Hi. I've been reading this group for two years, but this is my first
post.

I just wanted to drop in to say that Ghirardelli came out with a new
version of its bittersweet "Double Chocolate" chips. It's now called
"60% Cocoa Bittersweet Chocolate" chips. Now I've been a longtime fan
of the "black bag" (thanks to Alex Rast's recommendation), so when I
saw this at Sam's, into my cart it went! The bag says this new
formulation is the company's "highest cocoa content chip." I sampled it
and the increased cocoa butter definitely gives it a much smoother
mouthfeel but with that same intense bittersweet chocolate taste I've
come to expect. I hope Ghirardelli improves its white chips next. I buy
Guittard when I need white chips, but it's getting harder to find it
locally.

Flea Bitten

--
"I work for Satan and the opinions expressed here reflect those of my
employer."

at Tue, 12 Jul 2005 02:41:04 GMT in <1121136064.819926.291360
@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, wrote :

>Hi. I've been reading this group for two years, but this is my first
>post.
>
>I just wanted to drop in to say that Ghirardelli came out with a new
>version of its bittersweet "Double Chocolate" chips. It's now called
>"60% Cocoa Bittersweet Chocolate" chips. Now I've been a longtime fan
>of the "black bag" (thanks to Alex Rast's recommendation), so when I
>saw this at Sam's, into my cart it went! The bag says this new
>formulation is the company's "highest cocoa content chip." I sampled it
>and the increased cocoa butter definitely gives it a much smoother
>mouthfeel but with that same intense bittersweet chocolate taste I've
>come to expect.

I hope it's not exactly as you describe - or at least I hope that this
doesn't *replace* the Double Chocolate chips. Increased cocoa butter would
be *undesirable* for a chip because then it would have poor performance in
baking. Furthermore, if they've increased the cocoa butter content without
altering the cocoa solids percentage, this would mean that the net non-fat
cocoa solids (the part that gives chocolate its chocolatey flavour) would
have gone down, perhaps substantially. In turn this would mean the flavour
would be weaker. So you'd have literally the worst of all possible
alterations - a chip with weaker flavour and worse performance in baking.
The only reason I could conceive of for making such a modification would be
for the purposes of making it seem more appealing for straight eating out
of the bag, especially for those who value texture more than flavour. It
would be a pure marketing ploy rather than a valuable technical adjustment.

--
Alex Rast

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

The description on the back of the new bag says, "...formerly called
Double Chocolate," so I assume it's the replacement. You're probably
right about the reason behind the new formulation; half my bag is
already earmarked for straight eating . I value texture as well as
flavor, and I just have to repeat that this new chip is as chocolate-y
as the original...well, to my unrefined palate, that is! The
smoother mouthfeel is just a bonus (to me).

Flea Bitten

at Wed, 13 Jul 2005 01:28:51 GMT in <1121218131.761788.196780
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, wrote :

>The description on the back of the new bag says, "...formerly called
>Double Chocolate," so I assume it's the replacement.

:-(

> You're probably
>right about the reason behind the new formulation; half my bag is
>already earmarked for straight eating .

But why would you buy chocolate chips for eating? Why not just get a
chocolate bar? There are different chocolates for different applications
and chips are designed for baking. Would it have been so much to ask that a
company keep specialty products appropriate for their specialty
application?

> I value texture as well as
>flavor, and I just have to repeat that this new chip is as chocolate-y
>as the original...well, to my unrefined palate, that is!

As I say, if the only change was to increase the amount of cocoa butter
without increasing the total cocoa solids percentage, then it's bound to be
less chocolatey. However, if it increases the cocoa butter and cocoa solids
percentage, then the results will be more variable. It will definitely be
less sweet, and whether it would be as chocolatey would depend entirely on
the relative proportion of cocoa butter added compared to the increase in
cocoa solids percentage. However, one definite result would be a poorer
performance in baking - the chips would flatten more and tend to lose
temper - thus ending up after baking with *worse*, not better, texture.

