Candy Review
CANDY CORN DOTS


This variation of Dots gumdrops appeared on the shelves this year for Halloween at the same time as the Bat Dots did. At first, though, I thought this would be a review that would be relegated to post-Halloween. For a time, I saw them only in bags of snack-size packages (suitable for handing out to trick or treaters), and I wasn't going to buy any of those until November 1. But much to my surprise, I saw boxes of them (I they are usually referred to as "theatre-sized" boxes) on the shelves at Walgreens, and I picked one up. (I then paid for it.)

In terms of shape, Candy Corn Dots look like the other varieties of Dots -- short, squat truncated cones tht have been rounded off at the top. They are colored to resemble candy corn -- primarily orange, with a layer of yellow at the bottom. (I'm guessing that making them white at the top was technically difficult.)

They have the same gummy texture as regular Dots, and they do taste like candy corn. Regular candy corn, that is; not like any of the flavored candy corns that I have seen (and that is a subject for a whole series of other reviews). Having said that, I just realized that I've never really been able to describe the flavor of candy corn. I know that it's made with honey (at least, that's what Brach's says on its packaging, as well as several other makers of candy corn), but I don't really know the right way to describe that flavor. (And yes, that is probably the subject for yet another entry.)

One thing I have noticed about all of the Dots varieties that I have sampled is that the flavor on all of them tends toward the bland side. They are sweet, but it seems that the people at Tootsie Roll are more interested in the gummy texture of the Dots more than their flavor.

Like the Bat Dots and Ghost Dots, Candy Corn Dots are a seasonal release. The Ghost Dots seemed to be popular enough last year to merit a return engagement this year. In a similar fashion, I suspect that Candy Corn Dots, as well as Bat Dots, will more than likely reappear on the shelves for the Halloween 2010 season.


-jc-

I think just about all of my co-workers know that I have an inordinate sweet tooth. When you have a bag of Hershey Kisses just out of sight of the customers, but within easy reach, it's kind of difficult to conceal. I think Emily is the one who is probably the most aware of my sweet tooth, as our schedules intersect most often.

When I came to work yesterday, Emily said to me, "Here, try this -- caramel candy corn." She then handed me some candy corn from a plastic bag. I'm never one to turn down an offer of candy, so I accepted a small handful. I'm guessing that she had just discovered it, but it only took a brief glance and one bite to realize that this was Brach's Milk Maid Caramel Corn.

I said, "Uh, Emily, I hate to tell you this, but this is the third year for this product. Brach's frist brought it out two years ago." I also told her about the Caramel Apple and Chocolate Candy Corn.

I think Emily was a little disappointed. I got the impression that she was hoping to surprise me with something I hadn't seen before. She did say that she normally didn't like candy corn, but she really liked this one. I'm guessing it was the caramel flavor. And she did say that while she might try the Caramel Apple, she probably wouldn't try the Chocolate Caramel variety. If I remember correctly, she said something about not particularly liking the combination of chocolate and caramel flavors.

I appreciated the thought, but it is a little difficult to surprise me with a candy I haven't seen before.


-jc-

Yesterday, I received my copy of the October Alexiad. It's the fanzine edited by my friends Joe and Lisa Major. I'm a regular contributor, although in the past few years, most of my contributions have been pieces that appeared here (or on one of my other online journals) first.

(And yes, they do have my permission to reprint anything of mine that they get from online. If there are any other fanzine editors who might be reading this, and you would like to use any of my material, let me know, and we can work something out.)

In any event, when I opened the envelope, I started flipping through the new issue. As usual, I had a couple of reviews -- this time, it was my reviews of Original Ginger Chews and the Snickers Fudge bar that were reprinted. But that wasn't the thing that made my day.

It was the letters section that really made my day.

Specifically, it was a letter from Chris Garcia. In case you may be unfamiliar with the name, Chris was one of the nominees for this year's Best Fan Writer Hugo Award. He was also a nominee in the Bext Fanzine category for his fanzine The Drink Tank. And if I'm not too terribly mistaken, he has been a nominee in both categories before.

Chris had a somewhat lengthy letter (as more than a few of the letters in Alexiad are), but it was one line in particular that was what made my day:

"One guy who is always on my Hugo ballot is Johnny Carruthers, and the candy reviews are the big reason."

Oh, wow. I like to think that I am a pretty decent writer, but to have one of the recent Best Fan Writer nominees think that I belong on that ballot as well -- I'm not sure what else I can say other than, "Oh, wow."

It's nice to know that someone really enjoys reading what you wrote.


-jc-

Candy Review
PERUGINA BACI


I first heard about Baci chocolates many, many years ago. I'm pretty sure it was in the pages of Chocolatier where I first heard about this Italian chocolate, or at least it was the most likely place. I'm trying to remember when I finally tried one for the first time, but I'm drawing a blank. I know it was several years ago, but I can't recall specifics.

More recently (as in a few months ago), I was in World Market, and in the candy section, I saw Baci on one of the shelves. Obviously, I picked up a couple of boxes to enjoy, and to use for review purposes.

There is just one slight problem with what was available. The only packages are boxes that contain only two chocolates. Now, this might not be a problem if all you want is just a little taste. If you're going to be writing a review, however, a bag of the chocolates would be much better. But, I have to work with what I have.

The center of a Baci chocolate is a dark chocolate ganache blended with chopped hazelnuts. A ball of this ganache is topped with a whole hazelnut, and everything is covered in dark chocolate.

The Baci are wrapped in silver foil decorated with blue stars. Wrapped inside each chocolate is a love note, with the same message written in several languages. The only one I can read is English, but I'm pretty certain that at least one of the others is Italian. A couple of the others look like Spanish and French, and I have seen Greek on at least one note.

The dark chocolate of the outer shell seems to be the most dominant flavor. It's more intense than that of the ganache. The ganache contains a hint of hazelnut flavor, but a stronger taste of hazelnut comes from the whole nut topping the chocolate. And both the whole nut and the chopped nuts in the ganache give a slight crunchy texture to the chocolate.

I could easily go through an entire bag of Baci, if they were available. Since they are an import, I'm kind of limited to what stores like World Market are able to obtain. I would be interested in learning if Perugina makes other variations of Baci chocolates. I think I will be picking up the occasional package, even if I only get two chocolates. I want to see more of the love notes hidden inside.


-jc-

Candy Review
BRACH'S MILK MAID CHOCOLATE CARAMEL CANDY CORN


[NOTE: I suppose I should start by mentioning that this review is actually a year overdue. This candy first appeared around this time last year, but for whatever reason, I didn't get around to reviewing it then. This year, I'm reviewing it.]

Two years ago, when I reviewed Brach's Caramel Candy Corn and Caramel Apple Candy Corn, I ended my review by thinking, "How about a chocolate flavored candy corn? Or perhaps a chocolate caramel candy corn . . . ?" Well, when the Halloween candy began appearing on the shelves for the 2008 season, both the Caramel and Caramel Apple variations appeared for a second year. And they were joined by the Chocolate Caramel Candy Corn.

Now, part of me would like to think that there was someone at Brach's who saw my review two years ago, said, "Hey, what a great idea," and turned my random musings into reality. It would be nice to think that, but I don't know how likely that really is. Yes, I suspect that Brach's more than likely has someone searching the Internet for any reference to the company. And if that indeed is the case, that someone or someones probably saw my review. But I really, really doubt that one little line at the end of a product review would be enough to inspire a new product. I think it's far more likely that the Chocolate Caramel Candy Corn was in development in 2007, and just wasn't ready for release until Halloween 2008.

The Chocolate Caramel Candy Corn has the same flattened cone shape that you find in other candy corn. Instead of being tri-colored like most candy corn, this version has only two colors. The base is a lighter shade of brown; about the same shade as the color of most caramels. The tip is a more chocolate shade of brown; somewhere closer to the color of dark chocolate.

The flavor is caramel and chocolate, just as advertised. It isn't the same as the flavor of a chocolate caramel. Instead, it's more like the flavor you would get when you took a jar of caramel sauce and a jar of hot fudge sauce, and blended them together. You can tell that the two flavors are there, but they aren't distinctly separate. (This is not necessarily a negative thing; in fact, the taste is quite pleasant.)

And just as I mentioned two years ago, I am still trying to decide the right way to describe the texture of candy corn. Whatever that description might be (and I will eventually find the right way to describe it), it definitely applies to the Chocolate Caramel Candy Corn. It has the same feel in the mouth as other candy corn.

The Chocolate Caramel Candy Corn has already weathered one Halloween season, and survived to make a return engagement. So while the usual seasonal disclaimer applies here, I feel safe in saying that even though it will disappear from the shelves sometime in early November, it will also be reappearing somewhere around Labor Day 2010.

And just in case someone from Brach's is reading this, I have one question. When will you be making that chocolate candy corn available?


-jc-

Candy Review
BAT DOTS


Since the Halloween candy first started creeping on the shelves sometime last month, I've been studying the shelves, seeing if there are any new Halloween themed candies this year. For the most part, the answer would be "no." Most of the candies being offered are bags of "Fun Size" candy bars, almost all of which are miniature offerings of Milky Way, Snickers, and other candy bars that you can find year round. All standard offerings. I think I may have seen some bags of the Snickers Nougabot bars, but those could easily be left over from earlier this summer.

One of the few seasonal variations I saw were the Bat Dots. Like the Ghost Dots I reviewed last year (and which I noticed have reappeared on the shelves this year), this is a seasonal variation on Dots gumdrops. The box describes them as being "blood orange flavored."

Now, the Bat Dots are a bluish-black color. Given the flavor that the people at Tootsie Roll chose for the candy, I was thinking that they would be black on the outside, and on the inside, they would be the dark reddish-orange color that I associate with the inside of a blood orange. I was wrong. The Bat Dots are the same bluish-black color throughout the candy.

At least the flavor is more or less what I expected. I don't know if there is any difference in flavor between blood oranges and, say, Valencias, but the Bat Dots definitely have an orange flavor. A natural and artificial orange flavor, according to the ingredients panel, but quite definitely an orange flavor. The Bat Dots also have the same gummy quality that have encountered in other Dots products.

Okay, this is a seasonal product, so the usual holiday disclaimer applies. These will be around through Halloween, depending on how quickly they sell at your favorite retail establishment. If you have kids, there is a good chance that you could find a mini box or two of Bat Dots in their Trick-Or-Treat haul. And if Tootsie Roll decides that they sold well enough this year, it's quite likely that they will start appearing on the shelves again just before next Labor Day.


-jc-

Candy Bar Review
SNICKERS FUDGE


I first learned about this several months ago, when Candy Blog gave a brief mention of upcoming products. I think this was back in May, and since then, I have been waiting . . . and waiting . . . and . . . well, you get the idea.

I finally saw the Snickers Fudge bar on sale at Rite Aid today. With my wait finally over, I quickly grabbed a couple of bars for review purposes.

This variation on the Snickers bar replaces the peanut-embedded caramel with a layer of fudge, which is also embedded with peanuts. The peanut butter nougat remains, and the car is covered in milk chocolate.

The fudge layer is clearly the dominant flavor in this bar. It is smooth, creamy, chewy, and well, fudgy. The chocolate flavor of the fudge blends well with the milk chocolate, and the peanuts in the fudge provide the crunch you usually expect from a Snickers bar.

The only drawback is that the fudge completely overwhelms the flavor of the peanut butter nougat. If it weren't for looking at a cross-section after I bit into the bar, I would have had a hard time believing that it was there. If the composition had been fudge and caramel instead of fudge and nougat, I think the flavors of the different components would have remained more distinct.

This is a limited edition, so the standard disclaimer applies. I have no idea how long the Snickers Fudge bar will remain on the shelves. At this point, I have no idea when I will be seeing it on the shelves of other stores. But I will be enjoying this one while I can.


-jc-

Candy Review
ORIGINAL GINGER CHEWS


As I have mentioned more than a few times, I do enjoy candies that don't have chocolate in them. I don't think I would say that I had any particularly favorite flavor, but one that seems to appear with great regularity is ginger. (At this point, you should insert the Mary Ann/Gilligan's Island joke of your choice, because I really don't want to.)

A few months ago, I discovered Original Ginger Chews from The Ginger People at my local World Market store. It's a soft and chewy candy made from ginger, cane sugar, and tapioca starch. It's actually chewier than a ginger-flavored caramel would be (and probably has a stronger ginger flavor, too).

The ginger flavor is strong, but not particularly overwhelming. It leaves behind a pleasantly spicy tingle in the mouth and on the tongue, but not so spicy that it leaves a burning sensation instead.

