Review: Ritter Sport Dark with Whole Hazelnuts

According to Ritter Sport, over at Jim’s Chocolate Mission, this offering is the runner up on the worldwide best selling Ritter list. As I have reviewed both number one and three on that list, I thought it only fair to review this one as well. To be up front I am a little surprised that this one was able to conquer second place as I found it somewhat disappointing. While I did not think the world of either the white and milk varieties, at least I can understand why they have such a broad appeal.

Ritter Sport dark Whole Hazelnuts has a whopping 23% of whole roasted hazelnuts and a minimum of 50% cocoa solids. The declaraton to this bar reveals that it contains butter fat and shellac. In my book, as I have stated before, I think it a misnomer to label a chocolate “dark” if it has any dairy product in it (even if this is allowed by EU and/or national regulations), though perhaps I should be more lenient with this one since it is a “filled” chocolate (the Ritter hallmark). In addition this bar is glazed with shellac, a substance from insects, presumably to give the bar extra shine. I will leave it to you to judge whether this is acceptable or not, but to me dark chocolate should only have five basic ingredients plus those for the filling. I am not sure why shellac is necessary here - and I invite anyone to leave a comment on this subject.

As with the wrapper of the other two of the top three, I am not to fond of the “Photo” wrapper, though I consider this one, with its dark colour, the most elegant of the three wrappers. The chocolate has a nice dark brown colour and a nice shine. Also, the bar looks nice in cross section with whole nuts protruding. Still, I think the wrapper is a bit misleading, in that it is not dark chocolate and hence fails to accurately convey what this bar is about. For this reason I will have to assign it a low score presentation wise. Appearance: 6 out of 10.

That this is in fact less than a full bodied dark chocolate is also confirmed by the aroma of the bar which is sweet smelling of dairy chocolate. There are good aromas of roasted hazelnuts that might be more pronounced though. Overall I think the aroma is so dairy that it detracts from the aroma profile of a dark chocolate. Aroma: 7 out of 10.

The hazelnuts bring a good crunch to the bar, but ut us for some reason that the nuts and chocolate, in terms of mout feek, do not play well together, being to “fragmented” in the mouth. The chocolate has a slow melt which lasts until the hazelnuts are munched. It sticks a little to the mouth. Texture: 7 out of 10.

The hazelnuts do provide a nice taste but I think they could and should have more flavour and character than they have here. Instead, the chocolate steals the show and unfortunately I did not find the chocolate to be of a very good quality, making the nuts unable to put up a fight. It has a rather strange taste, as if it is not “real” chocolate and a bitter and unpleasant aftertaste with no fruit or complexity at all. There are slight hints of vanilla. On the positive side the bar is not too sweet, probably due to the generous amount of hazelnuts. Flavour: 6 out of 10.

Average score: 6, 5 out of 10.

Review: Änglamark Organic Dark Chocolate 70%

This review is perhaps one of the nerdier ones I’ve done, though admittedly with a somewhat surprising result. It was made possible as I found the identical chocolate in two different formats. One being a thin tablet á la Lindt’s Excellence series and one in a relatively thick and compact format. So I thought it interesting to do a heads up test of these bars. Änglamark is the organic private label of COOP one Scandinavia’ largest super market chains, and is produced by S. P. A. Leccio in Italy. Since this manufacturer delivers to big supermarket chains it should be available in several countries under various labels, This 70% Dark Chocolate bar is Organic and Fairtrade certified. Both bars weigh a 100g and contain the same five ingredients namely, cocoa mass, cane sugar, cocoa butter, soy lecithin (E 322) and vanilla extract.

A priori I did expect most marked differences, if any, in the texture department, but did not think that the difference in format should affect the flavour. I was in for a small surprise.

