I finally had the opportunity to try Amedei's Chuao chocolate a couple
months ago, and discovered what an amazing thing it is. I'd say it's
become my favorite chocolate. After reading (the PR releases which
claim) how little Chuao chocolate there is each year, I was amazed to
see that Amedei sells 1kg bars of their Chuao, and that they seem to be
marketing it for baking/chocolate making. I could see making a pure
Chuao truffle, but anything more complex than that would be detracting
from perfection.

Anyway, my amazement was only outweighed by my happiness in discovering
that a local retailer had one of these 1kg bars, and that he could sell
it to me for a good price. I've had it for a week now, and I think I'm
starting to understand how the Aztec kings felt, having enough Criollo
chocolate to be able to eat it without feeling a big dent in my
pocketbook with each bite.

On that thought, I was wondering if it would be possible to make a cup
of Criollo (or Chuao) hot chocolate. That seems like another way of
using chocolate of this quality without compromising it. I usually use
a hot chocolate recipe similar to Jeffrey Steingarten's from _It Must've
Been Something I Ate_, which he got from Pierre Herme. It makes a silky
hot cup of frothy chocolate which is rich enough to serve as a potent
dessert by itself. It calls for milk, water, sugar, chocolate, and
cocoa powder; presumably the chocolate adds flavor and cocoa butter
while the cocoa powder increases the punch. But if I were to use Amedei
for the chocolate, I'd want a cocoa powder which would complement, or at
least not get in the way of, the chocolate itself.

Are there any such cocoa powders on the market? Does it even make sense
to make a Criollo cocoa powder - would the processing disturb the flavor
of the flavor bean enough to make it not worth doing? Is there just no
market for such a thing? Or is there still a chance to make a cup of
hot chocolate worthy of a king?

Blake

--
The listed "From:" address is valid for one week past the message date.

Blake Jones wrote:

> On that thought, I was wondering if it would be possible to make
> a cup of Criollo (or Chuao) hot chocolate.

Are you sure it's Criollo and not Griollo?

Quoting from the wrapper for a Valrhona LE NOIR AMER
71% cacao bar:

"LE NOIR AMER by Valrhona: is made of refined blending
of selected cocoa beans, Trinitarios and Griollos origins,
enhancing their rich flavors . . .".

Is this a spelling error, an acceptable spelling variation, or
are Criollo and Griollo two different things?

In article >, Mark Thorson wrote:
> Are you sure it's Criollo and not Griollo?
>
> Quoting from the wrapper for a Valrhona LE NOIR AMER
> 71% cacao bar:
>
> "LE NOIR AMER by Valrhona: is made of refined blending
> of selected cocoa beans, Trinitarios and Griollos origins,
> enhancing their rich flavors . . .".
>
> Is this a spelling error, an acceptable spelling variation, or
> are Criollo and Griollo two different things?

Sounds like a misprint to me; I've never seen that used as an alternate
spelling. A wrapper from Le Noir Amer that I have lying around says
"Trinitarios and Criollos origins", and Google has more than a thousand
times as many hits on "criollo" as on "griollo" (177,000 vs. 113).

Maybe there's a market on eBay for rare misprinted Valrhona wrappers.

Blake

--
The listed "From:" address is valid for one week past the message date.

at Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:42:15 GMT in >,
(Blake Jones) wrote :

>I finally had the opportunity to try Amedei's Chuao chocolate a couple
>months ago, and discovered what an amazing thing it is.

Unbelievable stuff isn't it? Amedei really hit the chocolate bulls-eye with
this one. Bonnat's and Valrhona's Chuaos are but pale imitations.

> I'd say it's
>become my favorite chocolate. After reading (the PR releases which
>claim) how little Chuao chocolate there is each year, I was amazed to
>see that Amedei sells 1kg bars of their Chuao, and that they seem to be
>marketing it for baking/chocolate making. I could see making a pure
>Chuao truffle, but anything more complex than that would be detracting
>from perfection.

Actually, Chuao is a superb chocolate for baking because its power, very
rare for a Criollo chocolate which tend to be far more delicate, will
withstand considerable dilution without suffering from intensity loss. So
you can fearlessly use it in cakes, cookies, etc. and come out with an
intense result. I've bought a 1 kg bloc, and will probably buy another in
the near future as well. Much of it went straight from hand to mouth, of
course, but baking with it is a joy as well.

....

>On that thought, I was wondering if it would be possible to make a cup
>of Criollo (or Chuao) hot chocolate. That seems like another way of
>using chocolate of this quality without compromising it. I usually use
>a hot chocolate recipe similar to Jeffrey Steingarten's from _It Must've
>Been Something I Ate_, which he got from Pierre Herme. It makes a silky
>hot cup of frothy chocolate which is rich enough to serve as a potent
>dessert by itself. It calls for milk, water, sugar, chocolate, and
>cocoa powder; presumably the chocolate adds flavor and cocoa butter
>while the cocoa powder increases the punch.

The cocoa powder has another, critical function - it takes up the milk and
the water. Chocolate won't emulsify in water or milk (try it! - just not
with the Chuao!!) so you need first of all to increase the cocoa density.
However, cream *will* emulsify chocolate, so a better bet IMHO is to start
by making a firm chocolate ganache and then mix hot milk slowly into it.
This will be considerably richer than the normal hot chocolate, but truly
divine. If you want the ultimate, simply melt the chocolate itself and then
use a molinillo - a wooden whisk you can find in Mexican stores - to froth
it up.

