|
| Candy Bar Review
HERSHEY MILK CHOCOLATE WITH CRISP CORN BITS
My first reaction when I saw this new candy bar was something along the lines of, "That's a little strange." With my initial glance, I thought it said "Milk Chocolate With Crisp Bits," which looked more than a little awkward to me. In fact, I first thought it was a rather strange renaming of Hershey's Krackel bar. It was only with a second, more careful look that I noticed the word "corn" in much smaller letters. The name is still a little awkward, but now it makes a little more sense.
Okay, Hershey definitely could have thought of a better name for this candy bar. On the other hand, I don't have to spend a lot of time describing the bar to you. It's precisely what the name on the wrapper says it is -- Hershey's milk chocolate, which has had crisp bits of corn added to it.
That being said, I'm not completely sure what those crisp corn bits are. I wouldn't call them popcorn; the bits have a crunchier, grittier texture than popcorn would have. And they definitely aren't whole kernel, because most kernels of corn are larger than the thickness of the standard Hershey chocolate bar. My best guess is that the corn is toasted and ground before it is added to the chocolate, and I honestly have no idea which of those steps come first.
As I suggested just a moment ago, the corn bits add a certain crunch to the bar. The corn also adds a certain flavor undertone. It isn't a malty flavor, like the rice in the Krackel bar adds. It also isn't a popcorn flavor, either. It is something that is recognizable as a corn flavor, but other than that, it remains vague, elusive, difficult to pin down.
I first saw this bar around the middle of May. At that time, it was available only in the giant size bars. I think it was about another couple of months before the regular size bars began arriving on the shelves of the stores. At the moment, it looks as though it will be a regular part of the Hershey product line, but of course that will depend on how well it is received by the public.
-jc- | | |
| STATUS: Currently transferring entries from 2007.
[Step by step, one by one, higher and higher . . . ]
Hello, and welcome to A Chocoholic UnAnonymous.
My name is Johnny Carruthers, and I am the aforementioned chocoholic.
I have been writing reviews of candy bars and other confectionary goodies for quite a few years. I was already writing articles for a couple of science fiction fanzines (that's where the "scifi" part of my username comes in), when, in a fit of whimsy, I decided to write a review of a candy bar. My editors liked the idea, and they printed it, so I wrote more.
A couple of years ago, though, I had this epiphany. I realized that I had more reviews that I wanted to write than could ever be used in print, even if my editors ran an issue of nothing but my reviews. And I knew that was more than a little unlikely.
Since I didn't have the inclination to publish my own fanzine (for one thing, I didn't think I could do a decent fanzine on a regular basis), I turned to the Internet. The first version of A Chocoholic UnAnonymous was launched on LiveJournal in July 2006. It's still there, by the way. This version isn't a replacement; it's an expansion. An attempt to gain a wider audience, as it were.
Not too long ago, my friend Janus (aka "janusfiles") mentioned that Xanga had finally added a feature where you could adjust the dates of your entries. And after reading (with some amusement) of how he created a mirror site on LiveJournal for his Xanga site, I decided to do the same, only reversing the direction of migration. I seem to have picked up at least a few readers, due in no small part to Janus's telling all of his friends and subscribers about me. For those of you who discovered me this way, I thank you.
And if you discovered me through some other means, I thank you as well.
Somewhere along the line, one of my subscribers here asked why updates weren't appearing in her subscription digest. To the best of my knowledge, it was because I was backdating entries as I posted them. I decided that I needed to change the way I posted things just a bit.
So now, any new entry will have the current date for at least the first 24 hours. After that, the time/date stamp will be changed to match its original posting date. (And the quicker I receive comments on a new entry, the sooner another entry gets posted. Hint, hint.)
This entry will be updated from time to time, and will be deleted once I have copied all of the older entries. And I plan on taking my time copying the entries. From what I saw, Janus was trying to copy everything as quickly as he possibly could. I plan on treating this as a marathon; something that requires patience and endurance. Much easier on the sanity that way.
