Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Jolly Rancher Double Blasts are billed as “flavor-infused powder filled candy.” Each little bag contains a mix of two flavor combos, Chorange (Cherry outside and Orange inside) and Raspilime (Blue Raspberry outside and Lime inside).
Each little candy rod is about the same diameter as a pencil. The color and shape makes them look more like little pegs that you’d use with Tinkertoys than candy, but that didn’t keep me from putting them in my mouth (or from them marking them as a choking hazard for young children). The hard candy outside is nice, it’s tangy and flavorful but not at all like the traditional Jolly Rancher hard candies that have a pliable stickiness to them. Pretty soon, as the candy dissolves, especially around the seams, you start getting a little jolt of the powdered center. The center is the second flavor and is not that strong, but the texture and effect is pretty stunning.
They’re pretty addictive in the sense that each time I ate one, I was trying to either crack them open with my teeth to get to the super-cooled center or suck on the candy so that as much of it as possible had dissolved by the time I got to the powder. In the sense that the flavor combos are tasty, well, I could take them or leave them. I was surprised at how much I liked the Chorange, seeing how the bulk of it is Cherry and the Raspilime was just kind of boring (and my assortment had twice as many Choranges).
I’m hoping they’ll do some other flavor combos, but I’m most interested in the other version of these called Sour Bolt Blasts, which might be more like Zotz and have one flavor through and through.
Of course they still make Zotz, so I could just go find some of those.
These candies were made in Canada.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Nerds have been around since the early eighties and I’ve never tried them. I was an early member of the Wonka fan club (you had to send in proofs of purchase) and I’ve never tried them. There’s actually a pretty long list of very common candy items that I’ve never tried, but this was one I decided to tick off my list.
Nerds are little panned crunchy and sour candies. They’re made by taking a little crystal of sugar and then tumbling them with successive layers of sour coating, then a coat of color. Nerds are irregular with some as small as a sesame seed and others as large as a dried pea. The unique selling proposition with Nerds is that they come in packages with two flavors in them and a separate dispensing opening. The flavor combo that got me off my bum to try them was Lightning Lemon/Amped Apple.
What I found out is that I’m not really missing anything by not eating Nerds.
The texture is good and the consistent crunchiness has a lot to recommend it, however, there’s really no flavor there. The distinction between the apple and lemon is rather scant. They’re both tart but little else. As for the SOUR! emblazoned on the box, well, they were sour, but not in all caps.
I can see these being very useful for a decorative element for cupcakes, but I can’t see myself buying them again. I know they have their fans, but I think I’m going to stick with Tart ‘n’ Tiny. For the record, I’m not an ice-chewer, so maybe that’s who these are marketed for. I have actually purchased the new Nerds Rope twice, but I haven’t actually eaten them (I think I gave one away in one of the contests), but I suspect they’re better in combination with something else like a gummi.
(While I’m on the subject of decorating with candy, check out Candy Addict’s Swimming Pool Cake ... if he decided to make an aquarium instead, this would make great colored gravel.)
Monday, August 14, 2006
I got to try the Dark Chocolate Raisinets at the All Candy Expo a couple of months ago and I was pretty underwhelmed. They handed them out in little sample cups, so there was no packaging to look at and after eating two sample cups I asked if they were the new dark ones, because they honestly didn’t taste that way. But these were on sale so I decided to give the retail product another try.
The new Dark Raisinets herald their healthiness on the package as a “natural source of antioxidants from fruit & dark chocolate” as well as “30% less fat than the leading chocolate brands.” I’ve got no complaints with either claim, although comparing Raisinets to a Snickers or Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups seems rather like apples to chocolate covered oranges.
My other complaint is that they say it’s Dark Chocolate when really it’s just darker milk chocolate. The ingredients for the coating go like this: Sugar, Chocolate, Cocoa Butter, Milkfat, Soy Lecithin, Nonfat Milk, Lactose, Vanillin, Natural Flavor.
But really, who cares? The big questions are, do they taste any different than the regular Raisinets and do they taste good?
They’re actually rather nice. The raisins are plump and often big. The chocolate coating is a little grainy and very sweet but provides a nice counterpoint to the tart chewiness of the raisins. I’ve been spoiled by Trader Joe’s Dark Chocolate Covered Raisins for a long time which are wonderfully rich and complex and these are far from rivaling those. However, as a single serving pack that’s easy to find anywhere, I’d pick these up as a healthier alternative to a full on candy bar. There’s still 22% of your daily saturated fat intake in here including 5 mg of cholesterol (really, why’d they have to go and do that?), but also 2 grams of fiber and 2 grams of protein. And all those antioxidants, whatever they are.
A little history about Raisinets, Goobers and SnoCaps. All three were originally made by the Blumenthal Chocolate Company. Goobers were introduced first, then Raisins and finally SnoCaps. All were popular movie candy and for a long time the only place I could find them was at the concession counter. Nestle bought Blumenthal in 1984 and the candies gained wider distribution in a variety of packages with some slight changes in their recipes. Raisinets are a Kosher (OU D) product.