I'm at something of a loss on how to describ e the texture of Ginger Chews. As I said, they're not a caramel. While the candies are soft, they're stiffer, firmer than most caramels. And while they seem to leave little bits stuck between your teeth more readily than caramels do, those little bits also seem to leave much easier than caramel bits do.

The Ginger People make several varieties of Ginger Chews. I chose the Original Variety -- straight ginger. There are about three or four varieties with other flavors added, and I may have to try them as well. Oh, who am I kidding? I know that I will probably try them eventually; it's just a matter of how soon it will be before I encounter them on a store's shelves.


-jc-

Candy Review
TWIZZLERS CHOCOLATE TWISTS


I'm not completely certain I've been thinking about doing a review on this particular variety of Twizzlers. But somewhere around the time I decided to review the Sweet & Sour Filled Twizzlers, I decided that I would review these as well, and I bought a package.

If you're the type that pays attention to the tags on each entry, you'll notice the "cocoa" tag. From a look at the list of ingredients, it appears that the Chocolate Twists use primarily cocoa to achieve the chocolate flavor instead of chocolate. Twizzlers are a low fat candy, which means that there isn't that much cocoa butter in it. So it's like a cookie or brownie recipe that uses cocoa as an ingredient.

The Chocolate Twists (and I suspect, any of the Twists varieties of Twizzlers) are more or less round tubes with six equidistant ridges around the outside of the tube. The projecting ridges are what give the Twists their name; without them, you wouldn't be able to discern if they were twisted or not.

There is a chocolate flavor present in the Chocolate Twist Twizzlers. The best word I would use to describe it is mild. Almost too mild, in fact. If it were any milder, I would have to use the word bland. It's almost as if Hershey were trying to use as little cocoa as possible to give it a chocolate flavor.

I have the feeling that Hershey decided that the texture of Twizzlers was more important than the flavor. Twizzlers are chewy. I would almost go so far as to say that in terms of consistency, they are close to the candy equivalent of beef jerky.

While looking through (and blowing air through) one of the Chocolate Twists, one idle thought occurred to me. The hollow part is just wide enough that you could take a single strand from one of the Pull And Peel Twizzlers (such as the Cinnamon Fire), and very carefully feed it through the Twist to create a double flavored Twizzler.

Hmmm . . . this matter deserves additional thought. And perhaps even some experimentation.

As for the Chocolate Twist Twizzlers -- I suppose they are all right. There are definitely other candies which I find preferable.


-jc-

Candy Review
TWIZZLERS SWEET & SOUR FILLED TWISTS


I think this particular version of Twizzlers has been out for a couple of months now. Whenever I saw them in the stores, my curiosity was just a little aroused. Well, finally, my curiosity won out, and I picked up a package. Then I took it to the register and paid for it. [insert rimshot]

There are actually two flavors in this package. The wrapper describes them as "Cherry Kick!" and "Citrus Punch!" (which I am taking to mean lemon). They are tubes of a chewy candy which are filled with a soft filling. About the closest comparison I can make for the filling is that it is close to the consistency of toothpaste. Okay, that may not be the most appetizing of comparisons, but it was the first one to come to mind when I squeezed the end of one of these Twizzlers, and some of the filling oozed out like toothpaste out of the tube.

The one problem I have with these particular Twizzlers is that all of the flavor seems to be solely in the filling. I really don't detect any particular flavor in the outer tube -- not even a generic sweetness. The outer part of these Twizzlers seems to function solely as a carrier for the filling.

The flavor of the Cherry Kick Twizzler is primarily sweet, with just the right amount of tartness. Not mouth-puckering tart, but just tart enough to deliver a blend of taste sensations to the tongue.

From the bright yellow color, my first impression of the Citrus Punch Twizzler was that the citrus in question was lemon -- and I was right. The flavor here is primarily sour, with just the slightest touch of sweetness to keep it from being unpleasantly sour.

The apparent lack of flavor in the chewy outer part of the filled Twizzlers could be described as just a little off-putting. This particular candy would be improved if Hershey added flavor to the outer part. Mixing two contrasting flavors in the same candy might provide an intresting contrast.

It would also be interesting to see this format used with other flavors. The ones that immediately come to mind are lime, blueberry, and orange, but if I think about long enough, I am certain that I could think of others.

I'm not sure if the Sweet And Sour Filled Twizzlers will be a regular purchase for me. It wasn't bad, but not enough to make me crave them.


-jc-

Candy Bar Review
PEARSON'S CARAMEL BUN


When I wrote yesterday's entry, I already had the necessary research material for this review at hand. I just wanted to write two separate reviews, and as you may have noticed, I don't post more than one entry per day.

The Caramel Bun follows the same basic construction as its maple counterpart. In this case, it's built around a center of caramel, topped with peanuts, and covered with chocolate.

The caramel in this bar is very firm. I like a caramel that is this stiff; it provides the right amount of chewing to distribute the caramel flavor over all of the tastebuds. The sweetness of the caramel is also the dominant flavor in this particular bar, with the flavor of the chocolate relegated almost to a supporting role.

I nibbled at the edge of the Bun, so I could get a taste of just the chocolate. It confirmed the impressions I had when I reviewed the Maple Bun. The milk chocolate Pearson's uses is a little richer than most milk chocolate I encounter. I'm guessing that the percentage of cocoa solids is a little higher than what you would find in Hershey's chocolate, but that theory is something I could confirm only with laboratory analysis. And since I don't have a fully equipped like you would find on NCIS or any of the CSI series (not to mention the knowledge and training of how to use that equipment), you will have to settle for the rather subjective imnpressions gathered with my tongue.

Biting into a Caramel Bun shares similarities with a bite into its maple counterpart. The chocolate is the initial flavor encountered, and slowly, the flavor of the caramel center becomes more pronounced. The main difference is that the caramel lasts longer than the maple cream center, and the caramel flavor lasts longer on the tongue.

As I mentioned, Pearson's makes three varieties of Bun Bars. That still leaves the Vanilla Bun Bar to be reviewed -- and this time, I don't have one of those waiting for me to conduct the proper research. Looks like it's time to conduct a field expedition to locate the necessary research material . . .


-jc-

Candy Bar Review
PEARSON'S MAPLE BUN


I have no trouble finding some candy bars. I can easily find them at Kroger, Walgreens, or just about any other supermarket or pharmacy. Then there are other bars, which I tend to find in out of the way places. The Pearson's Bun Bars are prime examples of the latter. I think I see them most often at Big Lots, but I have also seen them at Meijer and Dollar General.

The Pearson's Bun takes a creamy center (in this case, a maple center), tops it with peanuts, and covers everything with a thick layer of milk chocolate.

I suppose the best way to describe the maple center is to call it a maple cream. The consistency is similar to what you would find inside a box of chocolates. Something like a fondant, very smooth, melts on the tongue, and most importantly, a very rich maple flavor.

As is usually the case, the peanuts are noticeable more for their crunch than their flavor. I suspect that nut lovers of all kinds are usually disappointed by this particular aspect of adding their favorite nuts to any candy; that the flavor of their favorite nut gets lost in all the other flavors that are in the candy bar.

The milk chocolate covers the Maple Bun in a thick layer. I get the impression that it's a thicker layer than the outer shell of most candy bars. It at least feels thicker to my teeth; the chocolate on the Maple Bun gives more resistance as I bite through it. And it also tastes a little richer than the chocolate used in other candy bars on the market.

The chocolate is the dominant flavor when you first bite into a Maple Bun. But as you chew each bite, the maple flavor gradually becomes more pronounced, and by the time you finish with one bite, it is the maple cream center that leaves a sweet aftertaste on your tongue.

Pearson's also makes two other varieties of Bun Bars. And as soon as I can find the necessary research material, I'll probably be writing reviews of them as well.


-jc-

Candy Review
BRACH'S MAPLE NUT GOODIES


You've heard me say this more than a few times -- yes, I do enjoy candy that doesn't have any chocolate in it. This is one of those candies. I've been meaning to write a review of these for some time. I just realized that today would be the right time to do it.

Why? Well, mainly because tomorrow is the start of Anticipation, this year's Worldcon. And since Worldcon is being held in Canada this year (Montreal, to be precise), what better timing for reviewing a maple candy?

Maple Nut Goodies are bite-size candies, consisting of peanuts covered first in toffee, then in a maple-flavored coating. (Each individual candy is built around a single peanut.) And according to the ingredients listing, this maple coating uses real maple syrup.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear here. The maple flavor of the outer coating is by far the dominant flavor in this candy. Once you bite through into the peanuts, that flavor does start making its presence known. But the peanut flavor takes more of a supporting role.

I'm not even sure if the toffee has a flavor of its own. It does have a presence in the Maple Nut Goodies -- it has a slight chewiness; quite distinct from the texture of the maple coating. But if it has a flavor of its own, it is completely dominated by the flavor of the outer coating. I suspect that it may be a maple-flavored toffee, but I'm not completely certain. If that is indeed the case, I'm getting a double burst of maple flavor.

I'm not certain how long Maple Nut Goodies have been around. It's one of those items that I know I have seen on the shelves for a long time, but I can't put my finger on precisely when I first saw them. In other words, this is no limited edition.

I also have no idea why I haven't (to the best of my knowledge, anyway) tried this particular confectionery delight before now. (I suppose I can always fall back on the line, "So much candy, so little time.") I probably will be grabbing the bag from now on. I'm discovering that keeping a bag of candy on hand at work can be be something of a stress reliever. And there are a more than a few days when it seems that I need two or three bags of stress relief.

-jc-

When I wrote about seeing the back to school displays starting to take shape on the last Monday in June, there was one question that left unsaid, but I think I implied it strongly enough. That question, of course, was, "Okay, how long is it going to be before we see the Halloween merchandise going on the shelves?"

My question was answered yesterday. It's going up right now.

I went by the Rite Aid at Hikes Lane and Taylorsville Road late yesterday afternoon. I was looking for something that the Rite Aid I normally patronize didn't have, and I thought this one might have it. As I entered the store, I saw that the back to school merchandise still held a prominent place on the seasonal shelves. But when I walked around to the next aisle, I saw both Halloween decorations and candy on the shelves. Well, the decorations were more generic fall decorations than Halloween specific, but it was still something that I wasn't expecting to see until at least a week or so after Labor Day.

There is a Walgreens across the street from this particular Rite Aid. I was already planning to make a stop there, but now my curiosity was running on all cylinders. I immediately made my way to the seasonal section in Walgreens. The school supplies still dominate the section, but on the top shelves -- more or less out of the way, but within clear view of the customers -- boxes of Halloween candy were neatly stacked, ready to be moved down on a moment's notice.

What the hell?

Am I the only one who thinks that this is just a little crazy? It's not even August!

I was thinking that we wouldn't see any Halloween merchandise until at least the start of the school year -- which in Louisville, is about two weeks from now. The way things seem to be going right now, I'm beginning to think that we will see the Christmas merchandise on the shelves right around Columbus Day, the Valentine candy around Thanksgiving, and the Easter candy somewhere around Martin Luther King Day.


-jc-

Would you be willing to eat chocolate for an entire year -- all in the name of science?

That's what some researchers at the University Of East Anglia and a hospital in Norwich, England are looking for. Specifically, this group of researchers are trying to learn whether or not chocolate can reduce the risk of heart disease. And according to the story I read on Yahoo! News, they need 40 women to be test subjects for this study. (Somehow, I get the feeling that they will not be lacking for volunteers.)

Most of the women in the study will have to eat two bars of what the story described as "super-strength chocolate specially formulated by Belgian chocolatiers" every day for an entire year, and undergo a number of tests to determine how healthy their hearts are. The other women (presumably the study's control group) will be eating regular chocolate (and again, presumably no one will know which chocolate they will be eating).

Oh, the sacrifices that must be made to advance scientific knowledge.

I would be more than willing to make that sacrifice, but unfortunately, these researchers don't want me. They want a very specific group for this study, and I think I am disqualified on several counts. As I mentioned, they want women for this study. They need women who are menopausal but under the age of 75, and they have to have type 2 diabetes. (And I'm guessing that the researchers would prefer that their subjects also live in England.)

Why couldn't this study be taking place in the US? Why couldn't the researchers be studying men, and why couldn't I fit the parameters for the test subjects?

Of course, if I were a test subject in a study like this, the researchers would never be ab le to get rid of me.


-jc-

It was a couple of weeks ago -- June 28, I think -- when I went by Walgreens after work. I was joking with one of the cashiers when I asked, "So when are you going to be putting out the back to school merchandise?"

She replied, "We've already started to put it out."