> But if I were to use Amedei
>for the chocolate, I'd want a cocoa powder which would complement, or at
>least not get in the way of, the chocolate itself.

Chuao is sufficiently powerful that very few cocoas will actually get in
the way of it. It will overwhelm most cocoas completely, so that's less of
a problem than it might initially seem.

Having said that, since your quest is for the ultimate, there really can be
only one choice - Michel Cluizel's "Dark" cocoa - the best on the market.
The catch is that you'll have to buy a large amount - IIRC 5 kg at a time.
Still, I think with that level of cocoa, you'll have little difficulty
finding uses for it...

--
Alex Rast

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

In article >, Alex Rast wrote:
>> I finally had the opportunity to try Amedei's Chuao chocolate a
>> couple months ago, and discovered what an amazing thing it is.
>
> Unbelievable stuff isn't it? Amedei really hit the chocolate bulls-eye
> with this one. Bonnat's and Valrhona's Chuaos are but pale imitations.

To the point (at least with Valrhona's) where it's hard to believe that
they're made from the same beans. But that's a separate discussion...

>> I could see making a pure Chuao truffle, but anything more complex
>> than that would be detracting from perfection.
>
> Actually, Chuao is a superb chocolate for baking because its power,
> very rare for a Criollo chocolate which tend to be far more delicate,
> will withstand considerable dilution without suffering from intensity
> loss.

Good to know. So it sounds like a pure Chuao cake or brownie would work
too. But it still seems to me that deliberately adding other flavors to
it, in any form, would only cause the result to be worse.

> The cocoa powder has another, critical function - it takes up the milk
> and the water. Chocolate won't emulsify in water or milk [...]

Interesting, I don't think I've tried this. Why doesn't it emulsify?
Is the non-fat part of the cocoa powder hydrophilic?

> If you want the ultimate, simply melt the chocolate itself and then
> use a molinillo - a wooden whisk you can find in Mexican stores - to
> froth it up.

Personally I find that to be too thick. Steingarten/Herme's recipe is
very rich, but not so sticky that it coats the mouth. And I prefer a
immersion blender to a molinillo - it might not be as authentic, but it
gets the job done in a hurry and it's easier to clean. Plus it's
powerful enough that it can help convince the hot chocolate to emulsify,
whether it wants to or not.

>> But if I were to use Amedei for the chocolate, I'd want a cocoa
>> powder which would complement, or at least not get in the way of, the
>> chocolate itself.
>
> Chuao is sufficiently powerful that very few cocoas will actually get
> in the way of it. It will overwhelm most cocoas completely, so that's
> less of a problem than it might initially seem. Having said that,
> since your quest is for the ultimate, there really can be only one
> choice - Michel Cluizel's "Dark" cocoa - the best on the market.

Thanks for the recommendation. I have some from Patisfrance right now
which is pretty good, but I'll look into getting some Cluizel the next
time I need more.

If, as you say, the Chuao will overwhelm most cocoa powders, my question
about a Criollo cocoa powder is somewhat academic. But "for academia's
sake", do you know what type of beans Cluizel (or Valrhona, or others)
make their cocoa powder from? And, again just out of curiosity, are
there any part- or pure-Criollo cocoa powders on the market?

Blake

--
The listed "From:" address is valid for one week past the message date.

Blake Jones wrote:

> Sounds like a misprint to me; I've never seen that used as an alternate
> spelling. A wrapper from Le Noir Amer that I have lying around says
> "Trinitarios and Criollos origins", and Google has more than a thousand
> times as many hits on "criollo" as on "griollo" (177,000 vs. 113).

My wrapper is from the 3.5 oz size.

> Maybe there's a market on eBay for rare misprinted Valrhona wrappers.
>
> Blake

I wonder how an error like this could go unnoticed
long enough for it to reach me. They don't change
their label every day. It must have been this way for
years.

at Fri, 23 Apr 2004 00:06:25 GMT in >,
(Blake Jones) wrote :

>In article >, Alex Rast wrote:
>>> I finally had the opportunity to try Amedei's Chuao chocolate a
>>> couple months ago, and discovered what an amazing thing it is.
>>
>> Unbelievable stuff isn't it? Amedei really hit the chocolate bulls-eye
>> with this one. Bonnat's and Valrhona's Chuaos are but pale imitations.
>
>To the point (at least with Valrhona's) where it's hard to believe that
>they're made from the same beans. But that's a separate discussion...

It really does seem as though Valrhona's isn't the real deal. The Chuaos
from Bonnat, Amedei, and Pralus are sufficiently similar, and have
sufficient amount of the Chuao "signature" for me to believe they're
genuine. But Valrhona's is entirely different, so much so that I'm not
entirely confident they're giving us the whole truth with their "Chuao"
moniker.

....
>> Actually, Chuao is a superb chocolate for baking because its power,
>> very rare for a Criollo chocolate which tend to be far more delicate,
>> will withstand considerable dilution without suffering from intensity
>> loss.
>
>Good to know. So it sounds like a pure Chuao cake or brownie would work
>too.

Yes, it will work very, very well indeed. Brownies, especially, will be
dynamite.

> But it still seems to me that deliberately adding other flavors to
>it, in any form, would only cause the result to be worse.