While these are supposedly identical chocolates there are differences in terms of presentation and appearance. I, for one, like the more compact box and prefer the look of the smaller and thicker pieces as I do not find the cocoa bean engraving to be very handsome. These cosmetic issues aside I like the colour and surface of the flat bar a lot better as I think the smoother surface is more attractive even if there is no great difference, if any, in the nuance of the colour itself. I would score this as a tie. Both bars have a nice dark colour shine to them. Appearance: 8 out of 10.

I was not able to detect any great difference in aroma. Both smell of dark full bodied chocolate with only a hint of sweetness. Also, there is only a slight hint of fruit and no acidity. There is a little rubber which is not entirely pleasant. Aroma: 7 out of 10.

Both bars have good powerful snap. I think the thinner bar has a better snap when breaking of a piece by hand as the break is quite clean whereas the thicker bar has a somewhat harder snap to it. The thicker bar is tougher and one has to chew a bit more for it too melt, making the melt of the thinner bar slightly superior, though both have good melt. I find that both melt and snap in mouth feel was better in the thinner bar, so I think that texture wise the chocolate gains by being dosed in thinner portions. I would rate the flat bar’s texture as 8, 5 and score the thick as 8.

And now to what its all about: flavour. The compact bar had initially a nice sweet and not too bitter taste, followed by a little fruit though it lacks acidity. The finish is a little bitter.

I am most surprised to report that I found the compact bar to be significantly better tasting than the thin bar. While they did mostly have the same profile (sweet beginning, fruit in the middle and bitter aftertaste) the difference was easily discernable. Notably the sweetness of the beginning and the fruit in the middle was much more pronounced with the compact bar. The thin bar lacked much of the complexity of the compact bar and was somewhat bland in comparison. I would probably rate the thick bar as 8 and the thin bar as or 7, 5. If this is indeed the identical chocolate I cannot explain the difference in flavour, but would have to venture the guess that it has to do with the thin bar releasing the flavours too quickly leaving less time for the palate to “play” with the flavours. Perhaps this is an even bigger problem for the thin bar as the very slight fruit and complexity present in the chocolate dissolves too quickly due to its thinner texture.

These bars OK but definitely have room for improvement and overall would probably lie in the 7, 5 – 8 out of 10 range.

Review: Marabou Dark Chocolate

Before digging into the first review of the week, here is a sneak peak of what to expect this week. Thursday will feature a test of an organic dark chocolate in two different formats namely a thick vs. a thin, not only to review the chocolate itself, but to examine how difference in shape might influence the chocolate experience. That should be pretty interesting, so be sure to check in Thursday for that review. Sunday will probably be devoted to a review of the Ritter Sport Dark Whole Hazelnuts, to complete my coverage of the top three worldwide Ritter flavours according to Jims's Chocolate Mission. The list, by the way, is topped by the Milk Whole Hazelnuts which I reviewed here and third place finisher White Whole Hazelnuts which I reviewed here.

But on to today’s the review…

This Marabou “Dark” chocolate contains, according to the declaration, 44% chocolate and skimmed milk powder, but only the English description on the back describes it as a “Milk chocolate”, whereas the Scandinavian languages all state that this is a dark chocolate. The front of the wrapper states that it is a dark chocolate in Swedish and the images convey the message that this is a dark chocolate. I consider it somewhat misleading to give the impression that a chocolate containing skimmed milk powder and a 44% minimum cocoa is a dark chocolate (even if it adheres to national and/or European regulations).

Perhaps the intended target group is children or grown ups (or both) who prefer a dark chocolate experience that is not too dark. However, I would consider it preferable, to grab a good quality high cocoa content milk chocolate instead of having dark chocolate simply because it is dark (you are able to get good milk chocolate with cocoa percentages in the 40s these days). Alternatively, it is possible to get decent dark chocolate which is not too full bodied with cocoa percentages in the mid 50s that children are quite happy to munch into. Thus, if Marabou with this bar, is catering to one or both of the above mentioned target groups, they might consider doing things a little differently

The chocolate itself looks decent even if it could be a bit shinier. The wrapper looks OK but as before I do not think it accurately conveys what type of product this is. Both the depiction of dark chocolate and the words “Mörk choklad” (Dark chocolate) mislead. Thus, the wrapper does not fulfil its basic function of giving a good idea of the product. Hence, the low score: Appearance: 5 out of 10.