She wasn't joking. I wandered over to the seasonal aisle, and one section was already stocked with notebooks, binders, and assorted weapons of writing. By the end of the week, Wal-Mart had also begun to set up their back to school section.

Now, keep in mind that this was the week before Independence Day. School hadn't even been out a month, and the stores were already heralding the beginning of a new school year. And it didn't take long for Target, Rite Aid, Staples, and Office Depot to follow suit. (They may have even been setting up their back to school sections at the same time; I just happened to see them at Walgreens and Wal-Mart first.)

Of course, all of these stores need to get their back to school sales completed as soon as possible. They need to get the shelves cleared of all that stuff before Labor Day, so they can get the Halloween merchandise on the shelves.

Candy season hasn't started yet, but it's getting close.


-jc-

I suspect that if you're reading this, you already know that The Sci-Fi Channel has changed their name from SciFi to SyFy. It sounds the same; it's just a spelling change.

If you know this, then you are probably also aware that this change has been soundly reviled by just about everyone who has heard of the change, and the reasoning behind it. Actually, I'm still trying to find someone other than executives from NBC Universal (the parent company of Sci Fi, oops, I mean
SyFy) who think this was a good idea. On the other hand, if you go to Google and type "syfy + lame" in the Search box, you are going to find links to over 67,000 Internet sites where people have expressed the sentiment that the name change is just that -- lame. (And if you go through the links long enough, you will more than likely find that this entry has been to the list.)

One of the biggest objections to this name change is that "syfy" is either the Polish word for "syphillis" or a slang term for syphillis. (I've heard varying accounts; there might even be other, similarly related stories floating around the Internet.) When I saw that line of objection, my first thought was, "The Poles are probably laughing their asses off right about now." I can just see someone in Warsaw or Gdansk saying, "And you made jokes about us?"

Now, I am not going to go into a long and boring rehash of the arguments that have already been presented elsewhere. Yes, I do think the change to "SyFy" is lame, at the very least. Yes, I think the top brass at NBC Universal are going to be regretting this little bit of corporate stupidity, and in the very near future. (I would have thought that the negative reaction that has arisen since the announcement was made back in March would have given them second thoughts on the change, but I am expecting them to display common sense. That, apparently, is just too much to ask.)

I also keep thinking back to one of the biggest corporate disasters of all time -- New Coke. As I recall, Coca-Cola was backpedaling within weeks to deal with the consumer backlash from that. Yes, I think that NBC Universal will realize how much of a misstep they made, but I think it will take a few months. I think if the Neilsen reports for the current quarter show a significant drop in viewers, it might finally filter through their collective heads that this was not a good idea.

In any case, I just wanted to let anyone reading this know that I will not be changing my user name to "chocolatesyfy." I would like to think that I can learn from the mistakes of others, and more importantly, not make them myself.

Besides, "chocolatesyfy" just looks silly.


-jc-

Candy Review
COCONUT M&MS


I was just a little surprised when I saw this M&Ms variation at Dollar Tree yesterday. Cybele May of Candy Blog had written about them recently, in an entry about upcoming releases. But if I'm remembering correctly, she said that the Coconut M&Ms wouldn't be out for another month or so. That was the thing that surprised me.

First, let's get the obvious bits out of the way. This is a variation on the milk chocolate M&Ms candy -- what used to be called "Plain M&Ms." The inside is milk chocolate which has been infused with coconut flavor. No coconut, just the flavor. This coconut-flavored chocolate is covered in the M&Ms sugar shell makes it . . . well, I think you all know the slogan.

The shells for this limited edition have a different color scheme than the usual M&Ms. There are only three colors -- brown, white, and green. Brown and white to represent the outside and inside of a coconut, and green because, well, the M&M spokescharacter Green is featured on the bags. (That's the conclusion that first comes to mind, anyway, and Occam's Razor would seem to apply.) While most of the shells have the usual "M" imprint, a few of the candies bear imprints of the "M" with an umbrella, a palm tree, or a sun. This seems to be in keeping with the tropical theme of this candy.

The coconut flavor is stronger than some of the other flavors Mars has used in previous M&Ms limited editions. This is good; in some of those other variations, the infused flavor was too subtle, almost to the point of it barely registering on my tastebuds. Not here. The coconut and chocolate flavors are on equal footing here. Neither overwhelms or dominates the other.

As I said, there is no actual coconut in these M&Ms. When I tried my first candy, I thought there might have been some coconut in the chocolate, but I quickly realized that any texture I was encountering was the crunching of the candy shell.

As I said, this is a limited edition, so the usual disclaimer applies. I have no idea how long these will stay on the shelves. The tropical theme of both the flavor and the packaging would make it ideal for an annual release every summer. Whether Mars thinks this is a good idea is another matter.


-jc-

Candy Review
STRAWBERRIED PEANUT BUTTER M&MS


The Snickers Nougabot Bar isn't the only tie-in that Mars is producing in conjunction with Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen. Mars is also bringing us the Strawberried Peanut Butter M&Ms.

I must confess that this particular edition leaves me just a little puzzled. As i mentioned in my review of the Nougabot Bar, it at least has a connection of some kind to the Transformers through the yellow color of the nougat. There doesn't seem to be any particular connection between this M&Ms variation and the Transformers universe. But as I have mentioned previously, I am not a Transformers fan, so there could easily be a connection, and I am not aware of it.

This edition is a variation on the Peanut Butter M&Ms. It starts with a core of peanut butter, which is covered with milk chocolate that has been infused with strawberry flavor. This is covered with the M&Ms sugar shell. And since I have probably gone through every possible joke on the M&Ms slogan by now, I think I will let you make up one of your own.

The shells have a slightly different color scheme for this edition. There are only three colors for the Strawberried Peanut Butter M&Ms: Red, brown (both of which can be found in the regular M&Ms bags), and a red-splotched yellow. The last one gives the appearance of something yellow that has been splattered with red paint.

The strawberry flavor in the milk chocolate is pleasant, but almost too subtle for this edition. It might have been better if Mars had made an M&Ms edition that was just strawberry-flavored milk chocolate. When the peanut butter is added to the mix, the strawberry flavor is almost too subtle, becoming almost overwhelmed by the flavor of the peanut butter. It isn't a bad combination of flavors; it's just that the strawberry flavor need to be a little stronger to make it a better balance of flavors.

Unlike the Nougabot Snickers, the Strawberried Peanut Butter M&Ms didn't come with any Transformers Bits & Bytes. I was a little surprised, because after last year, I was rather expecting some interesting bits of trivia on the packaging of both movie tie-ins.

And since this is a limited edition, the usual disclaimers should apply. This should be around for at least the first few weeks of release for Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen. After that, I have no idea if Mars will ever plan a re-release. So enjoy them while you can.


-jc-

Last year, Mars included "Indiana Jones Arti-FACTS" on the back of the wrappers of the Snickers Adventure Bar. These were various bits of trivia about both the Snickers bar and the Indiana Jones movies.

This year, Mars did something similar with the Snickers Nougabot Bar they produced as a tie-in with Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen. This time, they're calling the trivia "Transformers Bits & Bytes."

The Bits & Bytes follow the same general format that the Arti-FACTS did. There are two pieces of trivia on the back of each wrapper. The first is about the Transformers movies, followed by something about the Snickers bar. For some reason, though, Mars decided not to produce as many wrappers for the Nougabot bar. There are only four different Bits & Bytes, as opposed to the eight different Arti-FACTS wrappers they produced last year.

And like last year, I decided that I wanted to see all of them. With only four different wrappers, this year's search proved to require far less effort. But like last year, I want something to show for my effort. So, without any further ado, I present all of the Transformers Bits & Bytes for your enjoyment and amusement:

1. In the first Transformers movie, the Decepticons' quest for the All-Spark included a stop on Mars.
*SNICKERS Bars start at Mars, Inc., which serves more than 100 countries around the globe.

2. In the Transformers movies, Optimus Prime stands at over 28 feet tall, weighs over 17,000 pounds in vehicle mode, and is made up of over 10,000 moving parts.
*More than 99 tons of peanuts go into making 15 million SNICKERS Bars every day.

3. Energon is the primary energy source used by the Transformers.
*SNICKERS Brand quickly became one of the planet's favorite treats after its introduction in 1930 and it is still at the top, 78 years later.

4. Shooting for Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen began on June 2, 2008 in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
*In 1984, SNICKERS Brand represented the US well as the official snack food sponsor of the Olympic Games.


-jc-

Candy Bar Review
SNICKERS NOUGABOT BAR


For the past few years, Mars has released limited editions of their product line in conjunction with various summer movie releases. Last year, it was Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull. Two years ago, it was Shrek The Third. This year, the movie is Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen, and one of the tie-in products is the Snickers Nougabot Bar.

The Nougabot Snickers is quite similar to the Shrek Snickers bar produced a couple of years ago. In the Shrek bar, the peanut butter nougat was tinted green -- ostensibly the same verdant hue as that title character's epidermis. With the Nougabot bar, the nougat is tinted a bright yellow. (As I understand it, it's supposed to be the same color as one of the "fallen" mentioned in the title. I'm not a Transformers fan, however, so I'm just a little fuzzy on the details.) Other than the coloring of the nougat, the bar is the same as the original Snickers bar.

My first bite of a Nougabot Snickers was very careful. I wanted to take a good look at a cross section of the bar, particularly the nougat. And yes, the nougat is indeed a bright yellow; a sunshiny xanthic hue that Sinestro himself would be proud to display. (Yeah, I know, different fictional universe. It's the analogy that works best for me. Deal with it.) And I did not notice any difference in taste between the Nougabot bar and the original Snickers bar.

Just for verification, though, I gave one of the Nougabot bars to one of my co-workers, and I asked her opinion. I think she was a little put off by the color added to the nougat -- I think she prefers that the nougat stay its normal color. But when I pressed her about the taste, her reply was, "Tastes like a Snickers to me."

At the moment, I have seen the Nougabot Snickers only as bags of Minis. But we should be seeing full-size Nougabot Snickers bars on the shelves soon. After all, the movie won't even be in theaters for another couple of weeks. And since this is a movie tie-in, we should probably see it on the shelves at least through the first month or so of the movie's release. After that, it's going to disappear.


-jc-

Candy Bar Review
LAKE CHAMPLAIN HAZELNUT PRALINE DARK CHOCOLATE


Recently, my friend Angel asked for my help in identifying a candy bar whose name she could not recall. Unfortunately, her description left me drawing a blank, so I proceeded to conduct my own search for this Chocolate Q (Q for questionmark). And yes, satisfying my own curiosity was part of the motivation for this little quest.

As I have previously mentioned, I found a bar that was a possible match for Angel's mystery bar. It was the Hazelnut Praline Dark Chocolate bar from Lake Champlain Chocolates. I purchased one, and a day or so later, I asked Angel, "Is this the bar?"

Angel was a little disappointed. No, it was not the bar she was trying to find again. She did tell me that she might have to give it a try, though. And she thanked me for my attempt to solve the mystery for her. (I am going to keep looking; my own curiosity needs to be satisfied now.)

The filling of the Hazelnut Praline bar is Gianduja -- hazelnut paste whipped with dark chocolate. This center is covered with dark chocolate. A dark chocolate that, according to the wrapper, is 54% cocoa solids. And according to Lake Champlain's website, it is pure Belgian chocolate. I'm not sure what significance that might have, but they emphasize that fact in describing their chocolate products.

The first thing I noticed when I took my first bite of the Hazelnut Praline bar is that the dark chocolate is intense -- and I mean intense. This is a chocolate that coats your tongue with a rich, velvety blanket of dark chocolate sensation.

And therein lies a slight problem. The dark chocolate is so rich, so intense that it all but overwhelms the flavor of the gianduja filling. I get the occasional flash of some other flavor, but it isn't strong enough to distinguish itself against the dark chocolate. I think the bar might have been better had the gianduja been covered in milk chocolate rather than dark chocolate. (But keep the gianduja a blend of hazelnut paste and dark chocolate, though -- the better to distinguish the flavors.)

I've seen a variety of Lake Champlain's products at Whole Foods, and it appears that Whole Foods (or at least my local Whole Foods store) carries only a fraction of their product line. I'm now curious to learn how some of their other flavor combinations taste.

And of course, I'm still looking for that mystery bar of Angel's. My curiosity there still hasn't been satisfied.

Or as Sherlock Holmes might have put it, "Watson, the game is still afoot!"


-jc-

I was in the library a day or two ago when my friend Angel (aka moiange) wanted to pick my brain. Angel is one of the librarians at my local branch, and she is well aware of my obsession with chocolate. (Well, "obsession" is probably much too mild a description, but it will have to do.) There have been several occasions when I have shared a Hershey's Kiss or two with her, usually when I can tell she is a little stressed out. More often than not, that will bring a smile to her face.