Flavours that complement Chuao can actually enhance the overall effect.
Things with molasses, strawberries, and blueberries, especially, are good
partners. Stay away from most nuts, like walnuts or hazelnuts - these will
clash. Spices are also dangerous: things like cinnamon or cloves could make
the overall effect very harsh.

>> The cocoa powder has another, critical function - it takes up the milk
>> and the water. Chocolate won't emulsify in water or milk [...]
>
>Interesting, I don't think I've tried this. Why doesn't it emulsify?
>Is the non-fat part of the cocoa powder hydrophilic?

Not really - even low-fat cocoas take a fair amount of time to absorb
water, but at least they're not hydrophobic, like chocolate. Chocolate has
so much fat in it that water and milk just pool around, leaving the
chocolate in little bits, or worse, causing it to seize. Adding cocoa
reduces the proportion of water below the threshold where at least the
mixture can successfully integrate.

....
>
>If, as you say, the Chuao will overwhelm most cocoa powders, my question
>about a Criollo cocoa powder is somewhat academic. But "for academia's
>sake", do you know what type of beans Cluizel (or Valrhona, or others)
>make their cocoa powder from?

Not specifically, but Cluizel uses all high-quality beans, certainly with a
lot of Criollos. I wouldn't recommend Valrhona because it's Dutch-process.
Now, Chuao will utterly overpower *any* Dutch cocoa, so I suppose that
isn't really a big problem, but why use Dutch cocoa if you're looking for
the best?

> And, again just out of curiosity, are
>there any part- or pure-Criollo cocoa powders on the market?
>
Cluizel's is almost certainly at least part Criollo. Are there any pure
Criollos? Not particularly likely. There are only a very few Criollo bean
types in fairly wide-scale production: Porcelana, Chuao, Carenero Superior
and Ocumare being the major ones. I've listed them in order of purity of
genestock, first to last. Nobody makes pure Porcelana cocoa, and indeed it
would be a poor choice for cocoa - Porcelana is too mild for that
application. Amedei might be able to be convinced to make a small Chuao
cocoa output, but it would be minuscule. El Rey is the obvious source for
Carenero Superior. I've never seen them market a cocoa, but it might be an
idea they'd be willing to consider. Ocumare is actually a common
hybridising variety - there are several variants. Mostly the original stock
is cultivated in the Ocumare research station in Venezuela - hence the
name. Ocumare might also not be as suitable as Carenero or Chuao for cocoa,
but for different reasons than Porcelana - most of the hybrids taste a bit
earthy, which is magnified in cocoa, leading to a very one-dimensional
flavour. I'd give it a shot at running the idea past El Rey. Perhaps they
might want to give it a go.


--
Alex Rast

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

It could be just a difference in the transliteration of the word. That's
why the same Japanese (or whatever) word can be translated into different
English spellings, because it's an English approximation for the "foreign"
word. "Griollo" may simply be how some people hear it when "criollo" is
pronounced - especially the French (Valrhona is a French company) with the
unique sounds of their language...

"Mark Thorson" > wrote in message
...
> Blake Jones wrote:
>
> > Sounds like a misprint to me; I've never seen that used as an alternate
> > spelling. A wrapper from Le Noir Amer that I have lying around says
> > "Trinitarios and Criollos origins", and Google has more than a thousand
> > times as many hits on "criollo" as on "griollo" (177,000 vs. 113).
>
> I wonder how an error like this could go unnoticed
> long enough for it to reach me. They don't change
> their label every day. It must have been this way for
> years.

Did you mean to say all of the cocoa Valrhona uses to make its chocolate is
Dutch-processed? Or are you addressing some cocoa powder that Valrhona
sells?

If referring to their chocolate, this is amazing to me since I've not noted
it on any of their labels - and I equate Dutch-processed cocoa with all the
junk chocolate out there (i.e. Easter chocolate eggs...for that matter,
anything waxy).

"Alex Rast" > wrote in message
> I wouldn't recommend Valrhona because it's Dutch-process.
> Now, Chuao will utterly overpower *any* Dutch cocoa, so I suppose that
> isn't really a big problem, but why use Dutch cocoa if you're looking for
> the best?

at Sat, 24 Apr 2004 03:04:19 GMT in <TOkic.14540$IW1.882682@attbi_s52>,
(Bud Fuddlacker) wrote :

>Did you mean to say all of the cocoa Valrhona uses to make its chocolate
>is Dutch-processed? Or are you addressing some cocoa powder that
>Valrhona sells?

Only the cocoa powder.

>
>If referring to their chocolate, this is amazing to me since I've not
>noted it on any of their labels...

Indeed, their chocolate is not Dutch-processed in general. (It'd be hardly
likely, given the characteristic fruity signatu Dutch processing pretty
much flattens fruity flavours.)

Not all Dutch cocoa is junk, nor is all junk chocolate Dutch-processed,
however. Some Guittard chocolate is Dutch processed, and yet it's still
outstanding. Meanwhile, Hershey's isn't Dutch-processed, and yet it's not
outstanding.

Nor are all chocolate Easter eggs low-quality. Ironically, Valrhona makes
them. You can also get eggs made from quality Callebaut chocolate. And
Domori sells a rather larger Easter egg, too. I make it a point on Easter
to get the high-quality chocolate eggs - and the kids *really* notice. As
in now every year when I arrive up at my sister's for Easter, the kids
crowd around with a "Where's the chocolate?" chorus. All of them are
thrilled.

