I store my chocolate in the refrigerator, but the bars
I'm in the process of eating are kept in the freezer.
I do this because I like my chocolate hard, so it
fractures when I first bite down on it. It all gets
warmed up soon enough, and I prefer that it takes
longer to melt in my mouth.

However, I have considered the possibility that
I'm missing some of the finer elements of flavor,
perhaps by retarding volatilization of essential oils,
etc. I'm not aware of a significant difference in
flavor, except perhaps for Scharffen Berger.
As I recall, SB previously had a slight bitter
aftertaste which I don't notice when it's frozen.

Any comments on temperature from the gallery?

at Sun, 07 Dec 2003 02:29:33 GMT in >,
(Mark Thorson) wrote :

>I store my chocolate in the refrigerator, but the bars
>I'm in the process of eating are kept in the freezer.
>I do this because I like my chocolate hard, so it
>fractures when I first bite down on it. It all gets
>warmed up soon enough, and I prefer that it takes
>longer to melt in my mouth.
>...
>Any comments on temperature from the gallery?

Frozen is IMHO *definitely* too cold, because cold deadens the flavour of
chocolate. Probably the best to me is in the mid '70s - not enough for the
chocolate to soften, but enough really to peak the temperature.

But if you like it that way, there's no "wrong" temperature to have it at.
Some of the flavours that come out in the heat may be ones that are
unpleasant to you. It also sounds as though texture may be more important
than flavour, and the texture you're looking for is very crisp, and low
melt. This means low cocoa butter. A good choice here is El Rey's Gran
Saman. Try it at room temperature and see if it appeals.

Is your refrigerator odour free? If not, the chocolate will be picking up
odours. In that case you *definitely* need to consider storing it
elsewhere. Otherwise, as long as you're happy, who really minds where and
how you store your chocolate?


--
Alex Rast

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

i prefer my chocolates frozen --- gives them more time in my mouth and thus
a longer span of enjoyment -- esp. since i limit my intake to 1 or 2 pieces
per day.....i think though that 70s is too warm for nice chocolate....50s
and lower if more fun....but of course....i know some people who just
cannot enjoy frozen chocolate and prefer the 70s temperatures!

enjoy your chocolate
-s.

at Sun, 07 Dec 2003 02:29:33 GMT in >,
(Mark Thorson) wrote :

>I store my chocolate in the refrigerator, but the bars
>I'm in the process of eating are kept in the freezer.
>I do this because I like my chocolate hard, so it
>fractures when I first bite down on it. It all gets
>warmed up soon enough, and I prefer that it takes
>longer to melt in my mouth.
>...
>Any comments on temperature from the gallery?

Frozen is IMHO *definitely* too cold, because cold deadens the flavour of
chocolate. Probably the best to me is in the mid '70s - not enough for the
chocolate to soften, but enough really to peak the temperature.

But if you like it that way, there's no "wrong" temperature to have it at.
Some of the flavours that come out in the heat may be ones that are
unpleasant to you. It also sounds as though texture may be more important
than flavour, and the texture you're looking for is very crisp, and low
melt. This means low cocoa butter. A good choice here is El Rey's Gran
Saman. Try it at room temperature and see if it appeals.

Is your refrigerator odour free? If not, the chocolate will be picking up
odours. In that case you *definitely* need to consider storing it
elsewhere. Otherwise, as long as you're happy, who really minds where and
how you store your chocolate?


--
Alex Rast

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

--
odium veritas parit

at Mon, 08 Dec 2003 02:36:02 GMT in
>, (Suvrit)
wrote :

>i prefer my chocolates frozen --- gives them more time in my mouth and
>thus a longer span of enjoyment

Interesting. I think there may be 2 leanings: those who prefer the "maximum
intensity" approach to sensory experience, and those who prefer the
"maximum duration". Proponents of the first approach would try to condense
all the sensation into the shortest time at the greatest strength, those of
the second to spread out the sensation at lower power into a longer time.

I know I'm definitely of the former school. Not just in chocolate, but in
essentially any other pleasant sensation, I'd find complete contentment in
experiencing infinite strength for the briefest instant, while a continual
experience of the sensation at a low level for eternity would be entirely
unsatisfying. In a similar vein, unpleasant sensations to me are much worse
if they're intensely unpleasant for a short time as opposed to somewhat
unpleasant for a long time. I can withstand a dull pain for hours without
it bothering me, while a sharp pain that lasts only a moment is torture.
For instance, for me the pain of a twisted ankle is far better than the
pain of a hypodermic needle, so that I'd rather put up with that pain for a
day or so than get an injection of anesthetic to make it go away.

With chocolate, it makes sense you'd prefer frozen chocolate if you were of
the "duration" school because it diminishes the intensity of flavour but
spreads it out over a longer time. Likewise, since I'm of the "intensity"
school, I prefer slightly warm chocolate that lasts less but packs more of
a punch. I wonder if this might also have an effect on choice of chocolate,
e.g. for the same amount of total cocoa solids intake, might a duration
person prefer milk chocolate where an intensity person would head for
bittersweet?

