posted
I love those Hershey's Dark Chocolate Kisses. They're wrapped in purple foil, which is cool, and also they taste really good. Are you telling me they aren't chocolate?
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Are you sure you aren't confusing "pure chocolate" with "cocoa liqueur"? They are not the same.
AFAIK, they are.
Random: My new favorite chocolate indulgence are the kisses Hershey's puts out near Christmas, like the mint truffle ones and the cherry cordial ones. I need a drooling emoticon.
[Edited to change Christman to Christmas, lest you all think I'd invented a new superhero of Biblical proportions.]
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Lindt chocolate bars made up of little squares of truffles? Holy schmoley, they are fantastic.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't had those, but Lindt truffles are a little piece of heaven. The white chocolate ones have so much fat in them that they coat your tongue and I can't eat more than two at a time, but Yowza.Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The first time I had a Godiva key lime truffle, I actually made those yummy noises from commercials. It's too rich for all the time, but it can be completely amazing.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's something I'm going to have to do. The next time I'm in the mall, I'm going to waltz right into the Godiva store and drop the three bucks for a truffle instead of walking by dejectedly like I have been for the last twelve years.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Like I said, if we are even going to discuss the issue we need to agree on what is and is not chocolate. That requires some sort of quantifiable definition. That isn't simple because chocolate isn't a pure substance like water. But there are things that we will all agree are not chocolate and some things we can all agree are chocolate, so somewhere in between there must be a point where things stop being chocolate and start being something else. We can argue about where that point is but any point we select would be controversial (which is not at all the same as subjective). Since chocolate is desirable, things that fall just outside the boundary of what we agree is really chocolate are always going to argue that the boundary should be moved.
I don't think you are correct that we can not discuss what is good chocolate and what is not good chocolate without that initial agreement.
I do think the discussion will not proceed in your preferred mode without that definition.
I could point out that if we granted your premise, the end result would be that your initial argument - which is that Hershey does not make good chocolate - will be proven correct. But I think it's just as likely that you aren't consciously trying to frame the debate, and simply aren't keeping in mind that most of us are perfectly willing to discuss what we consider subjectively good without first delineating into objectively separate categories. Blurry lines suffice.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My goodness, folks. It was Oreos that were supposed to be controversial. Leave the room for a few minutes and look what happens!
But as long as we're taking the gloves off, white chocolate is vile. I'm sure it's not really chocolate by anyone's definition, so I don't think we can argue that part. And if you don't think it's vile, well, you're just wrong.
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Are you sure you aren't confusing "pure chocolate" with "cocoa liqueur"? They are not the same.
AFAIK, they are.
Random: My new favorite chocolate indulgence are the kisses Hershey's puts out near Christmas, like the mint truffle ones and the cherry cordial ones. I need a drooling emoticon.
My favorite are the candy cane ones. I've never seen cherry cordial ones before. I'll have to check next time I'm at the store.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: White chocolate chili brownies = double oxymoron.
Fixed that for ya!
It's true. They are, in no way, brownies. They're bar cookies with white chocolate chunks and chilies in them. I don't know why the word brownie is in the title.
They're good, though. The trick with white chocolate is that you can never think of them as chocolate, or you will be disappointed. If you go in thinking of them as vanilla chunks you'll have a better experience.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I do think of it as vanilla chunks, or at least creamy white stuff, and it just isn't anything I want. Just . . . too sweet, but w/o the payoff you get from chocolate.
Those Mrs. Field cookies w/ white choc. chips and macadamia nuts? Nope. Feel free to put macadamia nuts in an actual chocolate chip cookie or even a plain cookie and I'll be happy, but leave those overly sweet white things out of them!
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm telling you, Newman Os are way, way better than Oreos.
Also, I see Rabbit's point. And Lisa's too. Hershey's is not bad. Especially kisses. But they sort of dechocolified it in a way by adding... well... weird things. It tends to be a bit grainy. I kind of like grainy though, and I tend to not mind chocolate bloom, but for my chocolate needs I think I like Trader Joe's dark chocolate the best. It's cheap, with 3 bars for just $1.10 or a bit more. It's delicious and has a nice texture. Ghiradelli is always good with it's nice high sort of flavour.
Also the Godiva at my mall is giving away free truffles. I love those things. I'd like to have more of the good stuff for baking and trying to figure out how to make nipples of venus.
Also, I continue to be a chocolate purist who insists that chocolate doesn't need nuts, berries, fruit or anything like that. It mostly needs more chocolate!
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: I've suddenly got a hankerin' for Oreos, and I don't even really like Oreos.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I think you should. It's worth doing just once.
Doing just once? Whenever I walk by the Godiva store, I get a truffle. I so wish I was at the mall now.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: But is there some sort of chocolate standard by which quality is measured? My comment about good quality chocolate was based on that assumption, but I could be wrong. I was comparing chocolate to something like beef, which has specific grades that the USDA uses.
