at Wed, 12 Jan 2005 05:19:41 GMT in <Nr2Fd.9460$6b.5738@trndny07>,
(Janet Puistonen) wrote :

>
>"Alex Rast" > wrote in message
.. .
>> at Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:07:35 GMT in <H_vEd.6677$6b.2134@trndny07>,
>> (Janet Puistonen) wrote :
>>
>>>This weekend I talked to someone demo-ing a "chocolate fountain." They
>>>were using Merckens "Falls" chocolate, which they seemed to think was
>>>not "coating" but the real thing. I have my doubts, since it
>>>apparently cost about $2 per lb. It would appear that the chocolate
>>>used for these things is thinned with something--and at that price, I
>>>doubt it is cocoa butter.
>>>Anyone have any info on this? (BTW, it was VERY sweet.)
>>
>> Merckens makes both pure chocolate and compound chocolate coating. I
>> have not heard of a pure chocolate by Merckens with the name "Falls".
>> Actually, Merckens is somewhat more well-known for their compound
>> coatings, so there's at least a reasonable possibility that this is
>> what it was. The $2/lb price tag is much more in line with the
>> compound coating prices from Merckens than the pure chocolates, which
>> are around $4.00/lb.
>
>That was my thinking, also.
>
>> Chocolate with a *very* high cocoa butter content could be used in
>> fountains, and there are companies who produce chocolates with cocoa
>> butter
>> contents that are very high indeed. Guittard's Coucher Du Soleil is
>> 44% and
>> Chocovic's Maragda has 42%. These turn very fluid when melted and the
>> prices aren't outrageous, either.
>>
>> I haven't gotten exact tech specs on Amedei's Chuao, but it turned
>> even more fluid than Coucher Du Soleil on melting (the fluidity was
>> astonishing,
>> extreme even in comparison to Cluizel's Noir Infini which is over 50%
>> cocoa
>> butter) which makes me think it too probably has an extreme cocoa
>> butter content. The price, however, *is* outrageous, although it would
>> make for an
>> unimaginably luxurious chocolate fountain. You could probably increase
>> sales to the point of frenzy when people tried this one.
>>
>
>One would think so, but judging by the taste of the people who were
>enthralled by the Merckens fountain, I wonder if they would notice the
>difference.
>

You bet they would. Recently I did what amounted to a test at a local
coffee shop. I had various leftover chocolates from my chocolate at
Hallowe'en, and in addition, the coffeeshop has its own in-house chocolate
they pass out with coffee (Guittard milk chocolate). I felt in a generous
mood and decided to give away some of the chocolate when I went in there to
get a coffee.

In my bag we Michel Cluizel Chocolat Grand Lait Cacao Pur Ile de Java,
Domori Sambirano, and Amedei Chuao. I passed out samples of each. Having
them try the Cluizel first, they thought it was very good, certainly a big
step up from their house chocolate. Then they tried the Sambirano. Most
people were a little more pleased with that one. Finally, they tried the
Chuao. The reaction was completely one-sided. Everyone started asking for
the Chuao. People were just in awe.

Weeks later, at Christmas I passed out some other chocolate and yet the
memory of the Chuao was so strong there was a hint of disappointment even
though what I was passing out was itself top-notch (Guittard L'Harmonie).

Also at Christmas I gave my young (4 years old) nephew a box of Chuao
squares. He'd had them at Hallowe'en, too. As soon as he got them out of
his stocking, his comment was "Oooh, the GOOD chocolate!..." recognising it
literally by the package alone.

I think everyone, given exposure, recognises differences in quality, at
least in broad groupings. Certainly exact ratings differ, and people have
individual preferences, but have a good chocolate next to a cheap one and
most people notice right away.

--
Alex Rast

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