Guittard chocolate

http://store.yahoo.com/guittard-online/index.html

64 % Dark Chocolate Coverture (described as a baking bar) (9.7 oz. $9.00) (=
abt. $1 an oz.)
noun: chocolate that contains at least 32 percent cocoa butter


64% Bittersweet Chocolate bar (2.2 lb. $27.50) (35 oz = $.79 an oz.)
65% Cacao Bittersweet Chocolate bar (2.2 lb. $31) ($.88 an oz.)


I'm wondering if the 9.7 oz. bar that has 32% cocoa butter costs more per
oz. because of the amount of cocoa butter, or that it is in a smaller bar;
and if a coverature suggests that it is more acceptable for eating.
Thanks,
Dee Dee

"Couverture" is meant to indicate a premium chocolate; the 32% number
is part of that, dictated by law in the EU (maybe also in the US).
It's kind of like the "Extra Virgin" of chocolate modifiers. The term
also implies a finer grain and other attributes that the best chocolate
should have.

In principle, all of a good chocolatier's eating chocolate is
couverture quality. The chocolatier will be presenting you his best
effort when you're enjoying the product in pure form, because you'll
induct any deficiencies to the wholesale line. So naturally if you're
going to be making candy you'll want your bulk chocolate to be
couverture, so that you get the same effect they do. You don't need it
for baking, nor even for making chocolate fillings (ganache, etc.), as
any processing of it as merely an ingredient will be adding ingredients
to it, making it no longer couverture quality (though it may still be
the best chocolate you could use in those situations, so what the hell,
go for it...)

--Blair

at Tue, 07 Feb 2006 23:07:27 GMT in >,
(Dee Randall) wrote :

>Guittard chocolate
>
>http://store.yahoo.com/guittard-online/index.html
>
>64 % Dark Chocolate Coverture (described as a baking bar) (9.7 oz.
>$9.00) (= abt. $1 an oz.)
>noun: chocolate that contains at least 32 percent cocoa butter
>64% Bittersweet Chocolate bar (2.2 lb. $27.50) (35 oz = $.79 an oz.)
>65% Cacao Bittersweet Chocolate bar (2.2 lb. $31) ($.88 an oz.)
>
>I'm wondering if the 9.7 oz. bar that has 32% cocoa butter costs more
>per oz. because of the amount of cocoa butter, or that it is in a
>smaller bar;

The 275g (9.7 oz) bar is exactly the same as the 64% 1 kg bar. Same
chocolate, same formulation (L'Harmonie). The difference in price is
entirely the result of the smaller packaging format.

Meanwhile the 65% 1 kg bars (of which there are several) are varietals
instead of blends, and hence more expensive than the blended bar. You can
get the varietals also as smaller 57g/2 oz bars.

> and if a coverature suggests that it is more acceptable for
>eating. Thanks,

L'Harmonie is an excellent chocolate, very suitable for eating, and also
suitable for baking. It's one of the great blended chocolates of the world.

The varietal chocolates are also very good. Chucuri I think is the best,
but Sur Del Lago, Ambanja, and Quevedo aren't far behind. Generally
speaking, couverture chocolate has a more pleasant mouthfeel than chocolate
that isn't couverture-grade, but it's rare that you'll find an eating
chocolate that isn't of this grade anyway. It's also rather rare that high-
end chocolates aren't couverture, no matter what the intended application.