Once again, welcome, and I hope you enjoy. And if you do enjoy, please leave comments. Lots and lots of comments, thank you very much. It's probably the easiest way I can really tell if someone is reading what I am writing.
Oh, and if you're really curious as to what I might currently reviewing, the original version of A Chocoholic UnAnonymous can be found by clicking on the link below:
http://chocolatescifi.livejournal.com
I've actually adapted this entry for the Bio on my LJ profile page. As I said, this particular entry will eventually go away once I have finally copied all of the entries from the LJ site here. I thought it was worth keeping the basic information around somewhere. Eventually, the plan is to post new entries to both sites simultaneously. Eventually.
-jc- | | |
| Candy Review
BRACH'S MILK MAID CARAMEL CANDY CORN
BRACH'S MILK MAID CARAMEL APPLE CANDY CORN
I remember a Halloween episode of Charmed where two of the Charmed Ones (Piper and Phoebe, if I'm remembering correctly) were discussing the choice of candy that was purchased for the trick-or-treaters. Piper was asking Phoebe why she had bought so much candy corn, to which Phoebe replied that it was all that was left in the store. Piper’s response was, "Yeah, that's because no one likes it!"
Well, I think Piper was wrong on this occasion. Somebody must like (and buy) candy corn, or Brach's would have stopped making it a long time ago. (So would any other candy company that makes it, for that matter.) And this year, Brach's has produced two variations on what they call a seasonal favorite -- Caramel Candy Corn and Caramel Apple Candy Corn.
Both varieties combine the flavor of candy corn with that of Brachs Milk Maid Caramels. And while I know I'm stating the obvious, one has the added flavor of apple. Both bags state that the candies are made with real milk (perhaps reflecting the statement on Brach's original candy corn, which states that it is made with real honey, and the Milk Maid Caramels, which are made with real milk).
You know, I've just realized that I have never tried to describe the texture of candy corn before. I've never needed to do so until now, and now that it is needed, I'm not certain how I would describe it. In any event, both of these candies have the same texture as the original flavor of candy corn. I rather expected that; trying to give it a more caramel-like texture would probably mean that it wouldn't hold its shape as well. And speaking of shape, the individual candy pieces have the same flattened-cone shape you would expect from candy corn. And they are tri-colored, just the same as other candy corn.
The Caramel Candy Corn is white at the tip, orange in the middle, and light brown at the base. (There might be a slight hint of brown in the orange, and the brown is the shade of caramel.) It has a deep, rich caramel flavor, and only the texture is a giveaway that you aren't eating one of Brach's Milk Maid caramels.
The Caramel Apple Candy Corn is colored white, candy-apple red, and the same caramel shade of brown. The caramel flavor is still there, but more subdued. The apple flavor is the more dominant one, which is along the lines of what you would taste if you were eating a real caramel apple.
Both of these candies are a surprising change. I've eaten candy corn for as long as I can remember, and in spite of what Piper Halliwell might think, I do like it. If I were bringing candy corn to a club meeting or a party, I would probably take a bag of all three varieties, and mix them together in a large bowl.
As the bags themselves state, candy corn is a seasonal product. Oh, I'm sure that I will be seeing both of these new candy corn products on the shelves through the fall, alongside the original candy corn. The question then becomes whether either or both will prove popular enough that we will see a return engagement in the fall of 2008.
And I must admit, tasting these have started me speculating on other tangents. How about a chocolate flavored candy corn? Or perhaps a chocolate caramel candy corn . . . ?
-jc- | | |
| Book Review
GHIRARDELLI CHOCOLATE COOKBOOK, THIRD EDITION
by Phyllis Larsen
(Ghirardelli Chocolate Company, 1986)
I discovered this little gem in, of all places, a liquor store. Liquor Outlet (now called Liquor Barn) is more than just a liquor store, though. The store's merchandise includes decorations and other party supplies. And this one time, years ago, I saw this particular book.. I have never been able to determine why it would be in a liquor store, but after looking through it, I decided to purchase it.