--
Alex Rast

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

a faint smile in appreciation of 'rational' defense of chocolate enjoyment
preferences creeps onto my lips......the duration/intensity curves for
various experiences in life varies greatly for me .... i also preferred my
chocolate slow becoz of the self-imposed restraints of not more than 2
pieces from Lindt 85%, per day.

-s.

Alex> at Mon, 08 Dec 2003 02:36:02 GMT in
Alex> >, (Suvrit)
Alex> wrote :

>> i prefer my chocolates frozen --- gives them more time in my mouth and
>> thus a longer span of enjoyment

Alex> Interesting. I think there may be 2 leanings: those who prefer the "maximum
Alex> intensity" approach to sensory experience, and those who prefer the
Alex> "maximum duration". Proponents of the first approach would try to condense
Alex> all the sensation into the shortest time at the greatest strength, those of
Alex> the second to spread out the sensation at lower power into a longer time.

Alex> I know I'm definitely of the former school. Not just in chocolate, but in
Alex> essentially any other pleasant sensation, I'd find complete contentment in
Alex> experiencing infinite strength for the briefest instant, while a continual
Alex> experience of the sensation at a low level for eternity would be entirely
Alex> unsatisfying. In a similar vein, unpleasant sensations to me are much worse
Alex> if they're intensely unpleasant for a short time as opposed to somewhat
Alex> unpleasant for a long time. I can withstand a dull pain for hours without
Alex> it bothering me, while a sharp pain that lasts only a moment is torture.
Alex> For instance, for me the pain of a twisted ankle is far better than the
Alex> pain of a hypodermic needle, so that I'd rather put up with that pain for a
Alex> day or so than get an injection of anesthetic to make it go away.

Alex> With chocolate, it makes sense you'd prefer frozen chocolate if you were of
Alex> the "duration" school because it diminishes the intensity of flavour but
Alex> spreads it out over a longer time. Likewise, since I'm of the "intensity"
Alex> school, I prefer slightly warm chocolate that lasts less but packs more of
Alex> a punch. I wonder if this might also have an effect on choice of chocolate,
Alex> e.g. for the same amount of total cocoa solids intake, might a duration
Alex> person prefer milk chocolate where an intensity person would head for
Alex> bittersweet?

Alex> --
Alex> Alex Rast
Alex>
Alex> (remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)

--
odium veritas parit

Suvrit > wrote in message >...
> a faint smile in appreciation of 'rational' defense of chocolate enjoyment
> preferences creeps onto my lips......the duration/intensity curves for
> various experiences in life varies greatly for me .... i also preferred my
> chocolate slow becoz of the self-imposed restraints of not more than 2
> pieces from Lindt 85%, per day.
>
> -s.i think so chocolate is enjoying in a proper temperature in cold countries
not in hot ****ries.because in hot countries in could be melt. and i think
no one can enjoy the melt one.

countries it would be ment and
>
> Alex> at Mon, 08 Dec 2003 02:36:02 GMT in
> Alex> >, (Suvrit)
> Alex> wrote :
>
> >> i prefer my chocolates frozen --- gives them more time in my mouth and
> >> thus a longer span of enjoyment
>
> Alex> Interesting. I think there may be 2 leanings: those who prefer the "maximum
> Alex> intensity" approach to sensory experience, and those who prefer the
> Alex> "maximum duration". Proponents of the first approach would try to condense
> Alex> all the sensation into the shortest time at the greatest strength, those of
> Alex> the second to spread out the sensation at lower power into a longer time.
>
> Alex> I know I'm definitely of the former school. Not just in chocolate, but in
> Alex> essentially any other pleasant sensation, I'd find complete contentment in
> Alex> experiencing infinite strength for the briefest instant, while a continual
> Alex> experience of the sensation at a low level for eternity would be entirely
> Alex> unsatisfying. In a similar vein, unpleasant sensations to me are much worse
> Alex> if they're intensely unpleasant for a short time as opposed to somewhat
> Alex> unpleasant for a long time. I can withstand a dull pain for hours without
> Alex> it bothering me, while a sharp pain that lasts only a moment is torture.
> Alex> For instance, for me the pain of a twisted ankle is far better than the
> Alex> pain of a hypodermic needle, so that I'd rather put up with that pain for a
> Alex> day or so than get an injection of anesthetic to make it go away.
>
> Alex> With chocolate, it makes sense you'd prefer frozen chocolate if you were of
> Alex> the "duration" school because it diminishes the intensity of flavour but
> Alex> spreads it out over a longer time. Likewise, since I'm of the "intensity"
> Alex> school, I prefer slightly warm chocolate that lasts less but packs more of
> Alex> a punch. I wonder if this might also have an effect on choice of chocolate,
> Alex> e.g. for the same amount of total cocoa solids intake, might a duration
> Alex> person prefer milk chocolate where an intensity person would head for
> Alex> bittersweet?
>
> Alex> --
> Alex> Alex Rast
> Alex>
> Alex> (remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)