Yes there are quality standards that apply to chocolate.
quote:Originally posted by Uprooted: But as long as we're taking the gloves off, white chocolate is vile. I'm sure it's not really chocolate by anyone's definition, so I don't think we can argue that part. And if you don't think it's vile, well, you're just wrong.
It's not chocolate-chocolate, but it is white chocolate!
And while there are lots of brands that are vile, the good stuff -- preferably Swiss -- is marvelous.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: But is there some sort of chocolate standard by which quality is measured? My comment about good quality chocolate was based on that assumption, but I could be wrong. I was comparing chocolate to something like beef, which has specific grades that the USDA uses.
Yes there are quality standards that apply to chocolate.
In your opinion.
No, by the consensus of regulatory agencies.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Yes. Yes, she is.
I think it is safe to conclude that she is using a non-standard definition of chocolate.
What do you mean by "standard". If you are talking common usage, perhaps. But the common definition is not particularly useful since most people would agree that chocolate icecream, chocolate milk, chocolate brownies and chocolate mints are different things than "chocolate".
What I'm talking about is the legal definition. By the codex alimentarius (international definition) some most hershey's products do not qualify as "chocolate". By US standards, more hershey's candies are "chocolate", but many don't qualify even under the extremely lax US standard. I don't know specifically about their dark chocolate kisses. If on the label, the are called chocolate candy kisses, that means that they don't qualify as chocolate under the legal definition.
Contrary to Lisa's assertion, this isn't a case where regulatory bodies are excluding things the label "chocolate" from things which have been long considered chocolate. What's actually happening is that companies like Hershey's have begun including ingredients in their chocolate candies which have long been agreed aren't ingredients of pure chocolate.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your second sentence is total nonsense. The fact that you had to specify ice cream, milk, brownies, and mints in the names is exactly why they are different from regular chcolate.
Your post is such a perfect example of pathetic aggrandizement it simply MUST be parody. You can't possibly actually be that narrow.
That you don't even know what Hershey's Kisses are called on the bag means that you are speaking out of total ignorance. You'd think that before you got that self-important you'd do the minimum of research.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: What I'm talking about is the legal definition. By the codex alimentarius (international definition) some most hershey's products do not qualify as "chocolate".
I don't recognize the codex alimentarius as defining reality.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If on the label, the are called chocolate candy kisses, that means that they don't qualify as chocolate under the legal definition.
Legal usage and common usage are frequently dissimilar. Chocolate is far from the only thing where this is the case.
For casual discussion, the legal definition is often fairly irrelevant. As it is in this case.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: What I'm talking about is the legal definition. By the codex alimentarius (international definition) some most hershey's products do not qualify as "chocolate".
I don't recognize the codex alimentarius as defining reality.
Then offer an alternative definition. But like I said, it makes no sense to discuss chocolate unless we can agree on what chocolate is. Continuing to repeat that you don't accept my definition of chocolate is ludicrous unless you propose some alternative definition.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know whether Hershey's is real chocolate or sorta chocolate or merely chocolate flavored, but I do know it tastes burnt compared to other chocolate products. Like they went to melt it and walked away for a smoke break and forgot and the bottom scalded and they came back and said awww man but poured it in with the rest anyway. Its kinda gross.
Posts: 262 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Uprooted: But as long as we're taking the gloves off, white chocolate is vile. I'm sure it's not really chocolate by anyone's definition, so I don't think we can argue that part. And if you don't think it's vile, well, you're just wrong.
It's not chocolate-chocolate, but it is white chocolate!
And while there are lots of brands that are vile, the good stuff -- preferably Swiss -- is marvelous.
White chcolate does not fit the legal definition of chocolate.
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:White chcolate does not fit the legal definition of chocolate.
That used to be true in the US (although not in Europe). As of I think 2002, "white chocolate" is legally defined in the US.
This is a step forward for the consumer. The reason that Swiss white chocolate is so good is that it contains large amounts of cocoa butter which give chocolate its characteristic texture. Prior to the creation of legal standards for "white chocolate" in the US, "white chocolate candies" could be marketed that contained no cocoa butter at all. These are nasty. Among professionals they are referred to as "coatings" not chocolate of any kind.
[ November 15, 2009, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: What I'm talking about is the legal definition. By the codex alimentarius (international definition) some most hershey's products do not qualify as "chocolate".
I don't recognize the codex alimentarius as defining reality.
Then offer an alternative definition. But like I said, it makes no sense to discuss chocolate unless we can agree on what chocolate is. Continuing to repeat that you don't accept my definition of chocolate is ludicrous unless you propose some alternative definition.