Since this book was published by Ghirardelli, you might assume that it is just as much a promotional piece for the company as it is a cookbook. And you would be right! All of the recipes in the book were developed by a Ghirardelli home economist, and all of the recipes use at least one of Ghirardelli's products. The book's illustrations are reproductions of old Ghirardelli ads. (Well, there may be a photo or two of some of the recipes, but those are few and far between.)
Most of the recipes are what you would expect from a chocolate cookbook -- chocolate beverages, candy, cookies, pies, and cakes. But there are a couple of sections that get a little more adventurous with chocolate. In the introduction, the author and/or editor state that Ghirardelli had received requests for a greater variety of recipes using chocolate, and you can prepare an entire meal from soup to dessert using this cookbook.
I will have to admit that the recipes for the entrees initially made me do a double-take. I had never really thought of preparing a ham or a leg of lamb using chocolate. On the other hand, I have used cocoa on occasion when making chili (as a spice), so I probably shouldn't have been too surprised.
Many of the recipes in the book reflect Ghirardelli's San Francisco home base. There are at least two recipes with "Golden Gate" in the name, and there are other subtle (and not so subtle) references to San Francisco in the recipes. To name just a few, we have Earthquake Coffee Cake, Emperor Norton Leg Of Lamb, Sutter's Gold Chocolate Chip Cookies, Forty-Niner Chocolate Roll, and Haight-Ashbury Granola Cookies. Then there was the recipe for Mississippi Mud Pie. Along with the recipe, there was the notation, "In the West, we say Sacramento River Mud Pie . . . " Even though they printed the notation straight, you can almost hear the author italicizing the word "we."
It has been several years since I bought this, and I have no idea if Ghirardelli Chocolate Cookbook is still in print. This one is the Third Edition, so for all I know, Ghirardelli may have a Fourth Edition by now. The cookbook might now exist only on Ghirardelli's website. I hope not. It might be more convenient, but there is something fun about flipping through a cookbook. There is always the chance that you will stumble across a recipe that you might not discover if you're looking for recipes on the Internet.
-jc- | | |
| Candy Review
NESTLE TURTLES
A few months ago, I reviewed two Turtles -- Nestle White Fudge Turtles and Nestle Dark Chocolate Turtles, to be precise. After looking around, I realized that I hade never reviewed the original Turtles candy. As Shannon Foraker once said, "Oops." Obviously, this review is supposed to rectify that situation.
Okay, I promise no jokes about the "®" symbol this time. I think I pretty much milked it in the first two reviews. (Which is rather strange, since this is the time that I'm reviewing the version that has milk chocolate.)
The core of all of the Turtles is the same. All three varieties are built around a blob of caramel which has been imbedded with pecans and cashews. In the original version, the caramel and nut blob is then covered in milk chocolate.
As I noticed in my review of the Dark Chocolate Turtles, they were smaller than the White Fudge Turtles that came out around Valentine's Day. At the time, I guessed it was because the White Fudge Turtles were being sold as single pieces, while the Dark Chocolate Turtles were being sold in a box. The original Turtles are about the same size as their dark chocolate counterparts, and that seems to support my theory. Which is a little disappointing, because I want something that is more than just a bite or two.
I think this time I picked up some Turtles that didn't have the nuts chopped as finely as some other batches have had. I really couldn't differentiate the texture differences between the pecans and the cashews, but this batch seemed to have more crunch to it.
The milk chocolate is the first thing that your tongue encounters as you bite into a Turtle. But unlike the dark chocolate version, the milk chocolate flavor doesn't completely dominate your tastebuds. Gradually, almost grudgingly, the vanilla flavor of the caramel begins sliding around your tongue, and is generally the last thing to leave your mouth. And as I have also mentioned in both previous reviews, the caramel is firm enough to hold the shape of the candy, yet soft and yielding enough to provide the right amount of chewiness.
After sampling three different Turtles from Nestle, I'm asking myself one simple question. What else can they do with this particular candy? If I gave myself just 10 or 15 minutes, I could easily think of a dozen or more ideas. But that doesn't do me any good. What I need is for Nestle to think of those aforementioned dozen or so ideas, and not only that, put them into production.
-jc- | | |
|
