About a month ago I got asked on Hershey's Extra Dark 60%. At that point I
hadn't tried it so my response was only able to be conjectural at best. So
now, the actual results.

Hershey's Extra Dark 60% is really quite good, borderline excellent,
indeed. Considering its manufacturer's past results, it's a spectacular
success. They've managed to extract considerable fruity flavour - cherry in
the initial taste, not to mention blueberry in the aroma, and it's got a
nice chocolatey main flavour to it. The only disappointment is a very flat
finish, and without this negative the bar would *definitely* be excellent
if not great. Texture, too, is on a par with high-end chocolatiers, very
smooth and creamy. I note that they're also using natural vanilla and in
general the ingredient label contains nothing commonly seen as suspect
among the chocoscenti. "Extra Dark" is perhaps a misnomer (typically that
would be more of an 85%-class bar) but we may pardon them for that label in
view of the chocolate's appeal. Good value considering it's $1.99 for a
100g bar, although I have to note that there are cheaper chocolates for the
same size, some of them with equivalent quality. All indications are that
Hershey's is taking the quality chocolate market seriously.

In a larger sense, indeed, the whole chocolate industry is moving upscale.
Commodity brands like Hershey's and Lindt are producing excellent chocolate
and boutique brands are exploring new sources and showing off single
varietals.

I wonder how much of this is being driven by the political instabilities
and infamous work conditions now so publicly exposed in the Ivory Coast,
the traditional major cocoa source for large producers?

--
Alex Rast

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

Alex Rast wrote:
> About a month ago I got asked on Hershey's Extra Dark 60%. At that point I
> hadn't tried it so my response was only able to be conjectural at best. So
> now, the actual results.
>
> Hershey's Extra Dark 60% is really quite good, borderline excellent,
> indeed. Considering its manufacturer's past results, it's a spectacular
> success. They've managed to extract considerable fruity flavour - cherry in
> the initial taste, not to mention blueberry in the aroma, and it's got a
> nice chocolatey main flavour to it. The only disappointment is a very flat
> finish, and without this negative the bar would *definitely* be excellent
> if not great. Texture, too, is on a par with high-end chocolatiers, very
> smooth and creamy. I note that they're also using natural vanilla and in
> general the ingredient label contains nothing commonly seen as suspect
> among the chocoscenti. "Extra Dark" is perhaps a misnomer (typically that
> would be more of an 85%-class bar) but we may pardon them for that label in
> view of the chocolate's appeal. Good value considering it's $1.99 for a
> 100g bar, although I have to note that there are cheaper chocolates for the
> same size, some of them with equivalent quality. All indications are that
> Hershey's is taking the quality chocolate market seriously.
>
> In a larger sense, indeed, the whole chocolate industry is moving upscale.
> Commodity brands like Hershey's and Lindt are producing excellent chocolate
> and boutique brands are exploring new sources and showing off single
> varietals.
>
> I wonder how much of this is being driven by the political instabilities
> and infamous work conditions now so publicly exposed in the Ivory Coast,
> the traditional major cocoa source for large producers?
>

Alex, Thank you. I am the one who asked you about the new Hershey's
Extra Dark 60% chocolate. Since then I also tasted it, but unlike you
I did not like it.

As you pointed out to me at a previous time, it is the fruitiness that
I do not like and which seems to give me nothing but an unpleasant
taste sensation, as was the case with Scharffen Berger. I have been
using the "new" 60% Ghirardelli and I like it very much. So much so,
that I have a problem not "tasting" too much of it, while I prepare
the batter for the oven. ( You are the one who suggested to stick
to Ghirardelli for all my day-to-day baking and I want to thank you
for that suggestion.

Most of all, your pointing me to Guittard chocolates for special
desserts and for eating has proven invaluable to me. Thank you, I
wish their products were more easily available in New York City.

