Tuesday, March 22, 2011
See’s has really been increasing their seasonal Lollypops over the past few years. I quite like their Root Beer and Cinnamon offerings. The newest is See’s Orange Cream Lollypops for Easter.
They’re not sold individually like the regular flavors, so I had to buy a package of 8 pops for $5.35. The woman at the shop in Sherman Oaks said that they were selling well, and they only had the few packages that were on the counter left.
They’re Kosher though not all natural as they have artificial flavors and even some artificial colors. They are a rather low calorie treat, considering how long it takes to eat one. They’re .71 ounces and 50 calories.
The pops are the same format as the classic versions - a big 1.25 inch tall block on a stick. The hard candy is like a toffee with plenty of cream but uncrunchable. The color is a light, peachy orange. They smell like a milky orange and reminded me immediately of orange sherbet.
They’re smooth and slightly milky. The orange is light and fresh but ultimately just sweet. There was no really intense flavor to it at all. It’s not bad, but perhaps a little disappointing, though I’m sure it will be a great flavor for children who often prefer more mild flavors. Is a big switch from the more intense flavors lately like Cinnamon.
Rating: 5 out of 10.
See’s makes a fair number of classic Easter Eggs. I prefer the smaller versions, mostly because they’re a lot of small bites. But there’s something luxurious and decadent about the huge, decorated chocolate eggs they make. Thankfully they come in a wide variety of sizes. The largest are around 12-14 ounces, the middle are 7-8 and the small one I chose is 4.2 ounces. The Mayfair with Cherries & Pecans comes in a little box, tucked into a fluted paper cup. It’s less decorated than it’s larger pals, just a little sugar frosting rose on top.
Years ago one of my favorite pieces in the box of See’s Nuts & Chews was the Rum Nougat. It featured English walnuts, rum, cherries, and raisins in a chewy nougat, all covered in milk chocolate. I had to give it up about 10 years ago when my walnut allergy became apparent. Oh, how I would love it if they made it with pecans. (But there’s still a dark chocolate covered nougat that has almonds in it, though no rum and is the basis of the Awesome Nut & Chew Bar.) The Mayfair is pretty close to that rum nougat, in that it has that rum note to the buttercream center along with the cherries and for Easter, it comes in a walnut or pecan variety.
The egg is about three inches long and has a thick dark chocolate shell (made by Guittard, which is also based in California).
The Mayfair egg center is thick and moist. I was actually shocked at how pink it was, I thought the coloring would be limited to the cherries, but the fondant is also quite a vibrant shade of pink. The cherries give the center mixture a rum, vanilla and cherry flavor to it with less of a maraschino note than I’d anticipated.
The cherries are firm and moist, but don’t have much character otherwise. They’re not crisp, they’re not tart and they don’t really taste that different from the fondant since they’re more glace at this point than just syrupped. The pecans are crunchy and give a little bit of a woodsy note to the center, though the pieces were generally small and not quite as numerous as I would have preferred.
Generally, I don’t care much for candy that requires utensils. Normal folks can’t just take a bite of this, it’s intended to be sliced and served. The thick chocolate cracks when I cut it, the proportions of chocolate aren’t consistent. It’s sticky when you eat the slices. The small versions are simply better - they’re pretty from beginning to end.
Rating: 7 out of 10.
The Butterscotch Square is not square and isn’t actually what I’d consider butterscotch either ... but that doesn’t stop it from being a fatty, melt in your mouth delight. The center of the square is a crumbly, slightly grainy brown sugar fudge. It has a deep salty and light molasses flavor with some hints of toffee. The milk chocolate gives it a creamy quality that serves as a counterpoint to the quick melting grain of the sugar.
I had no idea there was a See’s Butterscotch Pecan Bar, which is a pre-wrapped 1.6 ounce bar that combines a chocolate base, butterscotch layer and then a healthy heaping of pecan pieces. (I think it might be overshadowed by the Scotchmallow Bar.)
The bar is an excellent portion, a little lighter than a standard candy bar but the satiety level of the nuts more than makes up for it (210 calories but not as much fat as some other chocolate combo bars). The maple and woodsy notes of the nuts and their crunch combine well with the buttery toffee flavor of the crumbly butterscotch. The chocolate holds it all together, though provides far less of a flavor contribution on this iteration. This may be a new go-to See’s product for me.
Rating: 9 out of 10
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
During my travels in Germany I was enchanted by the extraordinary selection of Haribo products. In some stores they took up an enormous amount of shelf space with dozens and dozens of items. Their products spans a much larger range in Germany where they have gummies, jellies, licorice, chews and marshmallows.