As to my comment "why use Dutch cocoa if you're looking for the best" -
that applies within the context of using Chuao for hot chocolate. That
being said, I think "the best" is one where, if you're also using cocoa, it
won't entirely vanish beneath the Chuao. Otherwise, you're almost as well
off using dust.

Similarly, if you're using cocoa in/with something highly acidic, Dutch is
the way to go, otherwise everything will taste harsh. The classic is
chocolate and lemons. Dutch is almost a must in that application.

--
Alex Rast

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

Thanks for the explanation - and the education about Dutch chocolate!
You're right, I have had good chocolate Easter eggs before, but the kind my
mother-in-law and wife buy always seem to be sorry excuses for chocolate.
Which pretty much describes the most commonly-available chocolates in the
USA...

"Alex Rast" > wrote in message
...
> Only the cocoa powder.
>
> Not all Dutch cocoa is junk, nor is all junk chocolate Dutch-processed,
> however. Some Guittard chocolate is Dutch processed, and yet it's still
> outstanding. Meanwhile, Hershey's isn't Dutch-processed, and yet it's not
> outstanding.
>
(snip)

at Sat, 24 Apr 2004 15:02:46 GMT in <qkvic.25742$GR.3322804@attbi_s01>,
(Bud Fuddlacker) wrote :

>Thanks for the explanation - and the education about Dutch chocolate!
>You're right, I have had good chocolate Easter eggs before, but the kind
>my mother-in-law and wife buy always seem to be sorry excuses for
>chocolate. Which pretty much describes the most commonly-available
>chocolates in the USA...

Well, Ghirardelli is certainly one of the most commonly-available, and IMHO
it's anything but a "sorry excuse for chocolate" - Ghirardelli is excellent
chocolate all round, especially remarkable when you consider how cheap it
is relative to other rivals which, if they're not any worse, aren't any
better either.

The solution on Easter eggs is to do what I do - commandeer the buying
process. If you buy the good stuff pre-emptively, people will soon catch on
that the good chocolate is coming from you, and let you buy all the eggs.
Problem solved.

--
Alex Rast

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

In article >, Alex Rast wrote:
> It really does seem as though Valrhona's isn't the real deal. The
> Chuaos from Bonnat, Amedei, and Pralus are sufficiently similar, and
> have sufficient amount of the Chuao "signature" for me to believe
> they're genuine. But Valrhona's is entirely different, so much so that
> I'm not entirely confident they're giving us the whole truth with
> their "Chuao" moniker.

I did a bit of reading about this, and it seems like there really is
something fishy going on. From what I've found, Amedei has the
exclusive rights to the beans from the Chuao plantation, and they have
plenty of reason not to want to share with Valrhona. Moreover, the
Chuao plantation has received an appellation of origin for their cacao,
though I'm not sure what methods they use to enforce it, or whether
they're actively doing so.

- http://www.amedei.it/en/gambero_rosso.htm
(from an article in Gambero Rosso, October 2001)

"The [Chuao Impresa Campesina] agricultural company agreed [in
November 2000] to deliver all the cocoa grown in Chuao to the Amedei
company for seven years, after which time, Amedei would still have
rights to first-refusal regarding the price."

"In the meantime, Valrhona depleted its stores of chocolate, producing
a chocolate bar made with pure Chuao cocoa which bears the following
writing on its label: for every bar sold, one Franc will be donated to
the impresa campesina in order to support the development and growth
of the cocoa. But once all the stores have been depleted, it is better
not to trust any Chuao that is not labelled Amedei."

- http://www.micheleshah.com/index.asp...scelta=&id=160
(from an article in La Cucina Italiana, US Edition, September 2002)

"It wasn't an easy task for [Amedei chocolatier Alessio] Tessieri to
win the trust of the campesinos of Chuao, cut out the middle man and
convince Venezuelan government officials to transfer the exclusive
rights of Chuao's state owned cocoa plantation to Amedei."

- http://www.foodgatherers.com/amedei1Valrohnanil.html
(from an article in R+R Magazine, April 2003(?))

"[T]he Amedei brand is the only brand that can legitimately claim to
have the Chuao bean as part of its portfolio."

"Eleven years ago, when Amedei was starting out, Tessieri went to Tain
L'Hermitage, to the head office of Valrhona, to try to buy chocolate
to coat the pralines he was then making. He was given an appointment,
tasted samples, met the export manager who explained the philosophy of
Valrhona chocolate, but when he asked to buy some he was told no -
Italy was not ready to accept chocolate of this quality."

- http://www.wipo.org/freepublications...2004_01-02.pdf
(from an article in WIPO Magazine, Jan-Feb 2004)

"In order to protect this considerable national asset, an application
for recognition of Chuao as an appellation of origin was filed in
Venezuela on August 10, 2000 by Codet Aragua, Empresa Campesina de
Chuao y MPC Aragua. The Declaration of Recognition was granted and
published in the Official Journal of Industrial Property in November
2000. The grant protects the name Chuao and restricts its use to
beans and cocoa products from that specifically defined geographical
area, recognizing the influence of climatic and human factors on the
quality of those products."

Of course, the super-high-end chocolate world is still pretty fringe,
and there isn't a whole lot of demand for investigative reporting. The
few articles on Amedei that I found kept repeating some of the same
lines (they paid triple the market rate for Chuao beans, only three tons
out of each 16,000 tons of Venezuelan cacao are Porcelana, Valrhona's
snub of Tessieri in the early 90's), which made me wonder if Amedei had
a good PR person helping them write them. On the other hand, Valrhona
could just be relying on their brand to keep the sales rolling, while
switching to a lesser blend of beans (or relying on an aging stock).

