FoodBanter.com - View Single Post

at Fri, 18 Mar 2005 01:23:11 GMT in >,
(Geoffrey Bard) wrote :

>You're right, of course, in the strict sense....
>
>Indeed Wilbur makes the "Bradywine Bittersweet" which they themselves
>describe as "semisweet". This would technically qualify as a dark
>chocolate, not having milk. But in my mind I don't classify the
>semisweet (typically in the 50% range of cocoa solids) as an "eating"
>dark chocolate because semisweets are too sugary to stomach much of.

There are a couple of 50-60% chocolates worth trying, although in general
there's a *big* drop in quality going under the 60% line, even for really
top chocolate manufacturers like Valrhona and Guittard.

Callebaut's 54.5% dark is superb and the reference standard IMHO in that
range. It's got a distinct raspberry tone and a powerful chocolatey main
flavour.

Denman Island Simply Dark is not only excellent but also most unusual, with
an earthy, mushroom-like flavour (sounds wierd but works great)

Also among organics, Rapunzel Semisweet 55% is very good, almost the equal
of their excellent 70% bittersweet which sets the standard for organic
chocolate (only a very few rather esoteric organic chocolates are better)

El Rey Bucare is IMHO better than either Gran Saman or Apamate. It's more
balanced in flavour and gives a better feel for the relaxed tropical
fruitiness their bars have.

Cafe Tasse Noir 59%, at the very top of the range, is almost a great
chocolate. There's a definite chocolatey flavour throughout which, while
mild, is very pleasant.

>>This is not to fault Wilbur, since as an American company they cater to
>the American taste for sugary chocolate (and expanding wastelines!).
>Not to say Europeans eat only dark chocolate, but I believe the market
>for it is larger there than the U.S. I believe most Americans either
>don't like 60%+ chocolate, or are scarcely aware it exists and tastes so
>good.
>

More likely it's the industrial market. I see that a great many people here
will take a high-percentage bar, given the choice, and to judge by how fast
they cycle on supermarket shelves it seems clear the darker chocolates
prevail over the semisweets. However, the industrial market has its own
needs and usually has recipes tied to specific formulations which often
call for low-percentage semisweet. Much of this is cost-cutting. A majority
of industrial users are after low cost and given that sugar is cheaper than
chocolate, in high volume, semisweet chocolate costs less than bittersweet.

Meanwhile, yes, there are a lot of people who don't realise the quality to
be had in high-end chocolate. This is true in Europe as much as in the USA.
However, one advantage the European has is shorter distances, so that if a
given store doesn't carry a chocolate in some consumer's hometown, the
distance to a store that *does* will be much less. For example, a
chocolate-lover trapped in rural Montana probably has few options but to
order online for chocolate. In Europe this kind of isolation is virtually
impossible. Even somebody in the remote highlands of Scotland or up in
Lapland aren't impossibly removed from supply sources, relative to the
level of isolation you can find yourself in in the USA. So in one sense
Europeans might be more aware of quality chocolate simply because the
opportunities for coming into contact with it are denser on the landscape -
and this is purely a function of geography and population, not demand as
such.

>
> wrote in message ...
>> Geoffrey Bard > wrote:
>>> Cargill owns Wilbur - which makes no dark chocolate.
>> Wilbur Brandywine Bittersweet is most certainly
>> a dark chocolate, and they have others in semi-sweet.
>>
>>
>> Bill Ranck
>> Blacksburg, Va.
>
>

--
Alex Rast

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