This time, Angel was in need of my knowledge. She was trying to remember the name of a candy bar that she had tried, and was hoping that I could supply the name. It sounded like an interesting challenge, so I asked Angel to tell me what she did remember about this candy bar.

The one thing that Angel remembered most about this candy bar was that, besides chocolate, it had a hazelnut filling. Not pieces of hazelnuts -- a hazelnut ganache, or similar filling inside the chocolate. She also said that she was thought she had bought this bar at Whole Foods, or maybe Rainbow Blossom (a Louisville-area natural foods store).

Unfortunately, this description didn't trigger any immediate recall. In other words, this was now a chocolate mystery. A chocolate questionmark -- or as I like to call it, a Chocolate Q. And I must confess, I was now curious enough to want to try this for myself. (Yes, I'm also thinking that it would be the source of another review.)

I told Angel that this wasn't ringing any particular bells, but that I would do a little research, and see if I could find it. With that, the search was on. Or as Sherlock Holmes would have said, "The game is afoot, Watson!"

My first stop was Rainbow Blossom. No particular reason for choosing that first, other than it was the more convenient place to start. I scanned their candy section, but didn't find anything with chocolate and hazelnuts together in any form. Okay, so that was a bust.

On my way to Whole Foods, I decided to make a swing by World Market. Angel didn't think she had bought the mystery bar there. It's close enough to Whole Foods that I reasoned that she could have found it there. And World Market does carry a fairly good selection of imported candy that is offbeat enough that the Chocolate Q might be there. But after another thorough search, I again drew a blank.

Okay, so that left Whole Foods. This required a slightly more extensive search -- Whole Foods (well, at least this Whole Foods) has different candy scattered through different sections of the store. After looking through the entire store, I found one bar that might be a match for Angel's mystery bar, and I bought one.

What is this particular Chocolate Q? I can't tell you just yet. I want to show Angel the bar first, and see if this is indeed what she is trying to remember. Once I have that answer, I'll write a review of the bar -- and let you know then.


-jc-

Candy Review
DOVE BLACKBERRY CARAMEL PROMISES


I think Dove produced this version of their Promises chocolates just for Valentine's Day. Well, I saw it in the selection of Valentine's Day candy, and it was discounted starting yesterday. So as the saying goes, if you hear hoofbeats, don't think ducks. (Yeah, I know I'm mixing metaphors. It sounds more interesting that way.)

Dove Promises are individually wrapped bite-size chocolates. Make that bite-size for most people. I tend to make them two-bite chocolates, because it's much easier to analyze them that way. I find it especially easier to analyze the varieties that have a filling in them if I can take a look at the filling.

The outside of the Blackberry Caramel Promises is a shell of dark chocolate. This shell surrounds a blackberry flavored caramel. (You were expecting maybe a vanilla flavored cream filling? Or an almond flavored toffee?)

Dove makes their chocolate to be just a little richer than most of the chocolate you find on the store shelves. The dark chocolate is rich, decadently dark, and velvety smooth. It has just the right amount of sweetness; the chocolate isn't bitter, nor is it overly sweet.

The caramel was soft, but firm enough that it wasn't flowing or oozing as soon as I bit into one of the chocolates. I did find the flavor almost a little disappointing, though. I could detect a hint of blackberry flavor in the caramel, but it was almost too faint. A stronger blackberry flavor would have made for a stronger contrast in flavors between the chocolate and the caramel. As it is, the chocolate is by far the dominant flavor in this particular candy. Nothing particularly wrong with that, but I enjoy a candy better if all of the flavors have a chance to share equal footing on my tastebuds.

Dove Promises are individually wrapped, and on the inside of the wrapper is printed a message. To some degree, they remind me of the fortunes in a fortune cookie. Of the messages I have seen so far, I think my favorite may be this one:

"Chocolate. Always your Valentine."

There are a number of other Promises varieties available, in both milk and dark chocolate. I will be sampling more of them.

The Blackberry Caramel Promises may have been a seasonal selection, so it may already be gone until next Valentine's Day. In other words, the usual holiday disclaimer may apply.


-jc-

Candy Review
GHOST DOTS


This is one of those Halloween candies that I didn't feel the need to purchase before Halloween. But, since Halloween is over, and they were marked down 50%, I decided it was time to indulge my curiosity.

Ghost Dots are a seasonal variation of regular Dots, which are gumdrops that come is assorted fruit flavors. I am vaguely familiar with the standard variety Dots, although they are not one of my regular purchases when it comes to candy.

The major difference between Ghost Dots and regular Dots is that the Ghost Dots all come in the same color. It's that pale shade of green you most commonly associate with things that glow in the dark. Yes, when I saw them, my first thought was to wonder if they glowed in the dark or under a black light. And I checked. They do more or less glow when you put them under a black light, but they don't glow in the dark.

I'm guessing that the whole idea of candy that glows in the dark hasn't occurred to the people at Tootsie Roll. If someone in their R&D department had thought of it, and they could find the right coloring that was safe for humans to consume, we would indeed have Ghost Dots that glowed in the dark with a ghostly light.

As for the flavor of Ghost Dots, the boxes say "Which Flavor? Which Ghost? IT'S A MYSTERY!" and "Assorted Fruit Flavored Gumdrops." And yes, the flavor is a mystery. They are vaguely fruit flavored, but I'm not certain what those fruits might be. Yes, I can detect two or three different flavors, but I really can't distinguish more than that. I'm not even familiar enough with the regular Dots to determine if Tootsie Roll is using the same flavors as the regular Dots, and just giving them all the same ghostly green color. (I am assuming that, though, until I can definitely determine otherwise.)

As could be expected from gumdrops, the Ghost Dots have quite the chewy texture. They have about the same consistency as Gummi Bears or similar candies. Not much else I can say about that part of the candy.

This is one of those candies where the usual seasonal disclaimer applies. Since Halloween is over, the Ghost Dots are already on the clearance shelf, and will gone within a week -- maybe even less. But I’m also more than a little certain that they will return to the shelves somewhere around the last week or so of August 2009 -- right after the back to school rush has ended.


-jc-

There is something interesting about walking into a store like Target or Walgreens on Halloween. Maybe even going in a few days before Halloween, but definitely Halloween itself.

There is an interesting dichotomy taking place when you walk over to the aisle containing the seasonal merchandise. On the one hand, there is still plenty of Halloween merchandise on the shelves. The costumes might be down to just a handful that have been picked over (probably more than once), but there are still enough for those who waited, for one reason or another, to select their costume at the last possible moment.

There is also still more than an adequate selection of candy, for those who have decided that they need just another bag or two for the trick-or-treaters. Or for those who may have not planned to hand out candy until the last moment. Or for those who need something else for their Halloween party. Or . . . well, you get the idea. Whatever the reason, there is still plenty of candy.

But even while the store is trying to sell as much Halloween merchandise as possible, they are also wanting to get ready to get the Christmas merchandise on the shelves as quickly as possible. There may already be a few shelves that have Christmas decorations in place. You might already see candy canes alongside the bags of Fun Size Milky Way bars and candy corn. And you might even see red and green side-by-side with orange and black.

And while it may not show on the faces of the store's personnel, you know that one thing is going through their minds. That would be, How quickly can we get the Halloween stuff moved over to a clearance section tonight, so we can really start putting out the Christmas stuff tomorrow?

Yes, it's interesting walking into Target or Walgreens on Halloween. It will be even more interesting to walk in there tomorrow, when the seasonal shift has really begun.


-jc-

Candy Review
RUSSELL STOVER DARK CHOCOLATE MARSHMALLOW PUMPKIN


I think this may be a new Halloween offering from Russell Stover. At least, I don't remember seeing it on the shelves before, and I'm pretty certain that I would remember something with dark chocolate.

As is the case with Russell Stover's other chocolate pumpkins, this is only vaguely pumpkin shaped. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose, but I think it would look a lot more impressive if looked like a molded jack o'lantern. The outer shell is dark chocolate, which contains a marshmallow filling.

When I've reviewed Russell Stover's milk chocolate selections, I've frequently mentioned that their milk chocolate has a richer flavor than that of, for instance, Hershey. The same holds true for Russell Stover's dark chocolate. It has a darker brown color than Hershey's or Nestle's dark chocolate, and it also has a deeper, richer flavor. Perhaps you might even call it a mellower flavor. My initial thought is that the Russell Stover chocolate has a higher cacao content than either of those other companies' dark chocolate, but it could also be something in their manufacturing process.

The marshmallow is the same as the marshmallow I've found in other Russell Stover candies. Very light, very spongy, very sticky. Mild flavor, with a hint of vanilla.

Biting into one of the Dark Chocolate Marshmallow Pumpkins is pretty much the same as biting into any of the other marshmallow pumpkins that Russell Stover has produced. The marshmallow provides a slight springy resistance as you chew, but it also almost melts like cotton candy after just a few seconds on the tongue.

As you might expect, the dark chocolate is the dominant flavor. It isn't overwhelming, though; the vanilla flavor of the marshmallow is just strong enough to make itself known at all times. Together, the two provide a harmonious contrast of flavors.

Okay, this is a Halloween candy, so the usual holiday disclaimer applies here. You should easily see this on the shelves through Halloween. Starting November 1, though, it will be shoved off to one side as the stores start putting out the Christmas candy. This might be the first year that I've seen the Dark Chocolate Marshmallow Pumpkin, but the odds are that we'll be seeing it again for Halloween 2009.


-jc-

Snack Review
CHEETOS CRUNCHY MOZZARELLA


Yeah, I know it's a little unusual for me to review something that doesn't have chocolate in it. The occasional change of pace is good, though. Besides, I like Cheetos, and when I saw these in the store, I decided that I wanted to review them.

Producing limited edition of their snacks is nothing new for the people at Frito-Lay. I don't know how many different flavors I have seen of their Doritos tortilla chips. Usually, though, I see pairs of flavors released at one time, and more often than not, it's a competition to see which flavor is the more popular with consumers. Two flavors are released -- but only one stays around. (Sort of like Thunderdome, now that I think about it.)

This is the first time I can remember seeing a package of Cheetos bearing the "Limited Time Only" banner across the bag. It was that banner that attracted my attention enough to want to pick up a bag, and then try it.

The back of the bag says, "[T]he beauty of these Cheetos mozzarella flavored snacks is that they combine the gooeyness and fun of mozzarella cheese with the dangerously cheesy crunch of Cheetos brand." Based on that bit of copy, my initial thought was to expect something that combined the crunchiness of Cheetos with just a little of the stretchy gooeyness of melted mozzarella. This was compounded by the picture on the front of the bag, which depicted Cheetos mascot Chester Cheetah stretching what would appear to be a chunk of melted mozzarella.

You know, something like that would make for a wonderful snack. Unfortunately, that expectation was about as realistic as expecting Lindsay Lohan to wear panties. It was a delightful bit of hyperbole on the part of the copywriters, but far from an accurate description of the snack.

Pay attention to the word "crunchy," because the Crunchy Mozzarella Cheetos is just as crunchy as the regular Cheetos. And this is not a bad thing; I love the resounding crunch of Cheetos as I grind them between my teeth. There is something satisfying about that crunch. I'm not sure how else to describe it.

Now, this particular variety of Cheetos does have the mild flavor of mozzarella, as opposed to the usual cheddar in the regular Cheetos. It's a little saltier than eating a piece of mozzarella would be, but the mozzarella flavor is still there.

As I said, this is a limited edition, so the standard limited edition disclaimer applies. I have no idea how long this will stay on the shelves, and for all I know, this is a one-shot deal. My best advice is, find a bag and enjoy them while you can.


-jc-

Several months ago, I wrote about how I needed to probably needed to use a standard disclaimer on the reviews that I wrote of various limited edition candy bars. Now that candy season has in full swing, I think I may need another disclaimer, this one for the various holiday candy reviews that I write.

There is a big difference that you need to keep in mind between a review of most limited editions and a review of any holiday-themed candy. With a limited edition, this may be just a one-shot deal, and you have to grab it while you can. A holiday candy, on the other hand, might have only a limited time on the shelves, but it turns out to be fairly popular, it may be something that shows up year after year. So, I need a different sort of disclaimer for the holiday candy reviews. Something that might read a little like this:

"As I have already said, this is a/an [insert holiday here] release. It might be on the shelves a little after [insert holiday here] is over, but it will quickly get shoved over to the clearance shelf to make room for the [insert next holiday here] candy. Of course, if you really like it, you can take some comfort in the fact that more than likely, it will be back on the shelves when the [insert holiday here] season starts next year."

