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.