Several posters replied to in one follow-up. Responses below.

at Tue, 26 Jul 2005 16:32:29 GMT in
.com>,
(Leila) wrote :
....
>
>"Scharffen Berger, a Berkeley company that specializes in premium dark
>chocolates, will continue making its products as normal but said it
>will have greater access to resources and growth opportunities by
>joining forces with Hershey.

I'm not surprised. It never really seemed as though S-B were as much into
it from a chocolate-for-chocolate's sake as from a chocolate-as-marketing-
concept angle. Sure, they have produced good chocolate, and quality hasn't
been the lowest of their priorities, but I felt that they viewed it very
much as a commercial venture as opposed to a pure labour of love so that if
the right suitor came along, they'd be gladly acquired.

However, don't discount the possibility that Hershey's essentially offered
them a "plata o plomo" proposition, i.e. either you take our money and
accept our offer or we destroy you. Hershey's can afford a much more
heavyweight legal team and if they wanted to acquire S-B they probably
could have found ways of manipulating the legal system to achieve that aim
regardless of what S-B did.

at Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:11:48 GMT in >,
(Michael Sierchio) wrote :

>Yep. It doesn't hold a candle to Michel Cluizel or Valrhona. It's
>decidedly one-dimensional. 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....

At the outset, I felt that Scharffen Berger started out with very fixed
ideas in their head about what quality chocolate would be like. It doesn't
seem to me that they tried very hard to explore the style-choice boundaries
by tasting many chocolates from many manufacturers. Now, it must be said
that at the time they started, they might have been frustrated by the
comparative lack of quality chocolate in the USA, but this situation is
being rectified. And, to give credit where credit is due, S-B with their
powerful marketing played a large role in making American consumers aware
of the potential to be found in chocolate. So they've been a positive
influence on the U.S. chocolate market in any case.

Recently they've started being, I think, more adventurous with style,
evidence that now they've actually started to learn about the possibilities
and flavour choices one can make. Where their initial chocolates were one-
sidedly fruity, invariably, their newer ones have other components and have
been more interesting. Nonetheless, I don't think they've reached the
heights of Cluizel or Valrhona yet. But Cluizel is a company widely
acknowledged to be among the very best of the best - in an elite class that
puts them, perhaps, even slightly above Valrhona in reputation, rather as
Rolls-Royce might have slightly more cachet than Mercedes. Valrhona has for
a long time been an unusually excellent high-end manufacturer, if not quite
the truly small, artisanal manufacturer at this point.

at Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:58:04 GMT in >,
(Mark Thorson) wrote :

>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....

I think it's a little inaccurate to say "burnt out". Pretty much only the
cheap chocolate manufacturers (such as Hershey's) roast, or need to roast,
their beans to the point where they're actually slightly burnt. Roasting
time depends on bean type, because the longer you roast, the more you can
eliminate harsh bitter components. So for more bitter beans, the classic
example being the lower-grade Forastero beans (which most cheap chocolate
manufacturers use), you must roast longer or the chocolate will be terribly
bitter. Better beans, such as Criollos, need less roasting. However, roast
too lightly and the result will be sour, bright, and overly fruity. There's
a balance that really depends on the bean. Personally I think Scharffen
Berger always roasted too lightly. At the other extreme, another high-
quality manufacturer, Pralus, roasts very heavily. The result is a very
dark, smoky flavour. Both Pralus and S-B are quality chocolate. However,
which you like better is a matter of personal preference. A company like
the aforementioned Cluizel tends to be more in the middle in terms of
roasting time - so that his chocolates aren't decisively fruity or dark and
earthy/coffee, but sort of shades in between, tobacco, molasses, and the
like.

at Tue, 26 Jul 2005 22:04:44 GMT in >,
lid (Margaret Suran) wrote :
....

>Hershey's chocolate tastes from boiled milk. I do not like milk
>chocolate, but Hershey's is the worst of the popular brands....

It has a decided cooked-milk taste. I do agree it's pretty unpleasant. Some
people like that. Of larger concern I think is that it's not very
chocolatey. S-B has, by contrast, an awe-inspiring milk chocolate, one of
the best in the world (better than Valrhona, for example, although Cluizel
still sets the benchmark with the Plantation Mangaro Lait 50%)

>
>As for Scharffen Berger, I cannot eat their chocolate at all. As
>someone mentioned, it tastes sour, as if it were spoiled. There is
>another American Chocolate maker, Guittard's and those chocolates are
>incredibly good...