Friday, August 11, 2006
I actually went out and bought these. I saw that they were being introduced at the All Candy Expo and I kept meaning to go over to their booth and pick them up, but I just kept missing them.
I’m not a huge gum fan so I’m not sure what attracted me to these, but there you have it, I bought them when I was them at Powell’s late last month.
They’re just bubble gum, but they’re in such cute teddy bear shapes! The pieces are ample and there are four different flavors in each package. Each piece boasts “hand decorated” elements (the eyes, nose and bow tie). I was concerned that they would be hard crunchy bits that wouldn’t go well with the gum.
Each piece is isolated in a little blister pack dome. The package is nice, you can see each of the little guys in their own window and the fruity shapes and colors make them look very appealing and not too child-oriented.
Grape - tart and fragrant with a strong fake grape flavor. The chew was soft and bouncy and it kept some of its flavor even after the sugar was gone, but got a rather odd chemical/menthol flavor. Sure enough, the ingredients lists menthol. The bubbles were ultrasmooth.
Tutti Fruitti - tangy but with a much stronger menthol element. There was little fruitiness to it, just a tart, sweet bite. I was hoping for a more mellow sweet flavor like a JuicyFruit. Yeah, his little eyeballs were kinda cockeyed, and one fell off before I chewed it.
Strawberry - very little trace of the menthol, sweet and flowery with a little pop of sour that fills out the flavor. The menthol flavor appears towards the end of the chew, just when the bubbles are getting good.
Melon - wonderfully delicate and fragrant but it turns dark with the menthol long before the flavor runs out. The little sugar frosting bits were also kind of nice. They were cool and smooth and didn’t distract from the gum at all, integrating well.
On the whole I think the whole gag is a little precious. You don’t get a lot for your money (however, the Mineco website says that they should retail for less than half what I paid for them) and of course with the flavor assortment they’re not really good for combining into super-pieces. The menthol flavor was a real turn off for me and I can’t imagine it being very compelling for children.
POSTED BY Cybele AT 6:09 am
Wednesday, August 9, 2006
I’m a complete dufus sometimes. I bought these thinking that they were chocolate/cocoa almonds. I don’t know what led me to believe that, seeing how they’re kinda small but perhaps it’s that I wanted some chocolate/cocoa almonds.
I got them at the 99 Cent Only Store, and though the package says that they’re 99 cents, they were only 50 cents.
Think of them as Peanut M&Ms without the crunchy candy shell.
They have a nice texture, the peanuts were good quality, although a little uneven in size. When you pop them in your mouth, they’re a little bland. The cocoa is only slightly bitter, but keeps the chocolate from melting. The chocolate was sweet but balanced well by the cocoa coating. The nuts inside tasted like dry roasted and salted peanuts, which is a completely different experience from Peanut M&Ms. The hit of salt really balances the chocolate and coconut and of course goes really well with the peanut itself.
They’re not as neat and clean to eat as M&Ms and other “glazed” chocolate nuts. Leaving these sit on a piece of paper on my desk means a bit of cocoa and sometimes a little greasy spot.
As a treat, I think I’d be most likely to eat this at a movie or while watching a video. It’s a large but controlled portion and the balance of salt and sweet would be pretty satisfying and of course little individual pieces makes for easy sharing.
The bag is a generous 2.5 ounces, so if you find these on sale, it’s a good deal. At 99 cents it’s still not bad either.
Tuesday, August 8, 2006
Here’s a candy that never entered into my field of candy vision: the Mint Julep. In fact, until about a year ago, I’m not sure I knew these existed. It’s not like I’m mint-blind. I guess what brought these into my realm was a new push by Necco to introduce them to new generations. That and there was a huge barrel of them at the All Candy Expo’s freebie room.
Frankly, I was afraid they were going to be like Mary Janes and pull out my teeth or something. Or maybe they were going to be like mint-flavored Starbursts.
But here’s what they are: they’re spearmint taffy.
They were nice. Not super strong tasting, very soft and chewy and pleasant. They didn’t rock my world, but I think they have a solid place in it now. They’re a really satisfying little candy - larger than a Starburst and in a flavor you’re not going to get anywhere else in this format. I can’t see myself buying a tub of these online or anything, but I would pick up one or two after brunch or something at the local diner to clear my palate.
Mint Juleps are also known as Southies and were made by the Squirrel company that also makes Nut Zippers. They are most often sold in little tubs by the register at convenience stores and diners. (This type of retailing is called “changemakers” as people will often spend the change from their bill on little items. The tubs are placed in places where it makes sense for such an impulse buy.) They were introduced in the 30s and then disappeared back in the nineties as the company was bought out and went through some changes. Necco brought them back about a year ago.