In the United States the only licorice items I see from Haribo are the Licorice Wheels, which are competent starter or snacking licorice. I was hoping to find the more exotic stuff. I was excited to find this bag of Haribo Sali-Kritz which was both beautiful and an interesting product idea.
The candies are described on the package as Lakritz Dragee, basically licorice pastilles. They’re large soft slightly salted licorice diamonds covered in a flavored candy shell.
The lozenge shape pieces are large - about 1.25 inches long with soft rounded edges. They come in seven colors, all pastels: pink, green, yellow, soft red, blue, orange and white. They’re also flavored to match those colors, though I could find no code and kind of had to figure it out for myself.
The candy shell is a little thicker than a Good and Plenty rod. The colors are muted (they’re all natural) and sometimes a little less than consistent looking. The shell is crisp but grainy, but does a good job of keeping the licorice inside soft and chewy. The flavor of the shell was light, like the outside of a jelly bean ... and the inside was a very mild ammonia salt licorice. The most difficult thing I’m experiencing now as I’ve probably tried about 50 different kinds of licorice in the past month is that I don’t even know what I like any longer. But that’s something I can keep working at.
Some flavor combinations worked well for me, like lemon (yellow) or strawberry (pink) but others like pineapple (white) or apple (green) were just a little too different. But mostly what was a problem for me was the salted licorice center. The ammonia part wasn’t particularly strong unless I ate two or three, then I felt like every time I exhaled, I smelled like I needed to change the cat litter (which is alarming since I don’t have a cat). I think the salt level would have been moderated nicely by some stronger licorice, toffee and molasses flavors.
I find that I can just eat one of these and be happy. The more I eat in one sitting, the less pleased I am. The novelty of a flavored shell is a plus, but the ammonia level on the licorice is a negative. For a starter licorice for those who want to experience salted licorice, this might be a good start.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Wrigley’s (part of Mars) has quietly released a new variety of Skittles called Skittles Blenders. They feature blended fruit flavors.
The package is bright yellow with sky blue accents. I’m not sure if Blenders requires an exclamation point at the end or a tornado like the package shows. Unlike the Crazy Cores introduced about two years ago that have contrasting flavors for the shell and center, these flavor combinations are completely combined.
The package smells a lot like the Tropical Skittles at first.
Blue - Melon Berry Burst (tm) - the aqua blue Skittles have a distinct flavor that’s just like Tropical Punch but tastes nothing like the melon or berry mentioned in the name. It’s tangy and certainly vibrant.
I’m underwhelmed by this new version. There were two flavors that I picked out to eat, which left 3/5 of the package uneaten by me. I have nothing against the invention of new flavors or new flavor combinations but the fact that all of these are trademarked leads me to believe that there were more intellectual property lawyers involved in the creation of this candy than actual candy makers. I wish Wrigley’s/Mars would just stick to really great flavors instead of these strange mixes. They make a Citrus Mix for Australia, why won’t they give those a try in the United States?
The package states that they are gluten free and gelatin free. It also reminds you to do your part and dispose of the wrappers in the trash. Skittles are fortified with vitamin C and a package 40% of your daily recommended amount.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
The Judson-Atkinson Candies Tropical Sours are called the original soft center sour. They’re kind of like giant sour jelly beans, each is about the size of a hazelnut in the shell.
This theater box holds 4.5 ounces. Like many of Judson-Atkinson’s other candies, the packaging isn’t exactly compelling, but it’s at least easy to spot.
White is Pina Colada. It starts out with a light sweet coconut flavor, once I cracked the grainy candy shell I got a little burst of floral and lightly tangy pineapple. It’s not a sour candy at all, but it’s still like a great, mellow gourmet jelly bean.
Pink is watermelon. I don’t consider it to be a tropical flavor and it certainly wasn’t a sour flavor either. It was sweet and about as powerfully flavored as real watermelon is. I wasn’t disappointed that there were only five of these in the box.
Orange is some sort of tropical fruit like Mango. It’s hard to tell without a guide, but there was a peachy note to it and a light tangy flavor as well with some woodsy elements that remind me of mangoes.
Yellow is a mystery. It’s tart but not overly so, it’s not citrus flavor as far as I can tell and not pineapple. It was pleasant but not vibrant enough to go in a package called Sours.
Red is Fruit Punch and is quite a refreshing sort of berry flavor. I liked it, it was tart without the tangy notes completely blasting away the red raspberry flavors.
All of the flavors were nice enough but none qualified for a the category of Sour. They were barely on the range of “hint of tangy”. As giant jelly beans in tropical flavors, they’re decent enough. I paid far too much for these. I see the regular boxes of Sours at the drug store for a buck which I think is quite fair for pure sugar candy made in the States.
