because with its Forastero lineage that would make it bitter and harsh, and
furthermore most of the quality flavour characteristics in that bean,
leaning towards blackberry and aromatic woods, shine better with a dark
roast. Such a choice, however, would be disastrous for Porcelana beans
whose light, strawberry-and-cream essence, would disappear.

This is why the best (and in any case most pleasurable) option is to try a
variety of single-source chocolates from a variety of manufacturers, and
see which ones you like best. It's a valuable journey to take because then
you can identify the style and origins that you like and continue to try
new chocolates with a better concept of which ones you'll prefer.


--
Alex Rast

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