Referring back to this might be a little easier than constantly trying to come up with new ways of saying the same old thing.


-jc-

Since I started the second site for A Chocoholic UnAnonymous on Xanga a few months ago, I've picked up quite a few readers. And two of them, purplepixiepoo and bluemarsupial, are at least partially responsible for this entry. Both of them tagged me with something that has been hopping, skiiping, jumping, and bouncing around Xanga recently.

The rules are simple: Once you've been tagged, you have to list 16 random things about yourself. I am going to forego the second part, which states that you then tag 16 other people to do the same. I'm not feeling that mean at the moment, and I would probably decide to tag 16 people on Xanga and 16 people on LiveJournal.

I'm not sure how I'm going to tag this particular entry. I guess it's something of an introduction, or maybe a reintroduction. But I think I've gone on with the preliminaries long enough. Without further ado, I present:

16 RANDOM THINGS ABOUT ME.

1. I love chocolate. This will probably not come as a surprise to you, given my user name. I still thought it would be a good way to start this list.

2. I have been a member of the World Science Fiction Society since 1991.

3. I have a complete run of Omni magazine. That's 200 issues, published from 1978 to 1995. And I wish it were still being published.

4. I have been a Power Rangers fan since it first started airing in 1993. I was working third shift at the time, and I came home one morning, flipped on the TV before going to bed, and found myself watching Megazord battling the monster du jour. My first thought was, "What is this?" When I finally saw a full episode, I thought, "Hey, this is interesting." And I've been hooked ever since.

5. My all-time favorite candy bar is probably the Milky Way bar. If it had been around during my formative years, it would probably be the Milky Way Midnight bar.

6. I wear turtlenecks year-round. You can thank David McCallum for that. Many years ago, he was the title character in a short-lived TV series called The Invisible Man. His character had to wear turtlenecks to cover up the mask he wore to make himself visible. I thought it looked cool, and I began copying his style.

7. I think that one of the more interesting events at each year's World Science Fiction Convention is the WSFS Business Meeting. Just imagine Robert's Rules Of Order turned into surrealist performance art. It can be quite entertaining. (And Kevin, I know you'll be seeing this, and I'm pretty certain that I'm using the service marks correctly.)

8. My favorite color is purple. You probably won't see much of it on this site, because browns fit in much better with the chocolate theme of this journal.

9. I am trypanophobic. Strictly speaking, that's the fear of injections. A psychologist of my acquaintance has assured me that trypanophobia can also cover things like tattoos and body piercings. Which is the primary reason you will never see me with either.

10. I am a voracious reader. I normally have at least three or four things that I am reading at any one time.

11. Put me in a bookstore or library, and you may not be able to get me out until they throw everyone out at closing time.

12. Raquel Welch turned me on to Isaac Asimov.

13. I'm a little OCD. Actually, I'm more than a little OCD. Ryan Wolfe would take one look at me and say, "Damn, and I thought I was OCD."

14. The message on my answering machine says, "Promise me anything, but give me chocolate."

15. I live in Louisville, KY, but I have never attended the Kentucky Derby. Or the Kentucky Oaks, for that matter. In fact, I only had a general idea of where Churchill Downs was until 2001.

16. It has been so long since I had sex that I've forgotten who is supposed to get tied up.

17. My blood type is A-Positive.

18. I don't like nuts in my chocolate chip cookies. My feeling is, if you are able to put nuts in the cookies, you obviously haven't put enough chocolate chips in.

Yes, I know that's more than 16 things. I'm just a little twisted that way.


-jc-

Candy Review
YORK CHOCOLATE TRUFFLE MINT PATTIE


I know I wrote a review of the York Chocolate Truffle Mint Pattie when I first saw it a few years ago. A quick search through the archives of A Chocoholic UnAnonymous shows that the review isn't here. Trust me, with all the tags I put on these entries, I would be able to find it. All of which means that I probably wrote it for Alexiad before I started this site. Well, I still have a few of the York Chocolate Truffle Mint Patties around, so I thought it might be nice to take another look at this particular candy. A stroll down one of Candy Land's memory lanes, as it were.

As I recall, this was the first real variation on the York Peppermint Pattie that I remember Hershey producing. Oh, at Halloween they bring out the "York Peppermint Battie," but that is just the same peppermint patty you see year-round, just molded into a bat shape. (Feel free to add your own Adam West/Burt Ward pun here.) The Chocolate Truffle Mint Pattie was the first time where they altered the standard just a little bit.

The outside is the same dark chocolate you find on the original York Peppermint Pattie. But on the inside, instead of the usual peppermint fondant filling, there is a chocolate peppermint truffle filling.

The truffle center has a chewy, almost fudgy texture to it. Unless I am terribly mistaken, I am fairly certain that this is the same truffle filling that Hershey has used in the Special Dark Mint Truffle Nuggets that they have produced for the past two or three Christmases. The peppermint has the same strength as it does in the fondant in the regular peppermint patty. One bite will be enough to invite the same frosty comparisons that were made in the "Get the sensation!" commercials from several years ago.

As with the regular York Peppermint Pattie, the dark chocolate on the outside is a good choice. The mint flavor is strong enough that it would completely overwhelm a milk chocolate coating. But the flavor of the dark chocolate complements the mint; meets it on an equal footing. The two flavors are co-dominant, neither one standing out over the other.

Hershey has released this limited edition at least twice. The first was during the summer, and at the moment, I'm not completely certain which year. (And at the moment, Hershey's website isn't providing any useful information. I think it was 2004, but don't hold me to that.) The second time was a year later, during the Christmas season. During the second release, it was available in both the regular size patty, and in bags of miniature patties. I don't remember seeing the York Chocolate Truffle Mint Pattie the year Hershey released the York Vanilla Mint Pattie, and I don't think I saw either this past Christmas season. I'm hoping that Hershey will have a release of both at some point. It might not be something that they can produce year-round, but revisiting the York Chocolate Truffle Mint Pattie on an annual basis would be a sensation worth anticipating.

And I can always stock up when it does come out, to prolong the sensation.


-jc-

Candy Review
RUSSELL STOVER VANILLA & CHOCOLATE CREME EGG


In my last review, I mentioned that I Russell Stover had repackaged two of their chocolate Easter eggs as "buzzard eggs" for Halloween. The second that I have seen (at least for the moment) is the Vanilla & Chocolate Creme Buzzard Egg.

On the outside, it looks the same as the Marshmallow & Caramel egg I previously reviewed. It's about the size of a Grade A Medium egg. (At least, I think it's the size of a Medium egg. Most of the time, I get Large eggs whenever I buy eggs, so I'm basing my estimation on the fact that these chocolate eggs are just a little smaller than that.) The milk chocolate shell has the same decorative lines that suggest a decorated Easter egg. (Probably using the same molds for both Buzzard Eggs.) And in case I didn't mention it, both of the Buzzard Eggs really are egg-shaped, and are not the flattened ovals that you find in some chocolate Easter eggs.

Inside the shell are two different fondants. One is vanilla flavored, and the other is chocolate flavored. (Or "flavoured," for those of you living in England or Australia.) By the time the product has reached the store, though, the two have started to blend together somewhat. When you bite into one, you can still see the translucent white of the vanilla fondant on one side of the egg, and the more opaque brown of the chocolate fondant on the other. In the middle, however, there is an intermingling of the two.

That intermingling of the two fondants makes it a little difficult to distinguish the two flavors. A more solid center -- say, a truffle filling -- would make it easier to distinctly taste both the chocolate and the vanilla fillings. With the fondant fillings, however, the flavors of the two meld together, rather like chocolate syrup on vanilla ice cream.

Both of the fillings (or perhaps, their combination) are sweeter than the chocolate shell. That sweeter taste serves as a counterpoint to the richness of the chocolate. And the milk chocolate is the same as I have encountered in Russell Stover's other candies. Very rich, very smooth, very creamy.

The same disclaimers that I have used for other Halloween candy apply here as well. The Vanilla & Chocolate Creme Buzzard Egg will be around until the end of October. When November 1 arrives, it will quickly get moved over to a clearance shelf so that the Christmas candy can go on the shelves. More than likely, though, it will reappear for Halloween 2009, as well as making an appearance in the spring in its usual Easter attire, er, packaging.


-jc-

CANDY REVIEW
RUSSELL STOVER MARSHMALLOW & CARAMEL BUZZARD CREME EGG


Last Christmas, I mentioned that Cadbury had decided to get a little more milage out of their Creme Egg by repackaging it with a Christmas theme. I suspect the people at Russell Stover must have noticed this, because for Halloween, they have taken a couple of their chocolate Easter eggs, and are marketing them as "Buzzard Eggs." (Or as the late Jimmy Durante had occasion to say, "Everybody wants to get into the act!")

The "Buzzard Egg" name does evoke a haunting feeling suitable for Halloween. I think a slightly more menacing tone might have been struck by calling them "Vulture Eggs," or maybe even "Monster Eggs." This, of course, might just be a matter of semantics and personal preference, so I won't quibble over their choice.

The first Buzzard Egg I saw in Walgreens was the Marshmallow & Caramel Creme Egg. The outside is a milk chocolate shell, about the size of a Grade A Medium egg. Molded on the outside of the chocolate are a number of wavy lines, which is probably more in keeping with the Easter theme. Inside the shell is a "yolk" of caramel, surrounded by a "white" of marshmallow.

As I have mentioned in my other reviews of various Russell Stover products, their milk chocolate has a richer flavor than most of the milk chocolate you might find in the candy aisle. If I were to hazard a guess, I would say that Russell Stover probably uses a higher amount of cacao in their milk chocolate than does, for instance, Hershey. But this delves into matters of proprietary secrets, and I rather doubt that I would get anything resembling a straight answer from either company, so this will have to remain a matter for speculation and theory.

The marshmallow manages to be both gooey and spongy. It's too gooey to be able to stand up on its own, but it is still spongier than a marshmallow creme. Visually, it looks like something that might come out of a monster's egg, or an alien's egg -- or even an alien monster's egg. It works well for a Halloween candy.

The caramel is one of the more fluid varieties. Unfortunately, there isn't as much of the caramel as there is marshmallow. Depending on where the caramel is positioned inside the egg, and how you bite into the egg, it can be difficult to detect the caramel, both in terms of flavor and texture.

The Marshmallow & Caramel Creme Egg is a harmonious blend of contrasts, both in flavor and in texture. The milk chocolate is silky smooth on the tongue. It has the right amount of firmness, yielding to force applied from the teeth to let the foamy, spongy marshmallow and luscious caramel flow into your mouth. But as I said, there isn't quite as much caramel in the egg as I would have liked. If you aren't careful, it is easy to miss that golden pool of gooeyness, as both the chocolate and the marshmallow are dominant presences.

In terms of flavor, the chocolate is clearly the dominant one in the Marshmallow & Caramel Creme Egg. The marshmallow is a close second, providing a slightly sweeter taste to contrast with the richness of the chocolate. Again, the caramel's third element of sweetness can be elusive if you don't bite into it the right way. I would suggest taking about a third of the egg with the initial bite. After savoring that initial bite, take a look inside the egg. You should be able to see the caramel along one side of the chocolate shell. Go for that side with your second bite to enjoy the caramel to the greatest degree possible. Then finish the egg with one final bite.

This is a Halloween release, so it won't be around much past November 1. That's the bad news. The good news is that it will probably reappear on the shelves next year, somewhere toward the end of August. And of course, you should also see it in its Easter packaging just before the beginning of spring.


-jc-

After the last entry, I waited a couple of days before checking the seasonal displays at Walgreens again. The other drug stores, too, for that matter.

From what I've seen, there doesn't seem to be too much difference in the candy selection this year. For the most part, it seems to be the same confectionary cornucopia as in years past.

There were a few things I was particularly pleased to see. Mars has brought back quite a few personal favorites, which wee the subject of previous reviews. There is the Twix Minis Mix, which features both the Dark Chocolate Twix and the Triple Chocolate Twix. There is the Snickers Dark Minis Mix, which I like for the Snickers Dark Almond mini. (And I'm still waiting for Mars to release a full size version of that particular bar, damn it!) and there is another Snickers Mini Mix, which is just minis of the three Snickers bars we see year round.

I saw Minis of the Snickers Nut & Butter Crunch, which was a little surprising. I thought the bar was good when Mars brought it out earlier this year, but I was surprised to see it again. If I had to hazard a guess, I would say that Mars was planning for Halloween even when they were bringing out the full size bars.