I suspect it'll be hard to get the straight story without someone from
Valrhona volunteering information, and that seems unlikely in any case.

Blake

--
The listed "From:" address is valid for one week past the message date.

at Mon, 26 Apr 2004 22:25:55 GMT in >,
(Blake Jones) wrote :

>In article >, Alex Rast wrote:
>> It really does seem as though Valrhona's isn't the real deal. The
>> Chuaos from Bonnat, Amedei, and Pralus are sufficiently similar, and
>> have sufficient amount of the Chuao "signature" for me to believe
>> they're genuine. But Valrhona's is entirely different, so much so that
>> I'm not entirely confident they're giving us the whole truth with
>> their "Chuao" moniker.
>
>I did a bit of reading about this, and it seems like there really is
>something fishy going on. From what I've found, Amedei has the
>exclusive rights to the beans from the Chuao plantation, and they have
>plenty of reason not to want to share with Valrhona...

It's really hard to know who to believe, because all the reports are
garbled and come from sources with vested interests. It's clear as you say
that something fishy is going on but who isn't telling the whole truth is
very difficult to figure out. Don't forget that there's nothing to stop a
company with an exclusive source from reselling what they buy to third
parties. If Amedei does indeed have an exclusive contract, they could in
theory resell the cocoa they didn't use to any company they chose. For
instance, Pralus and Bonnat might be buying from them. It seems unlikely
that Valrhona would be able to buy any after snubbing Amedei, but business
is business, and perhaps for the right price, anything can be had. Then
again, Italians are Italians... (couldn't resist).

It's all immaterial, though, because ultimately what counts is the quality
of the chocolate. And in that respect, Amedei (at least IMHO) is the clear
winner. So as far as I'm concerned, it would be just as well if Amedei did
have an exclusive arrangement, and I'll continue to buy Amedei, and not
Valrhona, not because I have any misgivings over the labelling, but because
the chocolate is better.


--
Alex Rast

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

"Alex Rast" > wrote in message
...

....

> It's all immaterial, though, because ultimately what counts is the quality
> of the chocolate. And in that respect, Amedei (at least IMHO) is the clear
> winner. So as far as I'm concerned, it would be just as well if Amedei did
> have an exclusive arrangement, and I'll continue to buy Amedei, and not
> Valrhona, not because I have any misgivings over the labelling, but
because
> the chocolate is better.

I'm going to jump in here even though I have absolutely no right to, since
I've been so unforgivingly lax about exploiting a major resource I have
right around the corner. But I'll throw myself at the mercy of whoever wants
to write a few words:

I live in Pisa, which is just a few miles/kilometers away from Amedei in
Pontedera. I was in a bar in Pisa (Salza) and picked up a bar of Chuao a
couple of weeks ago, tasted it, thought it was really interesting, and was
on the verge of writing to the newsgroup and asking what people might know
and think about it. Then this thread came along, which made it clear that
we're talking world-class here and I'm completely out of it. I've been
wanting to go visit Amedei for a while, but I realize now that I've got to
be better prepared than this. Anybody want to say a few words about their
various lines and what I should look out for when I go there?

Thanks,

John

at Tue, 27 Apr 2004 12:16:24 GMT in
>, (JMF) wrote :

>"Alex Rast" > wrote in message
.. .
>
>...
>
>> It's all immaterial, though, because ultimately what counts is the
>> quality of the chocolate. And in that respect, Amedei (at least IMHO)
>> is the clear winner. So as far as I'm concerned, it would be just as
>> well if Amedei did have an exclusive arrangement, and I'll continue to
>> buy Amedei, and not Valrhona, not because I have any misgivings over
>> the labelling, but
>because
>> the chocolate is better.
>
....
>
>I live in Pisa...I've been wanting to go visit Amedei for a while, but I
>realize now
>that I've got to be better prepared than this. Anybody want to say a few
>words about their various lines and what I should look out for when I go
>there?
>

There are both chocolates (i.e. confections made *with* chocolate) and
chocolate (i.e. pure chocolate bars). The chocolates are excellent,
although of course they don't deliver the pure chocolate experience. But do
try them. Definitely try the chocolates made with Chuao. Resist
assortments. Instead, custom-pick from flavours you like. And there's
nothing wrong with asking for a recommendation. Some people will let you
sample, and if you can get a sample, it's the best way to find out. But if
they *do* offer a sample, you should buy something from them, and not just
a token amount. It's a matter of ethics and being fair. Since they're
sticking their neck out by letting you try stuff, you owe it to them to
return the favour and actually buy stuff.

As for the chocolate, the varietals are considerably better than the
blends. The blends are OK (the 66% is pretty good) but there are better
companies for blended chocolate. The milk chocolate is worthless - don't
bother with it at all. But the varietals are superb, pretty much across the
board. Of course start with Chuao and buy as much as you can afford. The
Cru collection is really good too - I particularly liked the Madagascar and
the Trinidad. It's unfortunate they don't sell these in 50g bars like the
Porcelana or Chuao. Encourage them to do so when you stop by. If enough
people make this suggestion, perhaps they'll take it up.