The candies aren’t marked Kosher and is tree nut free (though is processed in a facility that utilizes milk, soy and peanuts). There’s no gluten statement and they’re not vegetarian/vegan because of the presence of carmine.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
I’ve often made fun of R.M. Palmer as a maker of horrible candy. I do my best though to keep an open mind whenever I approach a candy from them that I’ve never had. Sometimes I’m rewarded.
I picked up their Peppermint Patties since they were on display as a “great value” at RiteAid. It was only $1.00 for a 5 ounce bag of individually wrapped patties. Each little pattie is about 1.5 inches in diameter.
They’re molded instead of enrobed, which is kind of odd. (More like the Russell Stover version I mentioned last week in construction than the Haviland.) The molding has ripples on it to make them look liked they’ve been enrobed, but it’s easy to tell around the edge that they’re made in a mold. (And they look nothing like the image on the package, which I seem to have lost.)
The big difference between these and most other peppermint patties is the coating. This is not chocolate, it’s mockolate. The first ingredient on the list is sugar and the second is partially hydrogenated vegetable oil (palm kernel, coconut and/or palm oil). It’s really evident upon biting into them. The coating has a decent melt and the whole thing has a cool and fresh minty scent. The cocoa flavors are just that, plain old cocoa, like I’m eating that paste that you make with water and hot cocoa mix, not actual chocolate. The minty center is creamy and smooth and has a very subtle flavor, almost like peppermint bubble gum instead of a strong breath mint style.
Since there’s more coating than filling, these are very high on the calorie count for a peppermint pattie. York Peppermint Patties are about 115 calories per ounce, which is great for a product that contains real chocolate. These clock in at 152 calories per ounce. For that you can have an actual chocolate truffle (sure, it’ll cost more) and enjoy the real fats instead of this partially hydrogenated artery clogging crud.
They’re not horrible, they’re just not that good. I don’t plan on finishing the bag.
Friday, November 5, 2010
Rowntree’s created what would be one of the most popular candy bars in the world, the KitKat, in 1935. In the same year they also created the Aero bar. There have been dozens of versions since then even as Nestle’s has taken over the brand and spread the bars worldwide.
It’s odd then to ponder that there is a mash-up bar of the two that’s found in South Africa. The Nestle Tex was launched around 1956 and combines the aerated chocolate of the Aero bar and the crispy filled wafers of the KitKat. I don’t know how the bar got the name Tex.
It’s a big chunky looking bar. It’s over 5.5 inches long and a little under one inch square. The wrapping isn’t fancy, just the name of the bar and a satisfyingly accurate cross section of the bar that shows the bubbly chocolate center with a layer of wafers above and below.
The bar smells more like sweetened cereal than a decadent chocolate bar. It’s quite light for its size, only 40 grams (1.41 ounces) when you think that a 3 Musketeers bar is 60 grams and has similar volume.
The bar is a little messy to eat. The wafers are crispy but also darn flaky.
The chocolate flavors are disappointing. There’s little cocoa flavor or chocolate texture in there. It’s not grainy or waxy, but certainly doesn’t have a silky smooth melt. The wafers are fun and distinctive, though not quite KitKat-like since they’re wider and have a more distinctive cream filling. The Aero layer is lost in the mix, it’s light on the chocolate but I didn’t really get the same airy melt and bubbly texture because of the fact that I felt obligated to chew the wafers.
Mostly I’m disappointed in the poor quality of the chocolate (it might be mockolate, it’s hard to tell which ingredients are the chocolate coating and which are the cream filling in the wafer part). I know Nestle is capable of making better chocolate, and since I bought this as an import, it was $2.00. I could buy some really good chocolate for that.
I could see this bar benefiting from other versions, like dark chocolate and flavors like coffee or orange. As it is, I see it as a middle of the road offering. Certainly unique but not better than the sum of its progenitors.
(I found one note in a book about Rowntree that said that the Tex bar was first introduced in Canada in 1955 around the same time as Coffee Crisp but was a flop.)
Monday, October 11, 2010
The Cadbury Flake has been made for 90 years by Cadbury and has a clever little story to go with it. The story goes that a line worker in the Cadbury factory noticed that the over-run of the one their molds made little folded sheets of chocolate that was a tasty way to eat the chocolate. They’re billed as The crumbliest, flakiest milk chocolate..
I’ve had a few of the Flake bars over the years and never quite understood them (and preferred the versions that were dipped in chocolate). They seemed chalky and sweet but not chocolatey. So I thought I’d give it another try. I got a hold of a very fresh bar (expires February 2011).