Happy New Year and once more, thank you for your help and advice which
you so generously give me, Margaret

"Margaret Suran" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Alex Rast wrote:
>> About a month ago I got asked on Hershey's Extra Dark 60%. At that point
>> I hadn't tried it so my response was only able to be conjectural at best.
>> So now, the actual results.
>>
>> Hershey's Extra Dark 60% is really quite good, borderline excellent,
>> indeed. Considering its manufacturer's past results, it's a spectacular
>> success. They've managed to extract considerable fruity flavour - cherry
>> in the initial taste, not to mention blueberry in the aroma, and it's got
>> a nice chocolatey main flavour to it. The only disappointment is a very
>> flat finish, and without this negative the bar would *definitely* be
>> excellent if not great. Texture, too, is on a par with high-end
>> chocolatiers, very smooth and creamy. I note that they're also using
>> natural vanilla and in general the ingredient label contains nothing
>> commonly seen as suspect among the chocoscenti. "Extra Dark" is perhaps a
>> misnomer (typically that would be more of an 85%-class bar) but we may
>> pardon them for that label in view of the chocolate's appeal. Good value
>> considering it's $1.99 for a 100g bar, although I have to note that there
>> are cheaper chocolates for the same size, some of them with equivalent
>> quality. All indications are that Hershey's is taking the quality
>> chocolate market seriously. In a larger sense, indeed, the whole
>> chocolate industry is moving upscale. Commodity brands like Hershey's and
>> Lindt are producing excellent chocolate
>> and boutique brands are exploring new sources and showing off single
>> varietals. I wonder how much of this is being driven by the political
>> instabilities and infamous work conditions now so publicly exposed in the
>> Ivory Coast, the traditional major cocoa source for large producers?
>>
>
> Alex, Thank you. I am the one who asked you about the new Hershey's Extra
> Dark 60% chocolate. Since then I also tasted it, but unlike you I did not
> like it.
>
> As you pointed out to me at a previous time, it is the fruitiness that I
> do not like and which seems to give me nothing but an unpleasant taste
> sensation, as was the case with Scharffen Berger. I have been using the
> "new" 60% Ghirardelli and I like it very much. So much so, that I have a
> problem not "tasting" too much of it, while I prepare the batter for the
> oven. ( You are the one who suggested to stick to Ghirardelli for all
> my day-to-day baking and I want to thank you for that suggestion.

I, too, don't care for Scharffen Berger chocolate (too fruity and
unpleasant) but their cocoa is A-1 tasting for me, but it is not always
readily available and the price is outrageous.

For chocolate-bar type chocolate for eating I have been cutting a piece of
semi-dark Ghiradelli chocolate. A little is very satisfying after dinner.
The milk chocolate Ghiradelli is too sweet for eating and leaves me ill. DH
and I both dislike it.

I bought an 8 oz. container of "Organic Trader Joe's Cocoa Poweder for
drinking and baking USDA Organic" "USDA Organic." The price seemed right
for organic. I've not tried it yet. On the label it says, "This organic
cocoa powder is made from South American beans that grow within the Peruvian
jungle along the Andean Mountains. A high percentage of criollo and
trinitario beans create a low acidity and distinct flavor characteristic
that makes this cocoa powder perfect for all applications." "This is
non-alkalized, gluten-free product." Has anyone tried it yet?
Thanks,
Dee Dee

Dee Randall wrote:

> I, too, don't care for Scharffen Berger chocolate (too fruity and
> unpleasant) but their cocoa is A-1 tasting for me, but it is not always
> readily available and the price is outrageous.
>
> For chocolate-bar type chocolate for eating I have been cutting a piece of
> semi-dark Ghiradelli chocolate. A little is very satisfying after dinner.
> The milk chocolate Ghiradelli is too sweet for eating and leaves me ill. DH
> and I both dislike it.
>
> I bought an 8 oz. container of "Organic Trader Joe's Cocoa Poweder for
> drinking and baking USDA Organic" "USDA Organic." The price seemed right
> for organic. I've not tried it yet. On the label it says, "This organic
> cocoa powder is made from South American beans that grow within the Peruvian
> jungle along the Andean Mountains. A high percentage of criollo and
> trinitario beans create a low acidity and distinct flavor characteristic
> that makes this cocoa powder perfect for all applications." "This is
> non-alkalized, gluten-free product." Has anyone tried it yet?
> Thanks,
> Dee Dee
>
>
I do not know the TJ Cocoa Powder, there are none of those stores in
New York City. Alex Rast may be able to tell you, he is the rfc
Chocolate Guru.