The aroma is uncomplex, but dark with notes of rubber and tobacco. It is surprisingly “dark” in its aroma and not sweet, for a 44% minimum cocoa offering. However, the rubber and tobacco are very unpleasant: Aroma: 6, 5 out of 10.

The chocolate has good snap, both when breaking off a piece and when actually biting into it. However, the chocolate has a somewhat crumbly in the mouth feel when melting, which detracts from the overall texture. Texture: 7 out of 10.

This is as might be expected for 44% chocolate very sweet, though to my mind it is way too sweet for a dark chocolate. It has an artificial tasting bitter aftertaste and no complexity of flavour. Flavour: 6 out of 10.

Average: 6, 125

Review: Nestlé KitKat Chunky

This review of the KitKat Chunky wraps up this week’s exclusive KitKat reviews. While I don’t have all reviews in place for next week, I can reveal that it will feature a test case examining the same chocolate in two formats: one in a thin bar versus a thicker bar. It should be interesting to see how, if at all, flavour, texture and/or consistency are affected by changing this one parameter. So be sure to check in Tuesday to see what’s cooking.

As opposed to other KitKat Bars, such as the dark and regular, the “chunky” comes as a single giant wafer covered with milk chocolate, rather than four fingers of the above mentioned varieties thus making it more compact. And I for one consider the chunky style superior to the regular KitKat.

I consider the colour only slightly better than the KitKat regular. I am not sure whether this is because the chocolate covering is somewhat thicker or due to a different type of chocolate. Appearance: 6 out of 10.

The aroma of this one much stronger, than the regular KitKat and smells of milk chocolate, bread and butter, the butter aroma not being entirely pleasant. Aroma: 7 out of 10.

The texture of this bar is, in my opinion, superior to both the regular and dark Kit Kats I reviewed earlier this week. The chocolate covering seems thicker and the wafer is crispier as well. And these factors definitely improve the melt and mouth feel. Texture: 7, 5 out of 10.

Flavour wise this proposition is very much similar to the regular KitKat even if the proportions are somewhat different. The flavours as with the regular KitKat are that of bread (wafer) with a little salt, and sweetness and with the same lack of characteristic flavour and vanilla. Flavour: 6, 5 out of 10.

Overall I think this bar works slightly better mostly due to its chunky character.

Average: 6, 75 out of 10.

Review: KitKat Dark, Nestlé

As promised here is the second review in a week devoted entirely the Kit Kat reviews. If you haven't followed this blog Monday's blog post reviewed the regular Kit Kat here. This post will deal with the dark KitKat offering and Sunday's review will be off the chunky KitKat. So be sure to check up this week's last KitKat review Sunday.

Dark chocolate has – whether justified or not - a better reputation than its milk and white counterparts. And manufacturers are producing a number of items in their range in dark chocolate version and this is also the case with the KitKat Dark described as “Dark chocolate covered wafer fingers”. In fact Nestlé also produces a 70% chocolate KitKat, not to be confused with this one, which is lighter, containing 52% min. cocoa solids in the chocolate.

As such it does qualify as dark chocolate, which is commonly understood to contain 50% min. cocoa solids (and no addition of dairy products), in contrast to a different version of this bar which reportedly contains (or contained) only 40% cocoa solids.

At any rate I find the wrapper to be a bit more stylish than the milk chocolate variety. Certainly the wrapper signals that this is a dark chocolate which fulfils its function in indicating what kind of bar this is. This is good, at least if you think that this is indeed is a dark and is chocolate. More importantly the chocolate itself looks much nicer than the milk variety and is brown and shiny. Appearance: 7, 5 out of 10.