The ingredients are similar to all of the Cadbury’s UK milk chocolate offerings. This bar was made in Ireland and contains: Milk, sugar, cocoa butter, cocoa mass, vegetable fat, emulsifier, flavoring. Milk solids are listed at 14% and the cocoa solids are 25%. So it’s a lot of chocolate and milk ... but there’s also a little bit of vegetable fat in there, which by United States FDA standards means that this doesn’t qualify as real chocolate.
Again, I’m coming to this bar with an outsider’s perspective. I didn’t grow up with it and I’ve never seen any advertisements for the bar. So taken at face value, the idea of a bar made of chocolate shavings is interesting, I like it when I find a pile of chocolate shavings on my dessert. The reality of the bar isn’t quite as attractive. It reminds me of elephant skin. It’s about six inches long and holds together well.
It smells a bit like cheesecake instead of milk chocolate. The dairy tang is like yogurt or cream cheese. It’s a bit crumbly upon biting, but not as bad as I’d feared. The texture is soft and chalky, but not quite fudgy. It dissolves more than it melts. It’s not sticky sweet, I think the milk notes cut that, but the cocoa isn’t quite as apparent for such a high cacao milk chocolate (as far as American chocolate goes for comparison).
The crumbly texture doesn’t feel decadent or indulgent to me, it just feels old or stale. The sour note to the milk wasn’t pleasant (though I can imagine becoming acclimated to it).
The bars are marketed as a low calorie, highly pleasurable experience. But they’re hardly low in fat, they’re about normal at 150 calories per ounce for chocolate, it’s just the portion that’s small at only 1.13 ounces per bar.
This bar is just a little shorter than the plain version, about 5 inches. It’s also made in Ireland.
The scent is a little nuttier, but still have the dairy note. This one also had a little more cocoa to it.
The bite was softer and the hazelnut was immediately apparent. There were little hazelnut bits and a nice roasted flavor overall. It seemed a bit moister and a bit fudgier ... but it also felt sweeter. So much so that my throat was seared by it after consuming half the bar.
I understand that these bars are remarkably different than others, but it’s just not something that appeals to me. The dryness just takes away all the fatty mouthfeel for me. I’m not keen on the fact that they’re not real chocolate, considering how expensive they are in the States, for that money I’ll get something that really pleases me.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
The companion to last week’s Licorice Natural Vines are the new Strawberry Natural Vines.
I’m often hesitant to call them red licorice, but in this case the wheat based chew made by the American Licorice Company does have a small amount of licorice extract in it. As a natural product they’re made with wheat flour, cane syrup, sugar, brown rice syrup, palm oil, malic acid, natural strawberry flavor, beet juice (for color), glycerin and licorice extract.
The package is nicely designed, I had no trouble spotting it on the store shelf. It’s a soft but light plastic bag that looks kind of like kraft paper at first glance. It has a resealable zipper top, which is handy for a half pound bag.
They’re not as sticky as the Black Licorice version, which was a bit of a relief. The Strawberry version are slightly translucent, which kind of got my mouth watering, like they might be some sort of wheat flour thickened Strawberry jelly.
The twists are pleasantly big with a good bite and chew. They’re soft but not mushy. They don’t smell like much, just a light fresh and slightly sweet scent that’s not even strawberry.
They’re tangy. That’s the first thing I noticed, they’re not quite sour but definitely tart. The chew is smooth but eventually a little crumbly, so they don’t stick to my teeth like some soft licorice products can. They’re not doughy but still have a bit of a starchy film towards the end.
The strawberry flavor is a bit green, since it’s more on the tart side of things, it’s not the sweet, cotton candy floral note that some real strawberries exude. The only other all natural product that I’ve had that’s similar is the Panda Strawberry Bar, but that’s almost like a fruit leather texture to the chew and has a slightly more earthy and jam flavor because of the molasses in it.
I found them appealing to eat, but not exactly begging for me to have more. They seemed more like a snack than a candy since they’re not that sweet. But of course the “less sweet” part and wheat base may be appealing to some parents - there’s only a trace of fat (1 gram per 1.41 ounce portion) and slightly more than 100 calories for that serving. A serving is nine of these pieces, so a child or adult could be satiated by this. They’re expensive at regular price (2.99 for this half pound bag) but a bit cheaper than some “fruit snack” options - though these have no vitamin C fortification. These might be considered vegan (depending on your feelings about sugar).
Meticulously photographed and documented reviews of candy from around the world. And the occasional other sweet adventures. Open your mouth, expand your mind.