Now, the Porcelana isn't IMHO as good as the Chuao, nor is it as good as
its rival Porcelana from Domori, but it's still worth trying. What I would
do is buy a Porcelana bar, and buy one from Domori. Then, get some polenta
meal and make a very, very watery, absolutely plain polenta - this means
just the corn and water. It should flow - like the consistency of gruel.
You don't need much, just a mugful. Then try the Amedei and Domori
Porcelanas side-by-side. What you do is taste one bar, drink some of the
warm polenta, then taste the other bar. It's best to eat the entire 50g
before proceeding to the second bar because there are flavour nuances you
won't catch unless you eat a relatively large amount. Incidentally, I must
add that Amedei has determined the *perfect* size and shape for a tasting
bar - i.e. the 50g bars, rather long, narrow, and thick, but not chunky.
Their packaging is also about as ideal as you can get - foiled paper inside
a box. If you add to that the fact that in the Chuao especially, you've got
perhaps the best chocolate in the world sitting inside, you have in one
instance the embodiment of the perfect chocolate distribution.


--
Alex Rast

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alex Rast" >
Newsgroups: rec.food.chocolate
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 9:02 PM

> >I live in Pisa...I've been wanting to go visit Amedei for a while, but I
> >realize now
> >that I've got to be better prepared than this. Anybody want to say a few
> >words about their various lines and what I should look out for when I go
> >there?
> >
>
> There are both chocolates (i.e. confections made *with* chocolate) and
> chocolate (i.e. pure chocolate bars). The chocolates are excellent,
> although of course they don't deliver the pure chocolate experience. But
do
> try them. Definitely try the chocolates made with Chuao. Resist
> assortments. Instead, custom-pick from flavours you like. And there's
> nothing wrong with asking for a recommendation. Some people will let you
> sample, and if you can get a sample, it's the best way to find out. But if
> they *do* offer a sample, you should buy something from them, and not just
> a token amount. It's a matter of ethics and being fair. Since they're
> sticking their neck out by letting you try stuff, you owe it to them to
> return the favour and actually buy stuff.

I'll gladly try the chocolates - and gladly buy a significant amount. I'll
keep a lookout for the Chuao-based chocolates.

> As for the chocolate, the varietals are considerably better than the
> blends. The blends are OK (the 66% is pretty good) but there are better
> companies for blended chocolate. The milk chocolate is worthless - don't
> bother with it at all. But the varietals are superb, pretty much across
the
> board. Of course start with Chuao and buy as much as you can afford.

I'm trying to remember what the Chuao bar I bought in Pisa in the cafe'
cost. I think it was 4 Euros.

> The Cru collection is really good too - I particularly liked the
Madagascar and
> the Trinidad. It's unfortunate they don't sell these in 50g bars like the
> Porcelana or Chuao. Encourage them to do so when you stop by. If enough
> people make this suggestion, perhaps they'll take it up.

I'll make that suggestion to them.

> Now, the Porcelana isn't IMHO as good as the Chuao, nor is it as good as
> its rival Porcelana from Domori, but it's still worth trying. What I would
> do is buy a Porcelana bar, and buy one from Domori. Then, get some polenta
> meal and make a very, very watery, absolutely plain polenta - this means
> just the corn and water. It should flow - like the consistency of gruel.
> You don't need much, just a mugful. Then try the Amedei and Domori
> Porcelanas side-by-side. What you do is taste one bar, drink some of the
> warm polenta, then taste the other bar.

That's amazing! I have never, ever heard of the "polenta" technique for
chocolate tasting comparisons. Well, I'll give it a try - it certainly isn't
difficult to get ahold of the polenta here.

> It's best to eat the entire 50g
> before proceeding to the second bar because there are flavour nuances you
> won't catch unless you eat a relatively large amount.

That is another thing that I didn't know at all: that there could be nuances
you'd only get through a *larger* amount. I would have thought that anything
more than a small amount would start to bury the nuances. Glad to hear it,
though.

> Incidentally, I must
> add that Amedei has determined the *perfect* size and shape for a tasting
> bar - i.e. the 50g bars, rather long, narrow, and thick, but not chunky.

Yet another thing I hadn't thought about - 50 g. bars as the ideal size. I
do remember noticing the unusual dimensions in the bar - and yes, in fact it
did make a convenient size and amount for tasting, now that I think about
it.

> Their packaging is also about as ideal as you can get - foiled paper
inside a box.

I remember that striking me, too.

> If you add to that the fact that in the Chuao especially, you've got
> perhaps the best chocolate in the world sitting inside, you have in one
> instance the embodiment of the perfect chocolate distribution.

Great information, as always. Thanks for taking the time - I'm printing this
right out and taking it with me on my visit there. I would have gone before,
but discovered they're not open on weekends. A rather interesting difference
between Italy and the United States.

John

at Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:18:18 GMT in
>, (JMF) wrote :

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Alex Rast" >
>Newsgroups: rec.food.chocolate
>Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 9:02 PM
>
>> >I live in Pisa...I've been wanting to go visit Amedei for a while,
>> >but I realize now
>> >that I've got to be better prepared than this. Anybody want to say a
>> >few words about their various lines and what I should look out for
>> >when I go there?
....
>
>> As for the chocolate,... Of course start with Chuao and buy as much as
you can afford.
>
>I'm trying to remember what the Chuao bar I bought in Pisa in the cafe'
>cost. I think it was 4 Euros.

That sounds about right. In the US, the bars cost around $8.00. When you
factor in the import costs, 4 Euros is where I'd expect it to be.