I seldom drink hot chocolate (nor cold one), but I always have a
container of Ghirardelli unsweetened cocoa powder at hand for baking.

It costs either $2.99 or $3.99 for a 10 oz. can, depending on where I
buy it. Finding a store with the lower price has become quite rare
now. It is a very nice cocoa powder.

On the rare occasion when I would like to drink a cup of hot
chocolate, I would want to go to one of Jacques Torres places. It is
a wonderful, fragrant chocolate served with a generous topping of
freshly whipped heavy cream. Heisse Schokolade Mit Schlag. )

Dee Randall wrote:
> I bought an 8 oz. container of "Organic Trader Joe's Cocoa Poweder for
> drinking and baking USDA Organic" "USDA Organic." The price seemed right
> for organic. I've not tried it yet. On the label it says, "This organic
> cocoa powder is made from South American beans that grow within the Peruvian
> jungle along the Andean Mountains. A high percentage of criollo and
> trinitario beans create a low acidity and distinct flavor characteristic
> that makes this cocoa powder perfect for all applications." "This is
> non-alkalized, gluten-free product." Has anyone tried it yet?

No, but I think it would be fun to be a buyer working for TJ's.

Karen

"Dee Randall" > writes:

>For chocolate-bar type chocolate for eating I have been cutting a piece of
>semi-dark Ghiradelli chocolate. A little is very satisfying after dinner.
>The milk chocolate Ghiradelli is too sweet for eating and leaves me ill. DH
>and I both dislike it.

We just bought a tin of Ghirardelli chocolates and I was really happy
with the 60% cocoa dark chocolate ones. The acidic taste you get in
some cheaper dark chocolates is almost completely gone, it's very smooth
and has a good consistency. The only problem is that the individual
squares are too big, it's too much to just nibble on.

Stacia

Dee Randall wrote:
> I bought an 8 oz. container of "Organic Trader Joe's Cocoa Poweder for
> drinking and baking USDA Organic" "USDA Organic." The price seemed right
> for organic. I've not tried it yet. On the label it says, "This organic
> cocoa powder is made from South American beans that grow within the Peruvian
> jungle along the Andean Mountains. A high percentage of criollo and
> trinitario beans create a low acidity and distinct flavor characteristic
> that makes this cocoa powder perfect for all applications." "This is
> non-alkalized, gluten-free product." Has anyone tried it yet?
> Thanks,
> Dee Dee

I like it, but I like my chocolate a little on the dark side (not too
dark). The 80% dark chocolates are too bitter for me - I like most
everything I have tasted in the 60-70% range excpet for Lindt. I have
used it for hot cocoa and brownies (which I only tasted but DH's
coworkers scarfed them up). I would be interested in what you think
about it. Oh, and I also make my hot cocoa with whole milk, a tad of
cream, and vanilla bean, so that will affect the chocolate flavors.
-L

> From: "Dee Randall" >
> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 09:15:57 -0500
>
> I bought an 8 oz. container of "Organic Trader Joe's Cocoa Poweder for
> drinking and baking USDA Organic" "USDA Organic." The price seemed right
> for organic. I've not tried it yet. On the label it says, "This organic
> cocoa powder is made from South American beans that grow within the Peruvian
> jungle along the Andean Mountains. A high percentage of criollo and
> trinitario beans create a low acidity and distinct flavor characteristic
> that makes this cocoa powder perfect for all applications." "This is
> non-alkalized, gluten-free product." Has anyone tried it yet?