Guittard is IMHO the best of the American manufacturers. I also think
they're better than Valrhona, and most of the European chocolate
manufacturers. Country of origin is never a reliable indication of quality.
American chocolate can be every bit as good as chocolate from anywhere
else. Especially try: Gourmet Bittersweet 63%, L'Harmonie 64%, or Chucuri
65%. BTW, it's easy to buy it these days from http://www.chocosphere.com,
for those who didn't already know.

at Tue, 26 Jul 2005 22:48:04 GMT in >,
(notbob) wrote :
....
>
>Yeah! ...let's not forget Baker's, the oldest chocolate company in the
>US and having the distinction of never buying chocolate from suppliers
>who used slaves.

Perhaps we should forget Baker's, whose quality is so low that while they
may not use slave labour, the chocolate they produce is as if they imagined
they were *feeding* slave labour! Ever had poor success with chocolate
baked goods, especially compared to something from a high-end bakery, and
wondered why? It's probably the chocolate, if you used Baker's brand.
Remember that it is completely unnecessary to use chocolate marked "baking
chocolate" for baking. You can use any good chocolate bar and your baked
goods won't explode. In fact, any chocolate, such as Baker's, that tastes
bad eaten straight shouldn't be used for baking either. If it tastes bad,
it *is* bad - not just for eating straight, but as a general principle.
Almost any chocolate you care to name, including Hershey's, is better for
baking or any other use than Baker's.

at Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:00:19 GMT in >, ^*&#
(rone) wrote :
....
>I find Valrhona overpriced (and thus on par with SB). I prefer
>Chocovic, although nothing beats TJ's Pound Plus 70% chocolate for
>value.

Which is nothing more than Callebaut 7030. Callebaut is also available at
cheap prices. However, generally the cheapest quality chocolate you can buy
in the USA is Guittard because it's a domestic brand. And it's worth it - a
great case of amazing bang for the buck.

Don't discount chocolate manufacturers simply by virtue of high price,
however. Companies like Amedei and Domori make some fantastically high-
priced chocolates which justify their price by being superb. Amedei's Chuao
is $55/kg (assuming you get the large 1kg size) but is arguably the best
chocolate in the world. Domori's Porcelana and Puertomar are $3.75 for a
25g bar (smaller sizes always mean higher price per quantity) but also
revelatory. So sometimes you do get what you pay for.

at Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:58:52 GMT in >,
(Nancy Young) wrote :
....
>
>First, they'll start adding a lot of wax to it, just like their
>own Hershey bars. Damn they used to be good.

AFAIK, Hershey's doesn't add wax to their chocolate. The texture might make
it seem so, but this is probably more likely the result of lower cocoa
butter contents combined with shorter conching times (conching is a process
where chocolate is slopped around in vats to make it smooth and creamy)

As to what will happen to S-B, in the short term I think very few changes
will occur. However, one can expect that after about a year of little
change, small changes in formulation, generally to achieve cheaper results,
will creep in. For instance, they might start using milkfat to replace some
cocoa butter - which gives a smoother texture at lower cost. That's not a
big deal but it's illustrative of what happens. Next, the bean sourcing
might change. It might become a little blander in flavour as a result. They
might also try to get away with using vanillin. (this is more unlikely but
it's possible). So over time there will be an almost imperceptible
diminishment of the quality, wherein with each reformulation you get a bar
almost as good as the previous formulation at substantially cheaper prices.
Over time the bars would then decrease quite a bit in quality, as the
cumulative effect of small tweaks will be large, but most people won't
notice because it happens gradually. And this isn't the result of some
grand design at corporate HQ. They themselves don't realise the process of
attrition as it happens. It's merely the result of decisions that seem
appropriate at the time, but which nobody ever takes the time to assess how
they add up over the long run.

Later, we can expect the Hershey brand name to appear somewhere on the bar.
Eventually, it might become entirely Hershey-branded and the S-B name will
disappear. Other changes will also happen. Some percentages or products
will be discontinued, with the manufacturer claiming the demand wasn't
there. Some of those will probably be excellent, unique products. New
products will also appear, with an emphasis on appealing to a broad
audience rather than to the original target niche market of Scharffen
Berger. They may also try line-extending the Scharffen Berger brand name
into lower-quality chocolate. So over time we can expect a watering-down of
the position of S-B. I suspect for a very long time they'll try and keep S-
B as a high-end-positioned brand line, but the actual quality will probably
be somewhat less and there will be some overlap with consumer-quality
chocolate, hence they will turn into a premium consumer brand as opposed
to a truly high-end chocolate.

--
Alex Rast

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