--
Alex Rast

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

"Alex Rast" > wrote in message
...
> at Tue, 07 Feb 2006 23:07:27 GMT in >,
> (Dee Randall) wrote :
>
>>Guittard chocolate
>>
>>http://store.yahoo.com/guittard-online/index.html
>>
>>64 % Dark Chocolate Coverture (described as a baking bar) (9.7 oz.
>>$9.00) (= abt. $1 an oz.)
>>noun: chocolate that contains at least 32 percent cocoa butter
>>64% Bittersweet Chocolate bar (2.2 lb. $27.50) (35 oz = $.79 an oz.)
>>65% Cacao Bittersweet Chocolate bar (2.2 lb. $31) ($.88 an oz.)
>>
>>I'm wondering if the 9.7 oz. bar that has 32% cocoa butter costs more
>>per oz. because of the amount of cocoa butter, or that it is in a
>>smaller bar;
>
> The 275g (9.7 oz) bar is exactly the same as the 64% 1 kg bar. Same
> chocolate, same formulation (L'Harmonie). The difference in price is
> entirely the result of the smaller packaging format.
>
> Meanwhile the 65% 1 kg bars (of which there are several) are varietals
> instead of blends, and hence more expensive than the blended bar. You can
> get the varietals also as smaller 57g/2 oz bars.
>
>> and if a coverature suggests that it is more acceptable for
>>eating. Thanks,
>
> L'Harmonie is an excellent chocolate, very suitable for eating, and also
> suitable for baking. It's one of the great blended chocolates of the
> world.
>
> The varietal chocolates are also very good. Chucuri I think is the best,
> but Sur Del Lago, Ambanja, and Quevedo aren't far behind. Generally
> speaking, couverture chocolate has a more pleasant mouthfeel than
> chocolate
> that isn't couverture-grade, but it's rare that you'll find an eating
> chocolate that isn't of this grade anyway. It's also rather rare that
> high-
> end chocolates aren't couverture, no matter what the intended application.
>
> --
> Alex Rast

Thank you, Alex. You were thorough in your answer.

Regarding your last sentence,
>It's also rather rare that high-
> end chocolates aren't couverture, no matter what the intended application.
>
I note that you use the word, "high-end-chocolateS" and on the referenced
webpage, probably only the one 9.7 oz bar would qualify as "high end
chocolates" perhaps because it is an 'eating' bar as well BUT --

BUT - using the word, 'high-end-chocolate,' [not high-end chocolateS],
would you describe Chucuri and Sur del Lago as couverture?

Thanks again.
Hopin' and hopin' I've made my question clear and I'll understand,
Dee Dee

at Wed, 08 Feb 2006 02:59:08 GMT in >,
(Dee Randall) wrote :

>
>"Alex Rast" > wrote in message
.. .
.... (much deletia)
>> It's also rather rare that
>> high-
>> end chocolates aren't couverture, no matter what the intended
>> application.
>>
>> --
>> Alex Rast
>
>Thank you, Alex. You were thorough in your answer.
>
>Regarding your last sentence,
>>It's also rather rare that high-
>> end chocolates aren't couverture, no matter what the intended
>> application.
>>
>I note that you use the word, "high-end-chocolateS" and on the
>referenced webpage, probably only the one 9.7 oz bar would qualify as
>"high end chocolates" perhaps because it is an 'eating' bar as well
>BUT --
>
>BUT - using the word, 'high-end-chocolate,' [not high-end chocolateS],
>would you describe Chucuri and Sur del Lago as couverture?

Again, don't get overly caught up over terminology. I'm using the word
chocolates in the simple sense - i.e. as a plural for chocolate - referring
to the simple fact that there are many individual brands and types, as
opposed to if one were to use the singular chocolate which would then have
to be taken as referring to a generic. Thus I'm not using the plural to
single out a classification.

If one were to be using chocolates in the sense of a chocolate *confection*
(and here there is a terminological shortfall - there is no separate term
that covers the entire range of bite-size, chocolate-containing confections
usually sold in boxes and which happen to be especially popular at this
time of year because of Valentine's day) then "aren't couverture" wouldn't
be right - you'd use instead "aren't produced with couverture".

Anyway, yes, once again, Chucuri, Sur Del Lago, and all the rest of the
varital range are most definitely couverture chocolate, possessing 40%
cocoa butter.

The bottom line is this. The term "couverture" is bandied about a lot as
though it's something exotic and special, but it's in fact commonplace and
the norm. For your typical consumer, far from having to go out of their way
to find couverture, they have to go out of their way to find something that
isn't.