>> Now, the Porcelana isn't IMHO as good as the Chuao, nor is it as good
>> as its rival Porcelana from Domori, but it's still worth trying. What
>> I would do is buy a Porcelana bar, and buy one from Domori. Then, get
>> some polenta meal and make a very, very watery, absolutely plain
>> polenta - this means just the corn and water. It should flow - like
>> the consistency of gruel. You don't need much, just a mugful. Then try
>> the Amedei and Domori Porcelanas side-by-side. What you do is taste
>> one bar, drink some of the warm polenta, then taste the other bar.
>
>That's amazing! I have never, ever heard of the "polenta" technique for
>chocolate tasting comparisons. Well, I'll give it a try - it certainly
>isn't difficult to get ahold of the polenta here.

This is the old Mexican method. It's common in Mexico (and it was ever
since the days of the Aztecs, to serve chocolate with "atole" - which is
exactly what I've just described, namely, warm, gruel-like coarse cornmeal.
There simply is no more effective way completely to wipe out the taste of
one chocolate from your mouth, so that you can taste the next one totally
unencumbered by lingering flavours from the last one you tried. As usual,
the natives had it figured out long ago - they had years to experiment and
no doubt found out what worked over the centuries.

>>> It's best to eat the entire 50g
>> before proceeding to the second bar because there are flavour nuances
>> you won't catch unless you eat a relatively large amount.
>
>That is another thing that I didn't know at all: that there could be
>nuances you'd only get through a *larger* amount. I would have thought
>that anything more than a small amount would start to bury the nuances.
>Glad to hear it, though.

This is why I always consider sample tasting squares to be silly. You
achieve nothing - you can't get enough of the one chocolate to make a fair
assessment. Part of the reason is that you need a certain size to ensure
that your mouth is completely coated in the chocolate, thus that both the
tastebuds and nasal passages get the full impact. The other part is that
chocolate starts to dissolve fairly quickly, and without enough, the
aftertastes don't show up because there's never enough chocolate in the
mouth to notice them. Since the flavours develop slowly, you need a large
amount in the mouth for a relatively long time in order to sense them all.

>> Incidentally, I must
>> add that Amedei has determined the *perfect* size and shape for a
>> tasting bar - i.e. the 50g bars, rather long, narrow, and thick, but
>> not chunky.
>
>Yet another thing I hadn't thought about - 50 g. bars as the ideal size.
>I do remember noticing the unusual dimensions in the bar - and yes, in
>fact it did make a convenient size and amount for tasting, now that I
>think about it.

It would seem as though a lot of manufacturers have caught on - a lot of
bars are now coming out in 50g sizes. However, Amedei is the only one who
has also figured out the correct dimensional proportions. You see a lot of
bars coming out in flattish squares (too wide, awkward to bite into), very
long, thin wands (hard to get enough into the mouth at once, or too thick),
and blocky cubes (too rigid to bite). I give Amedei a lot of credit for
their persistence in finding the perfect mould.

--
Alex Rast

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

In article >, JMF wrote:
> I've been wanting to go visit Amedei for a while, but I realize now
> that I've got to be better prepared than this. Anybody want to say a
> few words about their various lines and what I should look out for
> when I go there?

You could ask them if they're selling Chuao beans to Valrhona

Aside from that, Alex has almost certainly tried more of their bars than
I, so I don't have any additional suggestions. I did find this overview
when reading up on Amedei Chuao recently, though:

http://www.chocolatetradingco.com/special.asp?ID=9

It includes tasting notes from several of Amedei's chocolates.

Blake

--
The listed "From:" address is valid for one week past the message date.

"Blake Jones" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, JMF wrote:
> > I've been wanting to go visit Amedei for a while, but I realize now
> > that I've got to be better prepared than this. Anybody want to say a
> > few words about their various lines and what I should look out for
> > when I go there?
>
> You could ask them if they're selling Chuao beans to Valrhona

I think I'll do that as I'm *leaving* the store ;-)

> Aside from that, Alex has almost certainly tried more of their bars than
> I, so I don't have any additional suggestions. I did find this overview
> when reading up on Amedei Chuao recently, though:
>
> http://www.chocolatetradingco.com/special.asp?ID=9
>
> It includes tasting notes from several of Amedei's chocolates.

Thanks - not only were the tasting notes interesting, but it was also
interesting to find out about the site, which looks pretty interesting all
on its own.

John

Alex Rast wrote:

> This is the old Mexican method. It's common in Mexico (and it was ever
> since the days of the Aztecs, to serve chocolate with "atole" - which is
> exactly what I've just described, namely, warm, gruel-like coarse cornmeal.
> There simply is no more effective way completely to wipe out the taste of
> one chocolate from your mouth, so that you can taste the next one totally
> unencumbered by lingering flavours from the last one you tried. As usual,
> the natives had it figured out long ago - they had years to experiment and
> no doubt found out what worked over the centuries.

That seems unlikely to me. To clear the chocolate from your
teeth, don't you need to chew on something firm, like nuts?
I like cashews, as a bland nut, between chocolates. It also
seems to enhance the last few moments of a chocolate,
by mobilizing the last deposits of the chocolate from my
teeth. My standard procedure is to start chewing on the
pure chocolate, then as it's about to end, to take in a few
nuts -- cashews, almonds, or deskinned hazelnuts. I use
almonds with the harsher chocolates.

