"Alex Rast" > wrote in message
...
> at Mon, 28 Nov 2005 18:04:40 GMT in
> >,
>
> On a related line, what is it that has made the "truffle" so iconically
> associated with "high-end" chocolate that invariably, the high-end
> chocolatiers are making these kinds of confections, while meanwhile,
> things
> like barks and cups have likewise become so associated with "low-brow"
> chocolate that invariably the only place you find these is in low-end
> chocolatiers? I'd kill for a truly first-rate chocolate bark or chocolate
> peanut butter cup, and yet these items are not found. I find it, honestly,
> snobbish and prejudicial to relegate these kinds of items automatically
> into the low-end category, and it puts artificially finite limits on how
> good these items can be. Yet high-end chocolatiers, even if they want to
> make such items, simply can't afford to because they won't sell well in
> their shop because of the image issue.
>
> Any thoughts on this positioning dilemma?
>
>
> --
> Alex Rast
>
> (remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)

This chocolate shop that I like (Renaissance Chocolates in Cary, NC) has
recently started carrying barks (almond ones, and peppermint, red and white
for the Christmas season), and has some cups with dried fruit and chocolate.
I don't know how well they are selling, as I don't care for either
peppermint or nuts. The dried fruit ones looked tempting last time I was in,
but I was shopping only for molded chocolates at that time.

But that is not what you asked. :-) Perhaps cups and barks are associated
with "low end" chocolatiers because they are easy enough to produce by most
people in their own kitchens. "I could make that" often translates into
non-gourmet or non-artistic (as I've seen in the quilt world). I'm not
saying this is a valid reason, but I have noticed this mind set frequently.

--
Wendy (who remembered to bottom post this time around)
http://griffinsflight.com/Quilting/quilt1.htm
un-STUFF email address to reply