I suspect where the constant insistence on getting couverture, which is
ultimately where a lot of people imagined it must be something rare,
originated is in the predilection of a lot of people to use chocolate chips
for most chocolate-making applications. Chocolate chips are most definitely
*NOT* couverture and should not be, for otherwise they would liquefy
completely in the oven. But except for this one special case (and perhaps
we should add Baker's brand chocolate which IMHO hardly qualifies as
chocolate at all) generally speaking you will be dealing with couverture
unless you've gone out of your way to specify a low-cocoa-butter
formulation in a commercial setting.



--
Alex Rast

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

"Alex Rast" > wrote in message
...
> at Wed, 08 Feb 2006 02:59:08 GMT in >,
> (Dee Randall) wrote :
>
>>
>>"Alex Rast" > wrote in message
. ..
> ... (much deletia)
>>> It's also rather rare that
>>> high-
>>> end chocolates aren't couverture, no matter what the intended
>>> application.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Alex Rast
>>
>>Thank you, Alex. You were thorough in your answer.
>>
>>Regarding your last sentence,
>>>It's also rather rare that high-
>>> end chocolates aren't couverture, no matter what the intended
>>> application.
>>>
>>I note that you use the word, "high-end-chocolateS" and on the
>>referenced webpage, probably only the one 9.7 oz bar would qualify as
>>"high end chocolates" perhaps because it is an 'eating' bar as well
>>BUT --
>>
>>BUT - using the word, 'high-end-chocolate,' [not high-end chocolateS],
>>would you describe Chucuri and Sur del Lago as couverture?
>
> Again, don't get overly caught up over terminology. I'm using the word
> chocolates in the simple sense - i.e. as a plural for chocolate -
> referring
> to the simple fact that there are many individual brands and types, as
> opposed to if one were to use the singular chocolate which would then have
> to be taken as referring to a generic. Thus I'm not using the plural to
> single out a classification.
>
> If one were to be using chocolates in the sense of a chocolate
> *confection*
> (and here there is a terminological shortfall - there is no separate term
> that covers the entire range of bite-size, chocolate-containing
> confections
> usually sold in boxes and which happen to be especially popular at this
> time of year because of Valentine's day) then "aren't couverture" wouldn't
> be right - you'd use instead "aren't produced with couverture".
>
> Anyway, yes, once again, Chucuri, Sur Del Lago, and all the rest of the
> varital range are most definitely couverture chocolate, possessing 40%
> cocoa butter.
>
> The bottom line is this. The term "couverture" is bandied about a lot as
> though it's something exotic and special, but it's in fact commonplace and
> the norm. For your typical consumer, far from having to go out of their
> way
> to find couverture, they have to go out of their way to find something
> that
> isn't.
>
> I suspect where the constant insistence on getting couverture, which is
> ultimately where a lot of people imagined it must be something rare,
> originated is in the predilection of a lot of people to use chocolate
> chips
> for most chocolate-making applications. Chocolate chips are most
> definitely
> *NOT* couverture and should not be, for otherwise they would liquefy
> completely in the oven. But except for this one special case (and perhaps
> we should add Baker's brand chocolate which IMHO hardly qualifies as
> chocolate at all) generally speaking you will be dealing with couverture
> unless you've gone out of your way to specify a low-cocoa-butter
> formulation in a commercial setting.
>
>
>
> --
> Alex Rast

Thanks for taking the time again to explain. I comprehend now.
Dee Dee

Alex Rast wrote:
> The bottom line is this. The term "couverture" is bandied about a lot as
> though it's something exotic and special, but it's in fact commonplace and
> the norm. For your typical consumer, far from having to go out of their way
> to find couverture, they have to go out of their way to find something that
> isn't.

