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)