I've been using it for cocoa. I like Rapunzel a little more, but this
isn't bad. I'm really glad Trader Joes has done this because the
alternative there was full of sugar, which I don't care for. (I guess I
lean towards the bittersweet.)

> Thanks,
> Dee Dee

> I bought an 8 oz. container of "Organic Trader Joe's Cocoa Poweder for
> drinking and baking USDA Organic" "USDA Organic."

I was not very impressed with it.

> I noticed something else. Some of the large Chain Drug Stores, Rite
> Aid in this particular case, are starting to carry more dark chocolate
> items.

Dark chocolate is increasing in popularity. If I remember aright from
the recent Forbes article, Dark Chocolate consumption has grown 11% in
the past four years, vs. a 3.9% increase in the chocolate market
over-all.

I would guess that it is due to a variety of factors. One is that older
folks prefer dark chocolate, and, combined with a "nostalgic" tendency
to pull childhood things into adulthood, has older people eating more
chocolate, and thus more dark chocolate. At the same time, increasing
numbers have been exposed to good, European chocolates, and that helps
set their tastes.

Another factor is the snob/nothing-is-too-good-for-me current in
contemporary US society. The big number in the Forbes article is that
the premium chocolate market has grown by 20% annually since 2000.
Given that, it is hardly surprising that dark chocolate is becoming
more popular.

Alex Rast wrote:
> About a month ago I got asked on Hershey's Extra Dark 60%. At that
point I
> hadn't tried it so my response was only able to be conjectural at
best. So
> now, the actual results.
>
> Hershey's Extra Dark 60% is really quite good, borderline excellent,
> indeed. Considering its manufacturer's past results, it's a
spectacular
> success. They've managed to extract considerable fruity flavour -
cherry in
> the initial taste, not to mention blueberry in the aroma, and it's
got a
> nice chocolatey main flavour to it. The only disappointment is a
very flat
> finish, and without this negative the bar would *definitely* be
excellent
> if not great. Texture, too, is on a par with high-end chocolatiers,
very
> smooth and creamy. I note that they're also using natural vanilla
and in
> general the ingredient label contains nothing commonly seen as suspect
> among the chocoscenti. "Extra Dark" is perhaps a misnomer
(typically that
> would be more of an 85%-class bar) but we may pardon them for that
label in
> view of the chocolate's appeal. Good value considering it's $1.99
for a
> 100g bar, although I have to note that there are cheaper chocolates
for the
> same size, some of them with equivalent quality. All indications
are that
> Hershey's is taking the quality chocolate market seriously.
>
> In a larger sense, indeed, the whole chocolate industry is moving
upscale.
> Commodity brands like Hershey's and Lindt are producing excellent
chocolate
> and boutique brands are exploring new sources and showing off single
> varietals.
>
> I wonder how much of this is being driven by the political
instabilities
> and infamous work conditions now so publicly exposed in the Ivory
Coast,
> the traditional major cocoa source for large producers?
>
I noticed something else. Some of the large Chain Drug Stores, Rite
Aid in this particular case, are starting to carry more dark chocolate
items. Dove used to be the only ones until now, but yesterday I saw a
whole bin filled with packages of Dark Chocolate Hershey Kisses for
Valentine's Day. Hershey's Special, their dark chocolate is available
in all the stores now, something that was not so just a short time ago.

Is this happening only in the New York City area or did others notice
it in their stores?

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 08:51:33 -0500, Margaret Suran
> wrote:


>I noticed something else. Some of the large Chain Drug Stores, Rite
>Aid in this particular case, are starting to carry more dark chocolate
>items. Dove used to be the only ones until now, but yesterday I saw a
>whole bin filled with packages of Dark Chocolate Hershey Kisses for
>Valentine's Day. Hershey's Special, their dark chocolate is available
>in all the stores now, something that was not so just a short time ago.
>
>Is this happening only in the New York City area or did others notice
>it in their stores?