As a result we would have a chocolate chip that couldn't fulfill its
purpose and rather would be simply an eating chocolate in chip format.

However, one other possibility. Are they explicit in claiming it has a
higher cocoa butter percentage than it previously did? It could be that
they've changed the label without changing the contents.


--
Alex Rast

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

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 07:12:02 -0000, Alex Rast wrote:

>But why would you buy chocolate chips for eating? Why not just get
>a chocolate bar? There are different chocolates for different applications
>and chips are designed for baking. Would it have been so much to ask
>that a company keep specialty products appropriate for their specialty
>application?

[Flea Bitten] I buy these chips primarily for baking in cookies. But
they also come in handy when I'm craving dark chocolate, and I know 5
or 6 pieces will really hit the spot. Plus, this bittersweet
formulation is the perfect dark chocolate to me; no other bar has
matched it (for me).

>However, one other possibility. Are they explicit in claiming it has a
>higher cocoa butter percentage than it previously did? It could be that
>they've changed the label without changing the contents.

[Flea Bitten] I re-read the package and it says, "Our new, improved
formulation for 60% Cocoa Bittersweet Baking Chips (formerly Double
Chocolate) is our highest cocoa content chip, delivering an intensely
rich yet balanced chocolate sensation."
It does not explicitly claim a higher cocoa butter percentage than the
old chip. The new chip definitely has a smoother mouthfeel, but perhaps
I was too quick to assume it is due to an increase in cocoa butter.
Oops. <blush>
Next time I bake cookies, I'll check if the chips flatten or remain
true to their purpose

at Thu, 14 Jul 2005 01:52:20 GMT in
.com>,
wrote :

>On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 07:12:02 -0000, Alex Rast wrote:
>
>>But why would you buy chocolate chips for eating? Why not just get
>>a chocolate bar? There are different chocolates for different
>>applications and chips are designed for baking. Would it have been so
>>much to ask that a company keep specialty products appropriate for
>>their specialty application?
>
>[Flea Bitten] I buy these chips primarily for baking in cookies. But
>they also come in handy when I'm craving dark chocolate, and I know 5
>or 6 pieces will really hit the spot. Plus, this bittersweet
>formulation is the perfect dark chocolate to me; no other bar has
>matched it (for me).

Ghirardelli typically offsets a very bright fruity note, reminiscent of
cherries, against a very dark, coffeelike flavour. It's something of an
extreme but well-balanced mix. Another chocolate with similar
characteristics is Dagoba Dark 59%. The 60/40 blend is one of the most
common in the industry. So there's lots of variety to choose from at about
this percentage. Another one with similar characteristics to Ghirardelli,
but not such an extreme counterbalance, is Guittard Lever du Soleil 61%.
Guittard is very good in the 60-65% class and have several chocolates to
choose from. It's worth trying them just to get a feel for what's out
there.

>>However, one other possibility. Are they explicit in claiming it has a
>>higher cocoa butter percentage than it previously did? It could be that
>>they've changed the label without changing the contents.
>
>[Flea Bitten] I re-read the package and it says, "Our new, improved
>formulation for 60% Cocoa Bittersweet Baking Chips (formerly Double
>Chocolate) is our highest cocoa content chip, delivering an intensely
>rich yet balanced chocolate sensation."
>It does not explicitly claim a higher cocoa butter percentage than the
>old chip. The new chip definitely has a smoother mouthfeel, but perhaps
>I was too quick to assume it is due to an increase in cocoa butter.
>Oops. <blush>

Can you give me the fat grams, carb grams, and protein grams along with the
serving size from the "Nutrition Facts" label? Then it would be possible to
compare against the old label without difficulty to assess the changes.
From a smoother mouthfeel POV, it could be that the chips are conched
longer than they used to be. Added cocoa butter however is still a distinct
possibility.

>Next time I bake cookies, I'll check if the chips flatten or remain
>true to their purpose
>
>


--
Alex Rast

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