Ironically, maybe, the best chocolate, IMO, will be 70%+ cocoa solids,
and therefore will not fit into the couverture requirements (because
that leaves 30% or less for fat, and sugar has to fit in there too...)

--Blair

at Thu, 09 Feb 2006 03:09:07 GMT in
.com>,
(Blair P. Houghton) wrote :

>
>Alex Rast wrote:
>> The bottom line is this. The term "couverture" is bandied about a lot
>> as though it's something exotic and special, but it's in fact
>> commonplace and the norm. For your typical consumer, far from having
>> to go out of their way to find couverture, they have to go out of
>> their way to find something that isn't.
>
>Ironically, maybe, the best chocolate, IMO, will be 70%+ cocoa solids,
>and therefore will not fit into the couverture requirements (because
>that leaves 30% or less for fat, and sugar has to fit in there too...)
>
No, because cocoa butter is included as part of cocoa solids. So, for
example, a typical 70% chocolate like Callebaut 7030 is 39% cocoa butter,
which means that the amount of defatted cocoa solids remaining (what you're
thinking of) is actually 31%. This also means some interesting things
because simply listing the cocoa solids percentage is not as reliable an
indicator of intensity as you might think. Hachez' Cocoa D'Arriba lists 77%
cocoa solids, but 52.4% of that is cocoa butter, and thus the total amount
of defatted cocoa solids is 24.5. Now compare that with El Rey's Gran
Saman, listed at 70% cocoa solids, but only 36.9% of that is cocoa butter,
so that the defatted cocoa solids is 33.1%, and therefore the El Rey bar at
a lower percentage is *considerably* more intense than the Hachez.


--
Alex Rast

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

Alex Rast wrote:
> at Thu, 09 Feb 2006 03:09:07 GMT in
> .com>,
> (Blair P. Houghton) wrote :
>
> >
> >Alex Rast wrote:
> >> The bottom line is this. The term "couverture" is bandied about a lot
> >> as though it's something exotic and special, but it's in fact
> >> commonplace and the norm. For your typical consumer, far from having
> >> to go out of their way to find couverture, they have to go out of
> >> their way to find something that isn't.
> >
> >Ironically, maybe, the best chocolate, IMO, will be 70%+ cocoa solids,
> >and therefore will not fit into the couverture requirements (because
> >that leaves 30% or less for fat, and sugar has to fit in there too...)
> >
> No, because cocoa butter is included as part of cocoa solids. So, for
> example, a typical 70% chocolate like Callebaut 7030 is 39% cocoa butter,
> which means that the amount of defatted cocoa solids remaining (what you're
> thinking of) is actually 31%. This also means some interesting things
> because simply listing the cocoa solids percentage is not as reliable an
> indicator of intensity as you might think. Hachez' Cocoa D'Arriba lists 77%
> cocoa solids, but 52.4% of that is cocoa butter, and thus the total amount
> of defatted cocoa solids is 24.5. Now compare that with El Rey's Gran
> Saman, listed at 70% cocoa solids, but only 36.9% of that is cocoa butter,
> so that the defatted cocoa solids is 33.1%, and therefore the El Rey bar at
> a lower percentage is *considerably* more intense than the Hachez.

I'm looking around and I see all sorts of websites with all sorts of
definitions for cocoa, cocoa powder, cocoa liquor, and cocoa solids,
any of which may or may specifically include or exclude the cocoa
butter in their glossary or contextual usage.

But the Codex Alimentarus is the law, and it says what you says, but
introduces the term "fat-free cocoa solids" to cover the stuff that
isn't cocoa butter.

We're being robbed. And fed more sugar than I thought.

Interestingly, the Codex starts using the term "bitter" at 14% fat-free
cocoa solids.

And says, "Couverture Chocolate shall contain, on a dry matter basis,
not less than 35% total cocoa solids of which not less than 31% shall
be cocoa butter and not less than 2.5% of fat-free cocoa solids."

Which ain't all that chocolaty.

--Blair
"Makes me want some pistachio ice cream."