And then I saw a bagged candy which I am certain brought a gleam to my eye -- a bag of Fun Size bars of the Rocking Nut Road Snickers! The full size bars seemed to have disappeared after only a month -- according to the cashiers at more than one area Walgreens, they were really popular -- so I may have to stock up on the bags while I can. And best of all these are Fun Size bars, not Minis. The Minis may be all right, but they really are bite size. With the fun Size bars, you can get two or three bites, depending on how much you want to savor the bar. Still not quite as good as a full size bar, but a decent substitute.

I've also seen one or two new chocolate goodies on the shelves. I'm already doing research on them, and I will be reviewing them soon.


-jc-

The stores had their back to school merchandise on display somewhere around Independence Day, or perhaps the following Monday. The Jefferson County public schools started a new year on August 12 -- and I think the Catholic schools started around the same time.

You know what that means, don't you?

Candy season is starting.

I haven't seen much in the way of costumes yet, but the seasonal aisles at several of my local Walgreens are now overflowing with a vast array of bags of bite size candy. I'm guessing the same is true at Wal-Mart, Target, and similar fine retail establishments. And before long, I am quite certain that I will also be seeing the Halloween costumes as well.

And with that, the first phase of candy season will be in full swing.

I really haven't paid too much attention to the selections yet. I first noticed the candy at Walgreens as it was still in the process of being put on the shelves, and I didn't want to get in anyone's way. But I do plan to look at things closely, see what might be new on the shelves this year, and see what favorites might be making a return visit.

I'm quite certain that there will be a few reviews coming soon. Keep watching.


-jc-

Magazine Review
DESSERT PROFESSIONAL


As I said in my last entry, I learned last week that Chocolatier magazine had finally come to the end of its run, and that the publisher was combining it with two other magazines it published into one big publication. Yesterday, I was checking my mail, and waiting for me was the premiere issue of that new publication, Dessert Professional.

Dessert Professional incorporates three magazines -- Pastry Art & Design, Frozen Desserts, and of course, Chocolatier. The final issue of Chocolatier was 68 pages; the first issue of Dessert Professional comes in at 148 pages.

In the editor's letter, Michael Schneider explains why Haymarket Group decided to combine the three magazines into one. Without going into as much detail as Schneider did, the target readers for any one of the magazines are branching out into the areas covered by the other two. This is just a guess on my part, but I'm willing to bet that Haymarket looked at the subscription lists for all three magazines, and noticed a considerable overlap, and that contributed to the decision. I'm also guessing that there were some advertisers who placed ads in two or all three magazines, so they may be benefiting now by having to advertise in only one magazine.

For the first issue, at least, Dessert Professional is separated into three distinct sections, one for each of its three predecessors. Each section has a "cover" of one of the predecessors as a section divider, which leads me to believe that Haymarket was in the process of bringing out separate issues of the three before the deciding to combine the three into one. Whether this will continue with future issues is anyone's guess.

I'm at something of a disadvantage reviewing this magazine. Chocolatier was the only one of the three that I read. While I may have seen Pastry Art & Design and Frozen Desserts on the stands, I never read them, so I don't have any idea what changes if any have taken place. So, I will be focusing on the Chocolatier section for the most part, because it is the one with which I am familiar.

I did notice a couple of things missing from the Chocolatier section. The recipe index is missing. So is the back page where they take an in-depth look at the contents of a box of chocolates from different companies. Come to think of it, there aren't as many recipes (which may be why there wasn't a recipe index -- they may have thought it wasn't needed). Most of the articles in the Chocolatier section were features. One was an article on the 80th anniversary of Godiva, and another was a feature on the New York chocolatier Chocolate By The Bald Man.

One thing that wasn't in the last issue of Chocolatier was the first appearance of a new column. "Chocolate In Focus" analyzes bulk chocolates, discussing the distinctive qualities of bulk chocolates manufactured by different companies.

I did do a quick scan of the other sections. There didn't appear to be any recipes in the Frozen Desserts section of the magazine. Most of the articles seemed to be on equipment used by professionals who make frozen desserts. There was one particularly interesting article on different businesses selling frozen desserts (i.e. ice cream parlors), which seemed to focus mainly on the appearance of the front of the store -- the part the customer sees.

The Pastry Art & Design section contained several recipes. Most of these were signature creations of different pastry chefs, accompanied by profiles of the chefs who created them. the article I found most interesting in this section, however, was an article on bread sculpture, which came with a variety of bread recipes (which are used in making the aforementioned sculptures).

I'm not sure what to think of Dessert Professional just yet. As I mentioned, I suspect that this first issue was put together from partially completed issues of its three predecessors, which may account for its somewhat mishmashed appearance. I'm guessing that any bumps in the road will be smoothed out when Haymarket puts together an issue that is Dessert Professional from the very beginning. I will have to take a look at least another issue or two before rendering my final judgement.

I am disappointed with one thing. From what I have seen, Pastry Art & Design and Frozen Desserts have always been geared toward professionals in those particular businesses. On the other hand, Chocolatier, while it has had its spotlights on professionals, and recipes that only professionals would have the skills or the equipment to make, there has always been more of a focus on what I would call the "talented amateur." Someone (like me) who enjoys chocolate, loves cooking with it, and is always looking for new ways and recipes to use chocolate. I hope it won’t happen, but I have this feeling that Dessert Professional might be leaving me behind.

According to the indicia, Dessert Professional will be published six times a year. I will assume that this means a bimonthly schedule, but I will wait and see. The first issue was $5.95, which I will assume will be the regular price. Subscriptions are $23.95 for one year, and $41.95 for two years.

There is also a website for the new magazine. It seems to be as much of a mish-mash as the magazine . . . at least for the moment. The publisher seems to be making it something of a MySpace for readers. From what I've seen so far, it appears that most of the other Chocolatier readers are as disappointed as I was by the first issue. You can find the webswite at:

http://www.dessertprofessional.com

I was a little surprised by the website in one way. I was expecting it to have a link for subscribing to Dessert Professional, but for some reason, there isn't such a link. At least, there isn't one that I can readily find.


-jc-

It started with a vague wondering, why I hadn't seen a new issue of Chocolatier in some time. then I realized that it had been several months. To the best of my recall, the last issue I saw hit the stands (and my mailbox) either in December or January.

I finally decided that the best way to satisfy my curiosity was to go straight to the source, and I called the publisher's offices (thanks to a phone number buried in the fine print of the indicia). Once I got past the recorded greeting, and was speaking to an actual person, I told why I was calling, and asked when a new issue of Chocolatier would be appearing.

The answer I received was surprising. The publisher had decided to stop publishing Chocolatier and a couple of other magazines they published, and were combining the three into one magazine. I was also told that I should be receiving the first issue shortly.

According what the person at Chocolatier's publisher told me, since all three magazines dealt with desserts of one form or another, it would be easier to publish one magazine that covered the whole spectrum, rather than three magazines that covered only certain areas of the dessert spectrum. At least, I think that was the idea he was trying to get across.

In a way, this is a little disappointing. I've been reading Chocolatier since it first appeared on the stands in 1984. I've seen more than a few changes; the editorial focus and the publication schedule are the two that come immediately to mind. And now, the ultimate change has happened -- the magazine I have enjoyed for so long is no more.

Goodbye, Chocolatier. You have been the source of many pleasant memories. I hope your successor does half the job you have done.


-jc-

Book Review
THE GHIRARDELLI CHOCOLATE COOKBOOK
(2007, Ten Speed Press)


I reviewed a previous edition of Ghirardelli's cookbook some time ago. (It was a revised Third Edition, printed in 1991.) Based on what I read in the Preface of this edition, there may have been one other edition published between 1991 and 2007, because it states that Ghirardelli's last cookbook was published in the mid 1990s. (Hmmm, another avenue to investigate. Quick, Watson! The game is afoot!) The people at Ghirardelli decided that it was time for a new cookbook.

As with the previous edition I reviewed, The Ghirardelli Chocolate Cookbook presents a variety of recipes, all of which have one or more products from Ghirardelli listed in their ingredients. (Oh, come on, now; did you really think that any of these recipes would call for Nestle Toll House Morsels or Hershey's Cocoa?)

The book begins, as did the previous edition, with a brief history of the Ghirardelli company. The introduction also contains a brief history of chocolate, and gives some general tips on how to cook with and entertain with chocolate.

Once that introduction is out of the way, we get to the recipes. Unlike the previous edition, the recipes don't come with names reflecting the San Francisco area (the headquarters of Ghirardelli). It also doesn't have any of the soups or entrees listed in the previous edition, which I found a little disappointing.

On the other hand, it appears that this new edition of The Ghirardelli Chocolate Cookbook contains all new recipes. Some of these call for Ghirardelli products that have been added to the product line since the last edition was published. They range from the simple to some that probably require more baking skill than I possess. The recipes come from a variety of sources, including the winner of an "Is Your Dessert Intense Enough?" baking contest that Ghirardelli sponsored. (I'm betting that Ghirardelli could assemble an entire cookbook of just entries from that contest.)

The cookbook has a few illustrations of vintage Ghirardelli ads, but most of the illustrations are either of current Ghirardelli products, or of the recipes themselves. I will admit, that latter photos leave me drooling at times, and wanting to try more than a few of the recipes. Like the recipe for English Toffee. Or the Chocolate Panini. Or the Ultimate Double Chocolate Cookies. Or . . . well, I think you get the idea.

I saw The Ghirardelli Chocolate Cookbook in my local library. I checked it out, and after looking through it a few times (okay, more than a few), I am considering getting a copy of my own. I think it would make a nice companion for the edition I already own.


-jc-

As I mentioned several entries ago, I decided to create a mirror site for A Chocoholic UnAnonymous on Xanga. Slowly but surely, I am copying the older entries from the LiveJournal site over to the mirror site. Eventually, I will be posting new entries to both sites at the same time.

Copying entries from one site to the other isn't that difficult. I am only doing one at a time, because I want people to have a chance to read them -- and comment on them as well.

I am attracting a few new readers to the site. I think most of them were surprised when they first discovered my site. I get the feeling that reviewing candy was something that had never occurred to them before. (Although I should point out that I'm not the only one with an online journal devoted to chocolate or other candy.)

What I have found particularly gratifying, though, is some of the comments that have been left. There have been several that left me with a case of the giggles. Like the person who said, "I need to remember to eat before I read your blog." I'm guessing that I leave her wanting a snack of the chocolate variety.

Another commenter, upon seeing my user name and my first entry, said, "Chocolate AND SciFi? *squeals with delight*" While someone else on the same entry said that he had thought of pairing the two, and added, "Sounds intriguing."

I think the nicest comment that someone has left for me so far has been, "Damn, your descriptions are almost like having sex with the chocolate." I think I'm still blushing over that one.

It's nice to know that one's work is appreciated.


-jc-

I suppose one way to describe my memory is "elephantine." Most of the time, anyway. Just as an example, a lot of people don't want to be in the same room with me if Jeopardy! is on -- I'm one of those who like to shout out the answers before the contestants do (or at least try).

On the other hand, that elephant can be a little absent-minded at times. And if some detail escapes me, it is entirely likely that it will stay escaped.

I am in the middle of dealing with one of those times when a detail or two escaped me, and I am trying to correct that problem. And this time, it has to do with chocolate.

Two to three weeks ago, I was doing some shopping, and I noticed a candy bar that I had not seen before. For the sake of simplicity, let's just call it "Chocolate Q." The Q in this case stands for "Questionmark." I either didn't have the time to grab one of the Chocolate Q bars, or I was intent on getting just what was on my list. In any case, I didn't get the Chocolate Q at the time, but I made a mental note to pick it up later.

A little over a week ago, I decided that I wanted to get a couple of the Chocolate Q bars for review purposes. There was just one little problem -- while I had locked the bar firmly in my memory, I had neglected to remember just where I had seen Chocolate Q.

To quote Sam Beckett, "Oh, boy."

No problem, I thought. I'll just retrace my steps for the past two weeks or so, and hit all of the places where it is likely that I saw Chocolate Q.

As the saying goes, easier said than done.

I thought I had seen Chocolate Q at Walgreens. I checked the Walgreens stores that I visit the most often, as well as a few that I visit less often. In all, I hit eight different Walgreens, and none of them had Chocolate Q. This was a little irritating, because I was certain that I had seen the bars at Walgreens.

From there, I moved to Rite Aid and CVS, still thinking that I had seen Chocolate Q at a drug store. I hit multiple locations of each chain, and I still couldn't find the bars I was seeking.

I expanded my search even more. I went to Target, Wal-Mart, K-Mart, Kroger -- all of which turned out to be dead ends.

I know I wasn't imagining this candy bar. Sooner or later, I will find Chocolate Q again.

