Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Name: Frolic Bears
I picked these up at the 99 Cent Only Store a while back and was rather scared of them. I don’t know why I’d pick up candy I was afraid of, maybe it’s a way of facing demons. I’m not afraid of Manischewitz products in general (except for their sweet wines) and of course I love lollies. Maybe it was the name Frolic Bears. Maybe I don’t want my candy to be active and enjoying itself before I chow down on it.
After opening the package I figured out why they were at the 99 Cent Only Store at a fraction of their grocery store price. The bears were missing their ears. You can see from the photo above that the lollies are made by pouring the molten chocolate directly into the trays and inserting the sticks. This tray was a little short on chocolate and some of my bears were deformed.
Once I got over their appearance I decided to eat a few. First, the sticks are a little short for adults. Maybe they’re not made for adults. Okay, they’re not made for adults. The chocolate itself was very sweet and the rather American style of being creamy without milky. It was kind of crunchy at first (it’s kinda cold today and my office isn’t heated at night so it may as well have been refrigerated) but melted easily after that. They don’t have a lot of flavor other than that, no chocolate nuances. The vanilla isn’t real, so that note is a little lost too. However, this is certainly something I’d be happy to give to a kid. They’re Kosher and of course are meant for Passover. The price is great, but I just can’t get over the bland chocolate. If I had kids coming over to the house I might be slightly more inclined to purchase them again.
Rating - 4 out of 10
Monday, November 28, 2005
Made by the same company that makes Malteasers, I thought this would something like bridge mix. And it is, except it’s all milk chocolate. Inside the package are an assortment of little chocolate coated spheres. The largest ones are Malteasers, which I rather like. There are also some little dense disks of pure milk chocolate and some chocolate covered raisins. After that it gets a little more curious. There are what I have to assume are caramels but they’re so hard, I didn’t dare try to eat them. The package also mentions two other surprise items: coffee and orange. I think I found the coffee one, which was a crumbly center with a light coffee taste to it. I don’t think I got an orange one.
The chocolate is milky but not creamy. Sweet but not chocolatey. The chocolate is good for the malt because it’s such a strong flavor itself, but for the rest of the mix, it’s rather cheap tasting. And the fact that you only get 35 grams (1.2 ounces) is pretty sad, too when you consider that M&Ms come in 1.7 ounce packages.
I will avoid this little packet as much as possible in the future.
Rating - 4 out of 10
Monday, October 24, 2005
Name: Abba Zaba
Again, I grew up on the eastern seaboard, so some of the candies I see on the west coast are unfamiliar to me. Abba Zabas are one of them. I think we had something similar, but I can’t recall what it was. The website for Annabelle’s is quaint, circa 1996, and entirely sincere like the candy. It’s a little disturbing that the ingredients label on the candy spells it Palm Kernal instead of kernel, but I have to admit that many spelling mistakes have made to the screen in this site.
Abba Zabas are a white taffy with a stripe of peanut butter in the center. If you open the package and take it out, it looks like a white subway tile and kind of sounds like one if you whack it on the side of the table. They’re dangerous things, really, the taffy is firm and sticky, so if you have any sort of dental work (fillings, crowns, bridges, dentures) you’re liable to lose it or loosen it. If you have firmly planted teeth, you’re probably their target consumer.
I found the taste to be very nice, the sweet taffy is a really good backdrop to the peanut butter, but I have to admit that I prefer either a hard candy shell on my peanut butter or a molasses chew like Mary Janes or Peanut Butter Kisses. The dental destroying qualities are just too overwhelming for me, so I’ll leave this one to the kids.
Rating - 4 out of 10.
Friday, October 14, 2005
I got an instant message from a former colleague the other day about these. I hadn’t seen them, but sure enough they were just waiting for me at the 99 Cent store last week.