It is available in more areas, according to my travels. Granted, I am
not traveling to the hinterlands much, just the major metros.

I think part of it is driven by the broad success of higher priced
brands such as Dove & Scharffenberger in groceries and partly by the
Atkins craze, as darker chocolates have less sugar & seem to be the
"sneak treat" of low-carbers.

Boron

"Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 08:51:33 -0500, Margaret Suran
> > wrote:
>
>
>>I noticed something else. Some of the large Chain Drug Stores, Rite
>>Aid in this particular case, are starting to carry more dark chocolate
>>items. Dove used to be the only ones until now, but yesterday I saw a
>>whole bin filled with packages of Dark Chocolate Hershey Kisses for
>>Valentine's Day. Hershey's Special, their dark chocolate is available
>>in all the stores now, something that was not so just a short time ago.
>>
>>Is this happening only in the New York City area or did others notice
>>it in their stores?
>
> It is available in more areas, according to my travels. Granted, I am
> not traveling to the hinterlands much, just the major metros.
>
> I think part of it is driven by the broad success of higher priced
> brands such as Dove & Scharffenberger in groceries and partly by the
> Atkins craze, as darker chocolates have less sugar & seem to be the
> "sneak treat" of low-carbers.
>
> Boron

I'm not a low-carber, and I don't sneak for my treats, but I think 'sneak
treat' is a cute phrase. Over a certain percentage of chocolate makes me
just as ill as the milk chocolate of about 58% to 64%. Certainly there must
be something in the processing. I can't figure it out.

Margaret, I buy from Costco or BJ's Ghiradelli's cocoa (unsweetened) in a
28oz size can. I agree it is delicious. As I recall, it is around $4.99 or
thereabouts.
Dee Dee

at Tue, 10 Jan 2006 20:15:51 GMT in >,
(Dee Randall) wrote :

>
>"Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 08:51:33 -0500, Margaret Suran
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>I noticed something else. Some of the large Chain Drug Stores, Rite
>>>Aid in this particular case, are starting to carry more dark chocolate
>>>items. ...
>>>
>>>Is this happening only in the New York City area or did others notice
>>>it in their stores?
....
>>
>> I think part of it is driven by the broad success of higher priced
>> brands such as Dove & Scharffenberger in groceries and partly by the
>> Atkins craze, as darker chocolates have less sugar & seem to be the
>> "sneak treat" of low-carbers.

It's been pointed out also that there is the antioxidant "discovery". But
really, I think this is semi-marketing after the fact. The wave of dark
chocolates hitting the market actually started to happen before Atkins, and
before the determination of the better antioxidant properties, and I
suspect the research was in part carried out and indeed possibly even
funded in order to justify scientifically a market for dark chocolate. It's
a not-very-well-kept secret of science that much if not most of it is
marketing in disguise, going something like this: Large Company A has a new
product or line that they want to sell. As it stands there's no
particularly good reason why people might buy it, or perhaps there are
particularly good reasons *not* to buy it (e.g. possible health impacts,
environmental problems, resource overuse, whatever). So what the company
does is fund a lot of studies at various institutions in order to, in the
first place, come up with a good reason why the product should be used, or
in the second case, to refute the negatives. Then when the scientific
studies come out, these results naturally get high press, often in part
because the companies themselves prime the media, people catch on to the
findings, and it doesn't take long before you've got a new trend, backed by
scientific evidence. Now, the science itself isn't flawed, nor are the
investigators themselves carrying out their research in anything other than
an impartial manner. But it must be understood that the *motivation* for
that research is strongly biassed and has predecided conclusions in mind.
(This is coming from the companies, not from the scientists). Thus it's
usually no coincidence that scientific study, not to mention popular
appeal, often seems to coincide with new availabilities. Sometimes it's the
discoveries that drive the production, but more often than not it's the
other way round. It is therefore important to take such findings with a
very strong grain of salt.