Fortunately, there are still a couple of possible places where I might have seen Chocolate Q. I'm just hoping that wherever I saw it, the store hasn't sold out yet.


-jc-

Candy Bar Review
FRY'S TURKISH DELIGHT


This bar is one of several that I have picked up at World Market. It's a British import, made by Cadbury. I've been meaning to write a review of this one for some time. I suppose my friend satyapriya is more or less responsible for my writing it now. She has been writing about preparing to travel to the US for this year's Worldcon. (and as I'm writing this, she's in the US, and on her way to Denver.) In a comment on one entry, her friend mothrababe (a native of Australia) asked satyapriya to bring over a box or two of Fry's Turkish Delight, because they are unavailable in her area. (I told mothrababe about World Market, but unfortunately for her, they don’t have a store in her area.)

There's not much to say when it comes to describing the Fry's Turkish Delight bar. On the outside, it's covered in milk chocolate. Inside is a dense, reddish-colored gel.

I have tried other imported bars by Cadbury. The milk chocolate seems to be the same here as in those other bars. And it seems to be a little richer than most American milk chocolates. It also seems to have a slightly different taste from the American Cadbury chocolate, but I can't be certain without a side-by-side comparison.

As for the gel center -- well, I'm not sure how I can describe it. It has a texture similar to that of a Gummi Bear. The flavor is sweet -- but beyond that, I have no idea what that flavor is. It's slightly fruity, but again, I have no idea what fruit it is supposed to be.

When you take a bite, the chocolate is the first flavor you notice. The flavors of the chocolate and the gel blend together a few seconds later, and the chocolate slowly fades away, leaving you with the lingering mystery flavor of the gel. For me, it's slightly maddening. Even as the gel's flavor lingers, I still cannot decide what it is.

I can see why mothrababe would want satyapriya to bring her a stash of these candy bars. "Delight" is a good name for the bar, because I think delightful is probably the best word to describe it. It would be nice if Cadbury (or rather Hershey, the company who has the license to the Cadbury name here in North America) would make a US version of the bar. I know of at least one person who would be jumping for joy. For that matter, there are probably other British and Australian imports who miss this bar as well.

ADDENDUM: I was in World Market a few days ago, and when I went by the candy section, I saw one woman acting . . . well, like a kid in a candy store. From what she told me, she grew up in Canada, so most of the candy bars that World Market carries were old familiar friends. This included Fry's Turkish Delight, so I asked her what the flavor of the gel was supposed to be.

She told me it was raspberry. Really? Hmmm, I may have to try it again. Obviously, the flavor didn't register as raspberry on my tastebuds the last time.


-jc-

Over a year ago, I posted an essay describing my idea of the ultimate candy bar. The idea behind that entry was simple: Given the opportunity to design a candy bar of my own, what would I put in it? (If you want the full details, the posting date was December 14, 2006. It's probably easier to go back and read it than for me to repeat all the details here.)

I think I may have to rethink that design of that candy bar.

At the time, I said that some of the details were subject to change, depending on my whims of the moment. What I'm talking about here is a complete overhaul of my ultimate candy bar's design.

Why the sudden change of heart? To put it bluntly, it was the Rocking Nut Road Snickers bar. When I bit into one for the first time, there was this wave of bliss that swept over me. Before I finished that first bar, I had this realization that M&M/Mars had quite possibly come as close as they could to designing my idea of the ultimate candy bar without having any input from me.

The key factor to this realization was the marshmallow nougat. I have enjoyed many different nougats in many different candy bars over the years. This was the first time, though, that I can ever remember tasting a marshmallow nougat. It has the sublimely sweet taste of a marshmallow, but it has a texture unlike any marshmallow I have ever eaten. It doesn't have the spongy feel of a marshmallow, nor the denser feel of the marshmallow in the Hershey S'mores bar, nor even the sticky feel of a marshmallow creme. It's different from all three of those, yet it is still quite definitely marshmallow.

Okay, so I'm going to do a complete redesign of my idea of the ultimate candy bar. What is going to be in this version?

This time, the core is going to be caramel and marshmallow nougat. Now, there is a local candy maker here in the Louisville area (I think they're actually across the river in southern Indiana) that makes a candy called a Modjeska. It's a caramel-covered marshmallow, and my first thought was to have the marshmallow nougat wrapped in caramel, much like a Modjeska. But as I noted in my review of the Rocking Nut Road Snickers, the marshmallow nougat is quite a bit softer than the nougats in any of Mars's other candy bars. Assuming that I would be using a marshmallow nougat of similar consistency, I don't think I could get the wraparound effect I have in mind.

So, the center of the bar will be layered, with the caramel on the bottom, and the nougat on top of the caramel. I would want the caramel to be a little firmer than what you find in a Milky Way or Snickers bar, to compensate for the softer nougat.

Previously, I had pieces of macadamias, crunchy toffee bits, and toasted coconut in the caramel, to give the candy bar a crunchy counterpoint to the caramel. With the addition of the marshmallow nougat, though, having all three might be a little too much. If I'm going to have only two, I would probably go with the macadamia pieces and the toffee bits. Then again, I might have to try the various combinations of all three, just to see which combination would give the right crunch.

I would still like to see a candy bar that was covered in both dark chocolate and milk chocolate. But after my little makeover, I think this candy bar might have just a little too much to accommodate both chocolates. I think I will stick to just dark chocolate for the outer shell. I keep thinking about something I heard from at least two cashiers at Walgreens when I was purchasing Rocking Nut Road Snickers bars. They both said, "I don't normally like dark chocolate, but I love this bar!" Based on what they said, I think that just the dark chocolate would be more than sufficient.

Well, there is my second version of my ultimate candy bar. Sooner or later, I suspect that will go back and give the idea yet more thought.


-jc-

Candy Bar Review
SNICKERS ROCKING NUT ROAD


I saw this Saturday at Walgreens. As best as I can tell, they had just received a shipment of this candy bar, and I think I may have been the first to buy one. (Or more than one. You really can't do proper research for these reviews with just a single sample.)

With this review, I think I'll cut right to the chase. This is quite possibly the best Snickers variation that Mars has produced.

My one complaint is with the name. Why "Rocking Nut Road"? Why not just call it "Snickers Rocky Road"? That's obviously the idea that Mars is trying to convey, so why go with the longer and (in my opinion) more awkward name?

As for the bar itself, I'll let the text on the wrapper do the talking. (Somebody obviously spent a good deal of time getting those words just right; why not show some appreciation for their hard work?) The wrapper describes the Rocking Nut Road bar as "almonds, caramel, and marshmallow-flavored nougat wrapped in dark chocolate."

First, major points to Mars for enrobing the Rocking Nut Road bar in dark chocolate. When it comes to candy bars where you have chocolate as the outer covering for other confectionary delights, the overwhelming majority are covered in milk chocolate. Don't get me wrong; I like milk chocolate. But there are many, many times when I will be enjoying a candy bar, and I will think, "You know, this would have been even better if they had used dark chocolate instead of milk chocolate."

The marshmallow nougat appears to be a little softer than the nougats Mars uses in any of the other Snickers bars (or in the Milky Way bars, for that matter). It is clearly a marshmallow nougat, though; there is none of the sponginess you normally associate with marshmallow. Instead, it has more of a chewier feel to it.

The caramel is the same caramel Mars uses in all of its bars. Not too firm, but not too soft, either. (I suppose Goldilocks would say that it is "just right.") In the regular Snickers bar, the caramel and nougat have about the same degree of firmness. With the Rocking Nut Road Snickers, though, the caramel is quite a bit firmer than the nougat, so it takes the role of being the backbone of the bar. The almonds are imbedded in the caramel, and they provide reinforcement to the caramel, as well as adding a firm crunch to the bar.

The nougat and caramel combine to give the bar a chewy, almost fudgy feel to it. And when you add the chocolate and the almonds to the mix, the overall impression is that you are eating a piece of rocky road fudge. The flavors of the chocolate, caramel, and nougat blend together well. There isn’t one flavor that dominates your tastebuds; instead, all three flavors swirl over your tongue harmoniously, as first one flavor, then another, and yet another becomes the most noticeable on your tastebuds. As is usually the case with candy bars containing nuts, the flavor of the almonds isn’t as noticeable. Instead, they provide a firm and satisfying crunch that acts as a counterpoint to the chewiness of the caramel and the nougat.

Now, for the bad news. This is a limited edition bar. I sincerely hope that this is release is not a one-time thing. Even if Mars doesn't make it a regular part of its product line, the Rocking Nut Road Snickers deserves to be brought back on a regular basis.

Just give it a better name with the next release, please?

-jc-

Candy Review
GOOD & FRUITY


As you have probably guessed by now, I have something of a sweet tooth. It's not indiscriminate; there are some types of candy that I avoid. Take licorice, for instance. (Please, take it, by all means.) I have tried various forms of licorice on a number of occasions, and quite frankly, it is a flavor that makes my tastebuds cringe.

Given what I just said, it will come as no surprise that Good & Plenty is a confection that I readily avoid. A few days ago, though, I was in Kroger, and adjacent to the Good & Plenty, I saw its companion product, Good & Fruity. I tried to remember if I had ever sampled that particular candy, and I concluded that either I had not, or it had been long enough since I had that I could not remember trying it. So, after a quick scan of the side panel to see if licorice root extract was among the ingredients (it wasn't), I picked up a box.

[NOTE: I was doing a little research on Hershey's website. As it turns out, Good & Plenty is the oldest branded candy in the US -- it was first produced in 1893. Good & Fruity, on the other hand, was just introduced this year, which would be why I haven't tried it until now -- it wasn't available!]

The package describes Good & Fruity as "soft & chewy fruit candy." There are five different flavored candies in the package, each a different color (represented by five different illustrations on the box):

Yellow -- Lemon
Green -- Lime
Red -- Cherry
Orange -- Orange
Blue -- A Berry flavor of some sort; either Blackberry or Raspberry

(And while I'm thinking about it, who came up with the bright idea of associating blue with the flavor of raspberries? Raspberries aren't blue! They come in varying shades of red, from bright red to the maroon end of the scale. Maybe they venture into the purples, but never blue. So why make a raspberry flavored candy blue? It just doesn't make sense!)

All of the Good & Fruity candies have a pleasant combination of sour and sweet flavors. I think the Lime has the most tartness of the five, followed by the Lemon. On the other end, the Cherry has the highest degree of sweetness. And they all taste close enough to the fruits depicted on the package.

The texture of the Good & Fruity candies come close to that of jelly beans. A little softer, though. When I bite down on one, the candy yields to the pressure from my teeth much quicker than most jelly beans will. And the Good & Fruity is chewy as advertised; probably just as chewy as most jelly beans.

Good & Fruity comes in a box that my local Walgreens usually refers to as "theater-sized candy." On the one hand, yes, this is the larger size that you will find on sale at the concession stand of your favorite cinema. On the other hand, I feel certain that most theater managers would prefer that you not make that association, because you might get the idea of sneaking a box of Good & Fruity in with you when you come to the movies, instead of paying the outrageous prices they charge at the concession stand. (And on yet another hand, so what? I rarely buy refreshments at the movies, precisely because of those aforementioned outrageous prices.)


-jc-

Candy Review
CREME DE MENTHE ALTOIDS


I was a little puzzled when I saw this new version of Altoids in the stores a few weeks ago. The last time I checked, creme de menthe was a peppermint-flavored liqueur. And since the original Altoids flavor is peppermint, this would seem to be unnecessarily repetitive. Maybe even redundant.

Needless to say, my curiosity was also fully engaged, so I picked up a tin of the Creme De Menthe Altoids. I also picked up a tin of the original Peppermint Altoids, just for comparison purposes. (While I do carry a tin of Altoids with me, it's usually the Cinnamon or Ginger varieties.)

My first impression was that this newest addition to the Altoids product line was exactly the same as the original. It's as "curiously strong" as all of the other varieties, and like the original, that curiously strong flavor is peppermint. Even after trying the two side by side, I didn't notice any difference. I was beginning to think that Callard & Bowser was just packaging the original Altoids in a slightly different tin.

But then I let something other than my tongue do the comparison. I happened to bring the open tin close to my nose, and I took a sniff. The Creme De Menthe Altoids have a much sweeter scent than do the Peppermint Altoids. I tried another mint, and while I thought I might have detected something different, I still couldn't pin down what that might be.

In this case, I thought the smart thing to do would be to get a second opinion. So, I called up my friend Angel, and asked for her assistance. Actually, I think what I said was, "Angel, I need your tongue."

She gave me that look. You know, the one you give a puppy when you aren't certain that he's completely housebroken yet. But once I told her why I needed her tongue, she seemed to relax just a little.