In case you were wondering what’s in the drink also called a Mint Julep, it’s simple syrup with some muddled spearmint sprigs in it, then combined with Bourbon and served over ice with more mint.
Mint Juleps are gluten free according to the Necco website (and the drink probably is too!).
Monday, August 7, 2006
Back in the eighties Nabisco had a candy called Bonkers, which were fruit chews similar to Starbursts ... except they were layered. It was a fruity chew with a fruitier chewier center. If you need a reminder of what they were, watch this commercial from the eighties I found on YouTube.
I didn’t know if they’d stopped making them but that’s what I thought I was buying when I picked these up.
First, these are made by Joyco. Second, there are no flavor layers. Third, the flavors are all wrong. Fourth, the label says they’re citrus fruits, but there’s a strawberry in there and last time I checked those don’t even grow on trees. Fifth, the package says there’s real honey in there. Real honey? And egg whites? What the heck are these, nougats? Sixth, well, none of that matters because these were positively awful.
Most of them were very hard, but some were only kind of hard. All were rather unpleasant in a way that I’m not quite able to put my finger on.
Strawberry: slightly floral and slightly putrid tasting. A little tangy but with sort of moldy/mossy note.
Lemon: tastes like a moist and ripe citrus burp.
Orange: tangy but with a rather uneven flavor that alternates between bile and tang.
I tried several times to taste these (waiting a couple of weeks in between, thinking it was me). It’s not me. They’re bad. I’ve debated long and hard about what to give these. I sat there with the wads of half chewed Bonkers in their wrappers in front of me and a foul feeling in my stomach and it’s clear I’m gonna have to give these a bad rating. (Believe me, I never set out to buy candy that I’m going to hate.) But I wanted to give them one last opportunity, so I offered them to the neighbors (and Amy always seems game for the worst of the worst but Robin conveniently reminds me when I try to get her to try things like this that she only likes chocolate). Amy spat it out on the sidewalk and then kicked it into the street. She described it as at first tasting like the plastic shelf it must have been sitting on in the store and then most decidedly vomit.
Yes, these get my first 1 out of 10. (Amy asked if there was a 0 rating.)
Friday, August 4, 2006
I don’t know if I would have noticed, except that the Sav-on had both the old version of the bar (sans peanuts) and the new one side by side and I was curious why the packaging was suddenly different and what made the new one “more satisfying.”
So I purchased both and went off to the Candy Blog labs to do some analyses. First, the bars say they weigh the same, but when placed on the trusty postal scale the More Satisfying with Peanuts version came in at exactly 2.0 ounces and the Less Satisfying with just Almonds clocked in at 1.9 ounces. What’s even more puzzling about this is that the label says that they weigh 1.76 ounces ... at least Mars is generous.
The original version shown above was easier to slice and seemed more “solid”. There weren’t copious amounts of almonds, but a fair amount. The bar was rather bland, as I mentioned in my review before. But there is something missing here, a toastiness, some sort of flavor.
So the big thing I noticed right away was how difficult it was to slice this bar easily. It was kind of mucky ... not melted or anything, just not as structural. I think there may be more caramel now. Instead of just going back to a better tasting nougat, the Mars folks created the hybrid Snickers/Mars Frankenbar. It’s a Mars bar that tastes like a Snickers. Really, why buy this? It doesn’t taste like almonds ... if anything, it’s just a Snickers bar that’s a little smaller.
As a touchstone I went out and bought/consumed a standard Snickers bar. It really tasted no different except the Snickers Almond was a little crunchier because almonds are bigger than peanuts.
This got me to thinking about the ingredients, so here’s a run down of the top contents of the Less Satisfying Snickers Almond, More Satisfying Snickers Almond and the Satisfying Snickers (Peanut):
LS Snickers Almond…...MS Snickers Almond…..Plain Old Snickers
But let’s go back to that statement on the new Snickers Almond bar ... what exactly makes satisfaction?
Less Satisfying Snickers Almond: 230 Calories & 1.76 ounces (that’s 131 calories per ounce)
Could satisfaction be another word for caloric density?
While I find the More Satisfying Snickers Almond a little more tasty than before, its resemblance to the classic Snickers Peanut makes it superfluous. There are so few almond choices out there, why take this one away? I’m giving the Now More Satisfying Snickers Almond bar the same rating I gave the original.
(I’m also a little miffed that I consumed about 750 calories for this one review! I just hope none of them contained mouse droppings.)
Note: I looked at the Snickers website and they still list the old ingredients for the Snickers Almond bar.
UPDATE 9/2/2008: Well, the old new Snickers Almond is back. Here’s a brief revisit with the bar:
I like the bar (though I prefer the dark chocolate version) and I’m glad they brought it back.
Meticulously photographed and documented reviews of candy from around the world. And the occasional other sweet adventures. Open your mouth, expand your mind.