The Inside Outs are a white chocolate shell with a dark chocolate minted cream filling. They’re not at all like Junior Mints, except for the fact that they’re junior sized and minty. Where a regular Junior Mint has semi-sweet chocolate and an oozy mint filling, the Inside Outs have no real chocolate taste. Where Junior Mints are rather low in fat (for a chocolate candy), the Inside Outs don’t have that much more fat but their second ingredient (after sugar) is Partially Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil ... yes, the dreaded trans fats.
Even the description on the box is a little uninspiring “Dark Chocolatey Mints in a Smooth White Coating.” Mmm, don’t you just love white coating? And the word “chocolatey” screams “I have no real chocolate in me!”
If you dig Junior Mints, stick to Junior Mints ... they can hardly be improved. They’re usually a good value (the standard single serve box is 1.84 ounces) and pretty easily understood ingredients. There are real white chocolate mint candies out there and I advise seeking them out - real white chocolate uses cocoa butter which is not only a monosaturated fat it’s just smoother. The Inside Outs are a limited edition, so if you want to give them a try, you’d better hurry.
Rating - 4 out of 10
Wednesday, October 5, 2005
Like many of the other West Coast candy bars (Rocky Road), I think I ignored this one because I didn’t know what it was. After all, if it was good, I would have tried it by now. I’d never seen anyone eating one and certainly never heard it in conversation. Now I’ve heard two different pronunciations of it. One is: You-Know and the other us Ooh! No! I have no idea which is right.
Their website describes the bar like this, “Smooth, Rich Milk Chocolate truffle-like center, covered with Milk Chocolate and ground almonds. Guaranteed to melt in your mouth!”
The bar is huge but very light for its size. It looks pretty and smells chocolatey and less sugary than many other bars. Honestly, I’m not sure if I’d like to invoke that guarantee or not, but it definitely doesn’t melt in my mouth. I bit into it, and found it soft and yielding, but not mushy. It did melt, in the sense that it spread out on my tongue, but it didn’t give itself up, but kind of rolled around in a strange oiliness. The chocolate on the outside is a different matter, just nice and chocolatey.
The flavor of the center is like a fluffy truffle with a bit of grainy salt to it (which is actually a nice way to balance the sweet). As excited as I was to see that it was a fluffy truffle bar when I was photographing it, I was equally disappointed when I read the third ingredient on the label is Hydrogenated Coconut Oil and the bar packs 11 grams of saturated fat (I have no idea how much of that is trans fat). It’s just not a bar I can recommend to those who aren’t already terminally ill. I know, it’s candy and it’s all unhealthy, but let’s face it, there are other candies out there that can be satisfying and not nearly as laden with hydrogenated oils.
I know, you think it’s odd that the candy blogger is talking about health issues, so I should make a few things clear. I’m a fit person for the most part. I keep my weight within norms and I am pretty active. So I can afford some discretionary calories on candy (usually limited to 500 calories per day). But sometimes it’s not just calories that you have to look at. A lot of candies contain trans fats, but usually in smaller amounts. A candy that contains a large percentage of hydrogenated oils just isn’t a good idea for regular indulgence. If it’s just a once or twice a year thing, I’d say you’re in the clear. (Please do not substitute candy blog advice for that of a qualified physician or dietician.)
If they, however, created a new recipe using butterfat, I am so there!
Rating - 4 out of 10.
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Name: Jelly Babies
If you have ever watched Dr. Who with Tom Baker, you’ve seen him carry around that little white paper bag and offer folks Jelly Babies. I never knew what they were, just that they were different from jelly beans and not quite Swedish fish. I finally stumbled across them at a little grocer I stopped in after a meeting in San Francisco over the weekend that carried a lot of UK candies (I picked up a very fresh Curly Wurly while I was there too!).
Unfortunately, not having grown up in the UK, that is the sum total of my exposure to them. I had no idea until I started to make this post that the different colors had some sort of personality. This site has a pretty good history of the candies (apologies as they seem to have put black text on a dark blue background). The important thing to note about this review is the brand - these are Norfolk Manor Jelly Babies. The Bassett’s Jelly Babies (the original) are not imported into the US (so I’ll have to have someone grab some in the UK).