However, I find the fragrance of this one to be much inferior to the regular KitKat. The dark chocolate smells sweet but with unpleasant smoke, which is quite dominating. Aroma: 6 out of 10.

Texture wise this offering is quite similar to the regular KitKat. The chocolate has a nice melt, even though the wafer could be a little crispier, though it certainly is not dull which is a pitfall of many a wafer based bar. Texture: 7 out of 10.

Flavour wise the wafer appeared to be much the same as the milk variety. At any rate I was not able to taste any significant difference. However, I found the dark chocolate musty, old with a very unpleasant bitter off taste which ruins this offering altogether. For the record the bar was not too old and it did not show any signs of incorrect storage conditions, such as dull wafer or white specks on the chocolate, which is sometimes the case. Flavour: 5 out of 10.

Average: 6, 375

Review: Nestlé KitKat

This is the first of three successive KitKat reviews this week. So be sure to check in on Thursday and Sunday for the other two. I will kick of this week’s review with the KitKat regular which will serve as the benchmark for the KitKat Chunky and KitKat Dark Chocolate reviews.

The KitKat is described as a milk chocolate coated wafer. There are not indications of the percentage of cocoa solids. Appearance wise I think the wrapper is a bit kitchy. When unwrapped, four chocolate “fingers” are revealed. The colour is light brown, albeit a peculiar one which I’ve never seen in chocolate before. Appearance: 6 out of 10.

The bar has no strong or characteristic scent, though there is a sweet scent of milk chocolate. Aroma: 6 out of 10.

The crunch from the wrapper could be crispier, though it is definitely not dull. The melt is fairly decent. Texture: 7 out of 10.

The flavours of this KitKat are that of bread (wafer) with a little salt, and sweetness. Otherwise this bar has no characteristic flavour and I think it does lack a little in the vanilla department. Aroma: 6, 5 out of 10.


Average: 6, 375

Review Lindt Swiss Thins

Being extremely busy at my day job I apologize for missing Thursday’s review. I hope this review will make it up to all of you who visited in vain.

Starting out with the facts, these Lindt Swiss Thins, contain 52% chocolate (min.) and come in box of 200g containing 80(!) making each thin weighing in at approximately 2, 5. There are eight compartments each containing 10 thins. The chocolate contain only the five basic ingredients of a quality chocolate namely cocoa mass and butter, sugar, emulsifier and vanilla.

The Thins come in a very elegant box, and the chocolate thins are also elegant looking, with Lindt in the signature font being written on them The colour is a nice if somewhat light brown. Appearance: 8 out of 10.

The aroma is nice with sweet cocoa and notes of smoke and - as with the Lindt Excellence 70% I reviewed here – a little rubber. Fortunately, the rubber is, in comparison, toned much down, though it still, in my opinion detracts from the aroma. Aroma: 7, 5 out of 10.

The Thins have an excellent almost brittle snap, due to their thinness and a nice melt. Texture: 8, 5 out of 10

Whereas the thinness is good for texture and mouth feel, I think it less good for flavour as it is hard to taste much in such a thin and only 2, 5g piece. Particularly considering that this is a 52% chocolate “only”. Thus I found myself having to take two thins in order to appreciate the flavour properly, which I guess is not the desired effect of an elegant offering box like this. The Thins are much less sweet than I would have expected from a 52% chocolate. They do taste of cocoa but there is no fruit, acidity or complexity in the flavour. It does, however, have a very unpleasant bitter and smoky aftertaste. Flavour: 6, 5 out of 10.

The format of 80 2, 5g thins has its own challenges as pertains flavour. Another challenge is that of having 10 thins on top of each other in each compartment. The effect is that quite a few of the thins are stuck together as they are not separated with paper or a individually packed such as The After Eight Thins are – and probably for this same reason. I think Lindt should consider a solution to this problem as individual pieces sticking together may cause the chocolates to go mouldy.

Average: 7, 625 out of 10