Anyway, a lot of the recent increase in dark chocolate availability in the
USA I think has to do with what was starting to happen about 10 years ago -
the beginning of more widespread distribution of quality chocolate in the
country. With this new exposure, people started to appreciate how good
chocolate could be, stopped treating it as a commodity, and bought more
quality chocolate, increasing the size of the market, which brought still
more companies in... and you have the beginning of a strong upward spiral.

>I'm not a low-carber, and I don't sneak for my treats, but I think
>'sneak treat' is a cute phrase. Over a certain percentage of chocolate
>makes me just as ill as the milk chocolate of about 58% to 64%.

High-percentage chocolate has more of the mood-altering chemicals
theobromine, phenyethanine, and caffeine. Like any strong stimulant these
lead to a quick high and a precipitous crash. In severe cases it will make
you dizzy, spacey, and paranoid. Unless you have a strong tolerance from
repeated high-percentage consumption, it's likely that in anything more
than relatively small amounts, the drugs will send you into orbit. It
doesn't help that most high-percentage chocolates are sold in 100g bars,
which, for the average person, is far too much. A new 50g size that's
becoming popular is more realistic. In any case, this is probably what's
making you sick.

--
Alex Rast

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

(Alex Rast) wrote in
:

It doesn't help that most high-percentage chocolates
> are sold in 100g bars, which, for the average person, is far too much.
> A new 50g size that's becoming popular is more realistic. In any case,
> this is probably what's making you sick.
>

I buy Lindt 70% Excellence or Lindt 85% Excellence chocolate from the
supermarket on occasion. It has never occurred to me that anyone would
buy that 100g block to eat all at once. I would eat a few squares, wrap
the rest and put it away. Eat a few more later that day if I was really
feeling like lots of chocolate, and not watching my energy intake <g>,
otherwise eat a few more squares the next day. My husband eats it as
well, so the bar might last 2 days. I would have thought that's how most
people would deal with it.

They also sell bags of individually wrapped squares, and you can get
either the 70% or 85% (not sure if it's both) in these. Lindt is quite a
popular brand of chocolate here. Each Christmas someone or other usually
gives me some Lindor balls and I really look forward to those - yum!

I've not yet been here - I rarely get into the city anymore - but might
have to plan a trip just to check it out.

http://www.bandt.com.au/news/7d/0c028f7d.asp

Rhonda Anderson
Cranebrook, NSW, Australia

"Alex Rast" > wrote in message
...
> About a month ago I got asked on Hershey's Extra Dark 60%. At that point I
> hadn't tried it so my response was only able to be conjectural at best. So
> now, the actual results.
>
> Hershey's Extra Dark 60% is really quite good, borderline excellent,
> indeed. Considering its manufacturer's past results, it's a spectacular
> success. They've managed to extract considerable fruity flavour - cherry
in
> the initial taste, not to mention blueberry in the aroma, and it's got a
> nice chocolatey main flavour to it. The only disappointment is a very flat
> finish, and without this negative the bar would *definitely* be excellent
> if not great. Texture, too, is on a par with high-end chocolatiers, very
> smooth and creamy. I note that they're also using natural vanilla and in
> general the ingredient label contains nothing commonly seen as suspect
> among the chocoscenti. "Extra Dark" is perhaps a misnomer (typically that
> would be more of an 85%-class bar) but we may pardon them for that label
in
> view of the chocolate's appeal. Good value considering it's $1.99 for a
> 100g bar, although I have to note that there are cheaper chocolates for
the
> same size, some of them with equivalent quality. All indications are that
> Hershey's is taking the quality chocolate market seriously.
>
> In a larger sense, indeed, the whole chocolate industry is moving upscale.
> Commodity brands like Hershey's and Lindt are producing excellent
chocolate
> and boutique brands are exploring new sources and showing off single
> varietals.
>
> I wonder how much of this is being driven by the political instabilities
> and infamous work conditions now so publicly exposed in the Ivory Coast,
> the traditional major cocoa source for large producers?