If I'm very serious about having a clean palate, I'll prepare
by brushing my teeth with baking soda, rinsing, then taking
a shot of Crown Royal Special Reserve.

at Thu, 29 Apr 2004 02:50:42 GMT in >,
(Mark Thorson) wrote :

>Alex Rast wrote:
>
>> This is the old Mexican method. It's common in Mexico (and it was ever
>> since the days of the Aztecs, to serve chocolate with "atole" - which
>> is exactly what I've just described, namely, warm, gruel-like coarse
>> cornmeal. There simply is no more effective way completely to wipe out
>> the taste of one chocolate from your mouth, so that you can taste the
>> next one totally unencumbered by lingering flavours from the last one
>> you tried. As usual, the natives had it figured out long ago - they
>> had years to experiment and no doubt found out what worked over the
>> centuries.
>
>That seems unlikely to me. To clear the chocolate from your
>teeth, don't you need to chew on something firm, like nuts?

Not at all. What you need is something warm (to melt the chocolate really
thoroughly and incorporate it) and oil-absorbing. Atole is essentially
perfect for those requirements. And the particular, bland flavour of corn
happens to neutralise the flavour of cocoa very effectively. Chewing on
something firm achieves a scraping action, not a wiping action. So it's a
bit like trying to clean out an oily bowl using unsoaped steel wool rather
than plenty of warm water and soap.

In addition, nuts have flavour components that some chocolates have. So
they may lead either to false impressions about the tastes of later
chocolates, or mask flavours that otherwise would have been noticed.
>
>If I'm very serious about having a clean palate, I'll prepare
>by brushing my teeth with baking soda, rinsing, then taking
>a shot of Crown Royal Special Reserve.

Alcohol is another thing that interferes with tasting chocolate. So I don't
think that would work either.

--
Alex Rast

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

First of all it is Criollo and not Griollo. And it is not an Origin but rather the type of cacao bean that it is. There are three types Forestero(Little flavor but the hardiest therefore less expensive), Criollo(most flavorfull and the hardest to grow. It is prone to disease and therefore is the most expensive) and Trinitario(A hybrid of both Forestero and Criollo. More flavorfull than Forestero but not as much as Criollo and more hardy than Criollo but not as much as Forestero.)
The answer is yes there are cocoa powders made from Criollo you just have to find them and pay the big $$ for them.

at Sun, 06 Nov 2005 09:10:20 GMT in >,
(djvigil) wrote :

>
>Mark Thorson Wrote:
>> Blake Jones wrote:
>>
>> On that thought, I was wondering if it would be possible to make
>> a cup of Criollo (or Chuao) hot chocolate.
>>
>First of all it is Criollo and not Griollo. And it is not an Origin but
>rather the type of cacao bean that it is. There are three types
>Forestero(Little flavor but the hardiest therefore less expensive),
>Criollo(most flavorfull and the hardest to grow. It is prone to
>disease and therefore is the most expensive) and Trinitario(A hybrid of
>both Forestero and Criollo. More flavorfull than Forestero but not as
>much as Criollo and more hardy than Criollo but not as much as
>Forestero.)

To some extent, however, this is an oversimplification. Much depends on the
specific varietal, where it was grown, and how it was processed.

For instance, Domori's Ocumare 61, Ocumare 67, and Porcelana (all Criollos)
are very different from each other. And an Ecuador Arriba (Forastero) is
very different from a Ghana Forastero.

Now, very, very broadly, Forasteros tend to be the most bitter. Their
flavours lean towards the earthy and woody. Some have very strong flavours,
others rather weak ones.

Trinitarios usually have a fair amount of bitterness and a lot of
complexity. Their flavours can be spicy and nutty, as well as quite
frequencly having a dark molasses flavour.

Criollos are usually not bitter, and lean towards fruity flavours,
especially mild berries like strawberry and blueberry, in their palette.

There are big exceptions. Ocumare 67 is quite earthy and with a distinct
bitter hit. Arriba has characteristics of blackberry and woods in it.

There are also grey areas. Carenero Superior might be considered either
Criollo or Trinitario. It's more typically Criollo in flavour, and has a
very high proportion of Criollo genetics. It might not be a purebreed, but
then again most "Criollos" aren't purebreeds - the notable exception being
Porcelana. Chuao is generally considered Criollo but it's not a particular
varietal in an exact sense, but rather is any cacao from the village of
Chuao, some of the production of which is actually Forastero.

>The answer is yes there are cocoa powders made from Criollo you just
>have to find them and pay the big $$ for them.

The issue here is that virtually no cocoa powers are specifically labelled
as to varietal. Domori says they're Trinitario without giving more
description. It's a good bet that Cluizel isn't cheap bulk-grade beans but
there's no indication as to source. Valrhona Dutches theirs, which tends to
remove especially a lot of the fine characteristics of a typical Criollo,
so one is inclined to suspect a lower-grade bean, but then again, Ocumare
67 beans would be very amenable to Dutching.

As for Chuao cocoa, AFAIK, Amedei isn't making that yet (I think it would
be a good idea - Chuao would be a very suitable bean indeed for this use).
However, you could easily make hot chocolate with a chocolate bar,
basically using a ganache technique. Grate or chop up some chocolate very
finely. Heat, let's say, 1 cup half and half to just barely simmering. Pour
over about 4 oz. chocolate. Stir gently.

--
Alex Rast

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