Suvrit > wrote in message >...
> a faint smile in appreciation of 'rational' defense of chocolate enjoyment
> preferences creeps onto my lips......the duration/intensity curves for
> various experiences in life varies greatly for me .... i also preferred my
> chocolate slow becoz of the self-imposed restraints of not more than 2
> pieces from Lindt 85%, per day.
>
> -s.i think so chocolate is enjoying in a proper temperature in cold countries
not in hot countries.because in hot countries in could be melt. and i think
no one can enjoy the melt one.

countries it would be ment and
>
> Alex> at Mon, 08 Dec 2003 02:36:02 GMT in
> Alex> >, (Suvrit)
> Alex> wrote :
>
> >> i prefer my chocolates frozen --- gives them more time in my mouth and
> >> thus a longer span of enjoyment
>
> Alex> Interesting. I think there may be 2 leanings: those who prefer the "maximum
> Alex> intensity" approach to sensory experience, and those who prefer the
> Alex> "maximum duration". Proponents of the first approach would try to condense
> Alex> all the sensation into the shortest time at the greatest strength, those of
> Alex> the second to spread out the sensation at lower power into a longer time.
>
> Alex> I know I'm definitely of the former school. Not just in chocolate, but in
> Alex> essentially any other pleasant sensation, I'd find complete contentment in
> Alex> experiencing infinite strength for the briefest instant, while a continual
> Alex> experience of the sensation at a low level for eternity would be entirely
> Alex> unsatisfying. In a similar vein, unpleasant sensations to me are much worse
> Alex> if they're intensely unpleasant for a short time as opposed to somewhat
> Alex> unpleasant for a long time. I can withstand a dull pain for hours without
> Alex> it bothering me, while a sharp pain that lasts only a moment is torture.
> Alex> For instance, for me the pain of a twisted ankle is far better than the
> Alex> pain of a hypodermic needle, so that I'd rather put up with that pain for a
> Alex> day or so than get an injection of anesthetic to make it go away.
>
> Alex> With chocolate, it makes sense you'd prefer frozen chocolate if you were of
> Alex> the "duration" school because it diminishes the intensity of flavour but
> Alex> spreads it out over a longer time. Likewise, since I'm of the "intensity"
> Alex> school, I prefer slightly warm chocolate that lasts less but packs more of
> Alex> a punch. I wonder if this might also have an effect on choice of chocolate,
> Alex> e.g. for the same amount of total cocoa solids intake, might a duration
> Alex> person prefer milk chocolate where an intensity person would head for
> Alex> bittersweet?
>
> Alex> --
> Alex> Alex Rast
> Alex>
> Alex> (remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)

Alex Rast wrote:

> It also sounds as though texture may be more important
> than flavour, and the texture you're looking for is very crisp,
> and low melt. This means low cocoa butter. A good choice
> here is El Rey's Gran Saman. Try it at room temperature
> and see if it appeals.

You may be right about texture. For example, you slammed
Villar's, when I consider that one of the best among the cheaper
70+% bars. "Where's the chocolate", you said. I find Villar's
to be very clean, comparable to Valrhona and Sharffen Berger.
You described Lindt 85% so glowingly that I went out and
bought a bar, and I found that I had the same problem that
I had with their 70% bar -- a gritty cocoa finish. Droste is
similar in that regard. I suspect you would find Villar's much
more enjoyable if they would add a few percent of finely
powdered wood dust to their product, so you would get that
mouth feel you associate with the products you like.

Alex Rast wrote:

> Interesting. I think there may be 2 leanings: those who prefer the
> "maximum intensity" approach to sensory experience, and those
> who prefer the "maximum duration". Proponents of the first approach
> would try to condense all the sensation into the shortest time at the
> greatest strength, those of the second to spread out the sensation
> at lower power into a longer time.
>
> I know I'm definitely of the former school. Not just in chocolate,
> but in essentially any other pleasant sensation, I'd find complete
> contentment in experiencing infinite strength for the briefest instant,
> while a continual experience of the sensation at a low level for
> eternity would be entirely unsatisfying.

You may be interested to know that the sensation of flavor is
primarily through the olfactory sense. The sense of taste is a
crude blunt instrument, on its own only being capable of
recognizing four sensations: sweet, sour, salt, and bitter.
However, the olfactory sense appears to be capable of
sensing an infinite variety and subtlety of smells.

If your theory about "maximum intensity" is correct, then
you should find greatest enjoyment by obtaining the finest,
purest cocoa, and inhaling it through a straw into your
nasal cavity, much in the way that snuff or cocaine is used.
That would give you a sudden, maximum, peak experience
of the chocolate flavor.

Mark Thorson > schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
...

<snipped>

> If your theory about "maximum intensity" is correct, then
> you should find greatest enjoyment by obtaining the finest,
> purest cocoa, and inhaling it through a straw into your
> nasal cavity, much in the way that snuff or cocaine is used.
> That would give you a sudden, maximum, peak experience
> of the chocolate flavor.

What a rush that would be :-) Anyway, I think that the school of though
here is similar to that of which wine to drink with your meal--the one that
you enjoy drinking the most. I prefer my chocolate sweet (milk chocolate)
when I am eating just chocolate--in Belgium, the preference is bitter-sweet.
The term, "whatever floats your bubble," comes to mind here :-)

David