"Mark Thorson" > wrote in message
...
> Michael Sierchio wrote:
>
>> It's the typical American thing -- some
>> rich guys start a company in an area that interests them, learn as
>> much as they can, and hang out a shingle. European chocolatiers
>> have decades of experience, access to growers, etc. There's
>> just no substitute for the kind of knowledge in depth that comes
>> from growing up in what has been a hereditary craft.
>
> That's what I figured -- I was very prejudiced against SB
> before trying it. However, their ~70% bittersweet is currently
> my favorite chocolate. My others are certain chocolates from
> Valrhona and Chocovic.
>
> What some people don't like about SB is that they
> roast their beans less than other makers. This preserves
> certain flavors that get burnt out by most other chocolate
> makers. Many people don't seem to like these flavors,
> but I enjoy them very much. I find burnt chocolates
> uninteresting and unsatisfying.
>

I don't know where I got the idea that SB tastes the way they do because of
the near-burnt or close-to-burnt flavor; haven't I read something on their
site about the fantastic way of roasting that they get the taste out of
their beans vs. other chocolatiers? It was my thinking that they roasted
more heartily than other companies do.
Anyway, you probably know from reading this posting that SB is NOT one of my
choices of chocolate. But then neither is Starbucks choice of roasting
their beans or various beans. However, I wouldn't mind having a little
stock in either company.
Dee Dee