Likley more driven by that recent study that dark chocolate had health
benefits, and they are readying their products accordingly.


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

Alex Rast wrote:

> In a larger sense, indeed, the whole chocolate industry is moving upscale.
> Commodity brands like Hershey's and Lindt are producing excellent chocolate
> and boutique brands are exploring new sources and showing off single
> varietals.

Lindt at least has had some pretty good dark chocolate for some time,
unlike Hershey's.

I guess I'm a little spoiled because there are enough stores around here
that carry really good chocolate that I don't have to settle for any of
the waxy generic crap that Hershey's, Nestles, and Girardelli sell for
the most part.

"ferret" > wrote in message
...
> Alex Rast wrote:
>
>> In a larger sense, indeed, the whole chocolate industry is moving
>> upscale. Commodity brands like Hershey's and Lindt are producing
>> excellent chocolate
>> and boutique brands are exploring new sources and showing off single
>> varietals.
>
> Lindt at least has had some pretty good dark chocolate for some time,
> unlike Hershey's.
>
> I guess I'm a little spoiled because there are enough stores around here
> that carry really good chocolate that I don't have to settle for any of
> the waxy generic crap that Hershey's, Nestles, and Girardelli sell for the
> most part.

Chocolate by-the-pound by Ghiradelli is pretty good IMO for the price of
$3.49#; particularly the semi-sweet; not the milk chocolate. I think it is
good value. If I am wrong, I would prefer an expert's opinion as to where
and how I am wrong.
Dee Dee

at Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:56:32 GMT in >,
lid (ferret) wrote :

>Alex Rast wrote:
>
>> In a larger sense, indeed, the whole chocolate industry is moving
>> upscale. Commodity brands like Hershey's and Lindt are producing
>> excellent chocolate and boutique brands are exploring new sources and
>> showing off single varietals.
>
>Lindt at least has had some pretty good dark chocolate for some time,
>unlike Hershey's.

Well, for a while Lindt was merely average for the most part. I do agree
that Excellence 70% (which has been out now for several years) was pretty
good, although not exactly the best of the 70%'s, but it was with the
introduction of the Excellence 85% that they really started to get serious.
Hershey's 60% is better than Excellence 70% by some margin but not the
equal of the awe-inspiring 85%. Lindt also has brought out some new
varietal chocolates which look very interesting. It's that new angle to
Lindt that shows they're moving in a different direction.

>>I guess I'm a little spoiled because there are enough stores around here
>that carry really good chocolate that I don't have to settle for any of
>the waxy generic crap that Hershey's, Nestles, and Girardelli sell for
>the most part.

Ghirardelli has been excellent for many, many years - one of the better
chocolate manufacturers all round. Their bittersweet has consistently been
better than Hershey's, or Lindt - on a par with companies like Callebaut.
It's worth mentioning too that Nestle produces a superb bittersweet - Noir
Intense 74%, although it's hard to find.

I'll also say, however, that your description "waxy" suggests a texture
focus, so your idea of a good chocolate may depend a lot more on the
texture qualities than mine does. Not that Ghirardelli has ever had poor
texture, though - but it may be a factor. Ghirardelli is an interesting
company that many people seem inclined to be prejudicial against simply
because they're large and American. However, neither size nor nationality
has IME an absolute correlation with quality. In the limit, a large company
might not be able to produce as good a chocolate as a smaller company,
simply because the smaller company can use rarer ultra-quality beans that
the large company wouldn't be able to use simply because not enough is
produced to meet the supply they would need. However, beyond that limit,
it's very much all over the map.

Now, of course, Lindt owns Ghirardelli anyway, so wherever their quality
has been in the past we can probably expect (with Lindt's current focus),
if anything, still more improvement.


--
Alex Rast

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