"Alex Rast" > wrote in message
...
> 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)

Alex, I'm posting at the end of your long, knowledgeable answer to include
these two chocolate brands I picked up at the Global (Asian and Mexican)
market. They a 1) Luker, mfr. Manizales, Product of Colombia, which on
the ingredients is listed as 100% cocoa in English language - but is in
chunk form and appears as a dark chocolate;
http://www.casaluker.com/detalle_pro...to=1&idsu b=0
says "LUKER es un chocolate de mesa en barra sin azúcar, hecho a base licor
de cacao y es 100% natural."
2) Corona, mfr. by Compania Nacional de Chocolates, Product of Colombia,
which is listed as 100% selected cocoa beans in English language.
http://www.eatwashington.com/the_ame....htm#Chocolate
says:
"Corona is a chocolate from Columbia used for traditional hot chocolate that
contains no sugar and lists as its ingredients 100% selected cocoa beans;
available from Latin American supermarkets."
I have tried neither, but am hoping you or someone else has ever tried
either of these dark chocolate brands and make a comment.
Thanks,
Dee Dee.