See, but I'm not trying to impose a purportedly "objective" definition of chocolate on you. I don't think there needs to be one, other than the vague one that says it's made from cacao beans and is recognizably chocolate to at least some people.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If my previous experiences with so called "white chocolate" weren't so abjectly horrible, I might begin to want to believe there are confections of that kind that are otherwise.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not believe in white chocolate. It's not really chocolate the way chocolate is chocolate.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But like I said, it makes no sense to discuss chocolate unless we can agree on what chocolate is."
You keep repeating this, but you're the only one who thinks it's true (as far as I can tell). So perhaps for the rest of us, it makes sense to discuss chocolate without first taxonomizing.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by romanylass: Joe's O's. That's the good stuff.
Joe Joe's. Because I'm just that easily influenced -- I was in Trader Joe's today and I bought some with chocolate creme filling. Next it will be the Newman's Os I'm sure.
quote:See, but I'm not trying to impose a purportedly "objective" definition of chocolate on you. I don't think there needs to be one, other than the vague one that says it's made from cacao beans and is recognizably chocolate to at least some people.
Am I understanding you correctly that you think its reasonable to consider things as different as Oreo Cookies and Godiva Truffles as all part of the same general class of things that are "chocolate" and that you can't see any reason to refine that class any further?
If so, then I think your stance is quite different from the majority of people. I think most people think that brownies and chocolate ice cream are in a truly different category from "chocolate". I think that most people would agree that "white chocolate", "milk chocolate" and "semi-sweet chocolate" are sufficiently different kinds of things in objectively quantifiable ways.
As some one who has begun studying chocolate professionally, I know that products made from cocoa, like Rausch single plantation chocolates and Hershey's are as different in quantifiable objective ways as dark chocolate is from milk chocolate. They simply are sufficiently different in quantifiable objective ways that it doesn't make sense to refuse to distinguish between them.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: From the looks of this thread, you're the odd person out, Rabbit.
That likely means I'm the only one who knows much about the subject. For example, did you know that there are three different species of cocoa (Criollo, Trinitario, and Forestero) and that commodity chocolates are exclusively from Forestero where as Fine Flavor chocolates are made from the other two species?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Am I understanding you correctly that you think its reasonable to consider things as different as Oreo Cookies and Godiva Truffles as all part of the same general class of things that are "chocolate" and that you can't see any reason to refine that class any further?
Nobody thinks that Oreos are chocolate. The cookie part are chocolate flavored, yes. Same with the outer part of a generic ice cream sandwich.
Meanwhile, I wouldn't call all Godiva truffles "chocolate" blankly. Some contain cherry, which is not chocolate. Some contain raspberry filling, which is not only not chocolate, but also an abomination.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: From the looks of this thread, you're the odd person out, Rabbit.
Does this mean you also think there is no reason to distinguish between things like Oreo cookies and Godiva truffles? You think they are both the same kind of thing?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:They simply are sufficiently different in quantifiable objective ways that it doesn't make sense to refuse to distinguish between them.
Except when it does. Like when Sophie asks, "Can I have some chocolate," and I say no, but she can have anything else in the snack cabinet, that does not mean that I have given her permission to eat the one Hershey's bar there (even though it is not "chocolate" by your definition.)
Do you refuse to call sparkling wines "Champagne" unless they're from the right place?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: From the looks of this thread, you're the odd person out, Rabbit.
That likely means I'm the only one who knows much about the subject. For example, did you know that there are three different species of cocoa (Criollo, Trinitario, and Forestero) and that commodity chocolates are exclusively from Forestero where as Fine Flavor chocolates are made from the other two species?
<yawn>
(To the tune of the Pink Panther theme:) Pedant, pedant, pedant pedant pedant pedant pedaaaaaaaant.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the words "Oreo cookies" and "Godiva truffles" do a dandy job of distinguishing between them.
quote:That likely means I'm the only one who knows much about the subject.
Oh, honey. This is pride. In fact, that's a pretty classic example of enmitical pride. You assume that if people don't agree, then you must be superior in some way. You're not. You're not in possession of some special knowledge. What you are is LACKING in the knowledge of appropriate social discourse. You're the person singing a dirge at the birthday party. This is not because no one else knows the words to the dirge.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
(For the record, BTW: I don't consider Godiva truffles to be all that good. Some of them are quite nicely flavored, but the quality of the actual chocolate in them is mediocre when their price is taken into account.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: From the looks of this thread, you're the odd person out, Rabbit.
That likely means I'm the only one who knows much about the subject. For example, did you know that there are three different species of cocoa (Criollo, Trinitario, and Forestero) and that commodity chocolates are exclusively from Forestero where as Fine Flavor chocolates are made from the other two species?
Cool! Interesting stuff, The Rabbit. Why are you studying chocolate? Can I help? Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