A jelly baby is simply a jelly candy with a grainy, crystallized sugar coating on it. Not quite a smooth as a jelly bean, the coating is like a very fine granulated sugar, only with flavor.
The colors are quite nice, in soothing herbal colors of red, green, another green, orange, yellow, another yellow, and black. The smell fruity and sweet, just like jelly beans. If you remember the Swedish Jelly Rats I reviewed a while back, they’re kind of like that, but larger and with a bit more of a sugary coating. The shapes are wonderful, little pudgy-bellied, round-headed babies. The babies are flavored according to their colors, but I wasn’t really able to figure it out. Orange is orange, yellow is lemon and one of the greens is lime. Beyond that, I can only say that they were fruity. Black might be currant, red might be strawberry.
They’re exceptionally sweet and the flavor has no hint of tart to it, just a slight blessing of fruit aroma for the most part. They cute and easy to share and of course they’re a nostalgia favorite for generations of Brits. I am, sadly, not terribly impressed with them. Should I find the Bassett’s, I will probably give them a try, just to be sure that I’m not missing something. Just for the record, I do like jelly candies in general: gummi bears and Swedish fish and even some jelly beans, these were just too sweet without enough flavor.
More about Jelly Babies here.
Rating - 4 out of 10 (alas, I don’t think I’m going to eat the rest of them)
Monday, September 5, 2005
Name: European Supreme Dark Chocolate
Yeah, I know, you think I’m all about the expensive stuff. I’m really not. Some of my favorite candies are easily accessible and pretty cheap. I swallowed my “brand pride” and picked up this bar at the 99 Cent Only Store, just out of curiosity. I figured for 7 ounces of chocolate to be only 99 cents, it had to be bad, full of fillers.
It’s definitely sweet for dark chocolate (sugar is the first ingredient) without many dark chocolate notes (no bitterness, no smokey quality, no roasted notes). It smells good, like vanilla and chocolate, but the taste is a little bland. Though rather smooth, there are ocassional odd things, like lumps, as if it wasn’t conched long enough or was mixed wtih other less-conched chocolate. The bar was fresh and the chocolate had a lovely sheen.
I have to admit that I wanted to say that this was a fantastic bar and we should drop our pretenses that good chocolate has to be expensive. But good chocolate has to be consistent and have more chocolate in it. It might be good for something though, I can see it being good for cooking, maybe melting it and using it for those pretty zig-zags on some cookies or as shavings for the top of a cake.
Rating - 4 out of 10
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
Name: Peppermint Cup-O-Gold
This candy cup has left me mystified. Is it really from Adams-Brooks? They don’t mention it on their website ... no one mentions it on their website on any of the internets. Have I stumbled across an inter-dimensional 99 cent store that sells candy unknown to us here?
Why is it called Cup-o-Gold anyway? The center is clearly white. The package is silver ... these things trouble me. But not enough to keep me from eating it.
Like the original Cup-O-Gold, this milk chocolate cup sports toasted coconut and almond bits in the chocolate. The ratio of chocolate to the filling is a little off. Upon my first small bite (not pictured), I didn’t hit filling, just chocolate. The second bite, which was sizeable (like the photo) didn’t hit filling. Finally on the fourth bite which by now meant half the cup was gone, I hit a small hidden cavity of filling. Instead of a light, frothy filling like the Cup-O-Gold, this one was a little tacky, a little stiff. The mint was barely perceptible.
I bought this thinking it’d be like a milk chocolate Junior Mint - a gooey minty cream center. Alas, the coconut competes too much with the scant mint. If there were less chocolate and more filling, perhaps it wouldn’t seem so overpowering. However, the package does say thick rich milk chocolate, so who am I to go expecting things not advertised?
Rating - 4 out of 10.
Meticulously photographed and documented reviews of candy from around the world. And the occasional other sweet adventures. Open your mouth, expand your mind.