As she tried one of the new Altoids, I told her that I thought something was different, but I wasn't sure what it was. After a minute or two, she had the answer for me. As she put it, it starts out tasting like one of those mints that you always find at weddings. But then, it starts tasting just like the original Altoids.

After hearing her take, I tried another mint. And you know what? Angel was right. At first, it does taste like one of those wedding mints. A little sweeter, just like the scent. But I think there may also be a slightly bitter aftertaste; something not present in the original Altoids.

The Creme De Menthe Altoids come in a light green tin. At the moment, the word "NEW" is festooned in one corner of the tin. Not visible anywhere are the words "limited edition," so I will have to assume that Callard & Bowser intends this to be a regular part of the Altoids product line.

-jc-

In my very first entry, I mentioned that I started writing candy reviews for a couple of science fiction fanzines -- first FOSFAX, edited by Tim Lane and Elizabeth Garrott, and then later Alexiad, edited by Joe and Lisa Major. I started this site because I realized that I had more reviews in me than could ever be used in either fanzine, even if Tim or Joe decided to run an issue of either fanzine that had nothing but my chocolate reviews. (And trust me, that's not likely to happen.)

Oh, they still run my reviews. But now, if you see one of my chocolate reviews in either fanzine, more than likely, you would have seen it here first. Not long after I told Joe about A Chocoholic UnAnonymous, he saw a couple of reviews that he wanted to use, and asked me if he could reprint them in Alexiad. I told him yes. In fact, I told him that he if he ever saw something that he wanted to reprint, he was more than welcome to do so. He always gives me the proper byline, and most of the time, he even mentions the site.

I've heard it said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. While I know that my reviews are appreciated (based on letters my editors have received), there have only infrequent and sporadic attempts to flatter me. I know that there are other people out on the web doing roughly the same thing that I'm doing, but I seem to be the only one in SF fandom who really enjoys writing about chocolate.

A week or two ago, I got a phone call from Joe. He told me that someone had decided to flatter me, and had sent in a review of the 3 Musketeers Mint bar.

It sounded as though he was wondering why I had not written a review on this bar. (At least, that's what it sounded like to me.) I said, "You know, Joe, I wrote a review several months ago." He seemed to be a little surprised at this.

When I went to the site the next day, I found that review within seconds, thanks to the tags. I emailed the review to Joe (or at least the link to the entry), and the next time we talked, I suggested the possibility of running the two reviews side by side. I don’t know if he will go through with the idea, but at least I planted idea in his head.

-jc-

I suppose you can lay the blame for my new project on one of the people on my friends list. Janus, aka janusfiles, has a journal on both LiveJournal and Xanga. I asked him why, and he told me that it was a matter of convenience. He has friends who have sites on either Xanga or LiveJournal, and it was easier to double-post than it would be to tell people on one site or the other whenever he posted something new.

From what Janus said, it sounded simple enough: Post to one site, then do a copy and paste to the other. But from what he initially told me, you had to post on Xanga first, then LiveJournal. Xanga didn't allow backdating of posts. Until now, that is. Janus told me that Xanga recently added a backdating feature.

Well, I'm going to see just how easy it is. I'm creating a duplicate of A Chocoholic UnAnonymous on Xanga, and I'm going to copy and move all of the entries here to the new site. It shouldn't be too hard, should it?


-jc-

As with the Snickers Adventure Bar, the wrappers on the M&Ms Mint Crisp came with "Indiana Jones Arti-FACTs" printed on the back. For some reason, though, Mars decided to print 16 different Arti-FACTs on the M&Ms, instead of the eight on the Snickers. I have no idea why Mars decided to go the way that they did; I wasn't consulted.

As with the Snickers wrappers, each Arti-FACT has one little bit of trivia about the Indiana Jones movies, followed by a piece of trivia about M&Ms. Maybe Mars could come up with more trivia about M&Ms than they could about Snickers, and that's why there are more M&Ms Arti-FACTs. There are at least one or two of the M&Ms trivia bits that are done somewhat tongue in cheek, which leads me to think that Mars needed to pad out the M&Ms list just a little.

After doing a little archeological digging of my own -- in other words, digging through more than a few cases of Mint Crisp M&Ms -- I discovered all 16 Arti-FACTs. I present them to you for your edification.

1. More than 100 live tarantulas were used in the opening sequence of Raiders Of The Lost Ark.
*Milk chocolate was invented more than 100 years ago -- in 1876, to be exact.

2. For one scene in Raiders Of The Lost Ark, 300 TV antennas had to be removed since TV hadn't been invented in 1936, the year in which the film is set.
*M&Ms Brand Chocolate Candies were first sold in the US in 1941 and quickly became a favorite of American GIs serving in World War II.

3. One of the producers of Raiders Of The Lost Ark said the film's monkey was "impossible" to work with.
*Directors and producers everywhere say that Red is a "dream" to work with . . . according to Red, anyway.

4. The truck-chase scene in Raiders Of The Lost Ark took about eight weeks to film.
*Each M&Ms Brand Milk Chocolate Candy, on the other hand, takes about 8 to 12 hours to make.

5. The dress Kate Capshaw wore in Temple Of Doom was partially eaten by an elephant during a location shoot.
*It would be natural for Yellow to be nervous around elephants; he has a whole roasted peanut inside him.

6. The Mola Ram character doesn't make his first appearance in Temple Of Doom until an hour into the movie.
*Green made her first TV commercial appearance in 1997.

7. The car driven by Short Round in Temple Of Doom is a 1936 Auburn Boattail Speedstter.
*Red is too short to reach any car's pedals -- but he'd never admit it.

8. The sounds of the mine-car chase in Temple Of Doom were actually taken from a roller coaster ride.
*M&Ms Brand took its first space ride in 1982 aboard the space shuttle.

9. Where did Indiana Jones acquire his famous fedora? From the character who stole the Cross of Coronado in The Last Crusade.
*Where did Blue get his cool? He was born with it!

10. Harrison Ford and Sean Connery shot the entire zeppelin sequence of The Last Crusade without wearing any pants.
*Red went without trousers until 2003 -- and he's still often seen without them.

11. When it came time to pick an actor to play Indy's father, Sean Connery was always director Steven Spielberg's first choice.
*When it came time to pick a new color to join M&Ms Brand, blue was the first choice of more than 10 million US consumers.

12. During filming of The Last Crusade, the Queen of Jordan visited the movie set.
*M&Ms Brand is a hit with heads of state. It's a frequent "guest" on Air Force One.

13. Indiana Jones is known everywhere by his kangaroo-hide bullwhip.
*M&Ms Brand Chocolate Candies are known everywhere by our "M" imprint, first used in 1950.

14. The Indiana Jones films are the result of a partnership between two legends: George Lucas and Steven Spielberg.
*Red and Yellow are legendary partners, too, captivating audiences for decades.

15. Actor John Rhys-Davies plays the role of Sallah in Raiders Of The Lost Ark and The Last Crusade. Sallah's full name? Sallah Mohammed Faisel El-Kahir.
*Red has been playing himself since 1954. Red's full name? Red.

16. Fearless Indiana Jones’s greatest fear: Ophidiophobia -- the fear of snakes. The Last Crusade explains the origin of Indy's phobia, first seen in Raiders Of The Lost Ark.
*Orange's greatest fear? Pantophobia -- the fear of everything.


-jc-

The Snickers Adventure Bar came with a little extra. On the back of the wrapper were "Indiana Jones Arti-FACTS." These were little bits of trivia. Each wrapper had two pieces of trivia; one trivium was about the Indiana Jones movies, and the other was about the Snickers bar.

I am fairly certain that I knew at least half of these interesting pieces of information before I saw them presented in this form. But there were at least one or two that I had not seen before.

When I saw that there were eight different wrappers, I was curious enough to want to see all of them. So, I decided to emulate the good Dr. Jones just a little, and go on my own archeological dig. This involved looking through several cases of Snickers Adventure Bars until I found all of them. Much to my surprise, I was never questioned as to why I was looking at the back of each and every bar in the case.

After going to all that trouble, I thought I should at least have something to show for my effort. So, with a little John Williams fanfare (which you will have to imagine; I don't have the budget for music), I present for your enjoyment the Indiana Jones Arti-FACTS:

1. John Williams received an Academy Award nomination for Best Original Score for both Temple Of Doom and Last Crusade.
*SNICKERS Brand “scores” BIG with consumers -- it's the #1 selling candy bar!

2. Indy's adventures take him all over the world. Good thing he's familiar with over 25 different languages!
*SNICKERS Brand is a true world traveler, too -- it's sold on 6 continents.

3. The Indiana Jones movies have been satisfying audience's hunger for excitement since 1981.
*SNICKERS Brand has been satisfying consumers' hunger since 1930.

4. The character of Indiana Jones was named after George Lucas's dog, Indiana.
*The SNICKERS Bar was named after Frank and Ethel Mars's favorite family horse.

5. Temple Of Doom won an Academy Award for Best Visual Effects in 1984.
*For added visual appeal, the top of each SNICKERS Bar is decorated with a special drizzle of chocolate.

6. Last Crusade won an Academy Award in 1989 for Best Sound Effects Editing.
*Each year SNICKERS Brand "wins" for best sound effects, too, with 28 crunchy peanuts packed into each bar!

7. The 1930s were a great time for adventure! The first three Indiana Jones movies were all set during that decade.
*The 1930s were a great time for candy lovers, too! The SNICKERS Bar was introduced in 1930 . . . and has been satisfying consumers ever since.

8. Temple Of Doom opens with a wild action sequence set in a ritzy nightclub in Shanghai, China.
*Consumers all over the world go wild for SNICKERS Brand. In fact, it's the #1 selling candy bar in China today.


-jc-

Candy Review
MINT CRISP M&MS


For M&M/Mars, the licensing tie-ins with Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull didn't stop with the Snickers Adventure Bar. They also produced a special variation of M&Ms for the movie's release -- Mint Crisp M&Ms.

The Mint Crisp M&Ms are a variation on the theme of the Crispy M&Ms, which seem to have disappeared from the shelves. Well, they disappeared from the shelves in my area about a year ago, at least. Now, the Crispy M&Ms started with a nugget of crisped rice at the core. This nugget was covered in milk chocolate, which in turn was covered by the signature M&M sugar shell.

For the Mint Crisp M&Ms, the rice nugget was covered in mint-flavored dark chocolate. The shell for this edition was given different colors than the regular M&Ms. The shells of the Mint Crisp M&Ms are white, green, and light green. (I suppose you might even call the last color a mint green.)

Mars also played around with the signature "M" imprint on some of the candies. One design depicts the M wearing Indy's fedora, and another has Dr. Jones's bullwhip coiled up and resting on top of the M. There are a couple of other designs that incorporate the M into what appear to be Mayan or Aztec designs, which more than likely reflect parts of the movie's plot.

The Mint Crisp M&Ms have an irregular shape, even more so than the Peanut or Almond varieties. The rice nuggets at the core are irregularly shaped, and even have what could be called a wide variation in size. This is just speculation on my part, but I'm guessing that it would cost too much to make the rice nuggets a uniform shape and size. It would probably also take away some of the crispness as well. But whatever the reason, this lack of uniformity gives the Mint Crisp M&Ms a bumpy, pebbly appearance.

Biting into a Mint Crisp M&M is an interesting blend of textures. There is both the sharp crunch of the sugar shell, and the slightly softer crispness of the crisped rice core. Both of these are contrasted by the smoothness of the chocolate.

The mint is clearly the dominant flavor in the Mint Crisp M&Ms. I didn't even realize that this M&Ms version used dark chocolate until I read the ingredients panel on the back of the wrapper. The chocolate flavor is there, but it is almost overwhelmed by the mint that it is difficult to distinguish that it is dark chocolate. (At first, I thought that the Mint Crisp M&Ms used milk chocolate. Okay, I assumed that it was milk chocolate, because most of the time, Mars probably would have used milk chocolate. This time, they managed to surprise me.)

The overwhelming flavor of the mint also drowns out the flavor of the crisped rice. If Mars had added just a little less mint flavor to the chocolate, we would also be able to clearly detect the slightly malty taste of the rice nuggets. It can be detected on occasion, but just barely. If not for the difference in textures between the shell and the rice (particularly as you crunch one of these M&Ms between your teeth), you might not even know that the crisped rice was there -- unless you looked at a cross-section of one.

Like the Snickers Adventure Bar, the wrappers of the Mint Crisp M&Ms come with "Indiana Jones Arti-FACTS." But while there were eight different Snickers Arti-FACTS, there are 16 Arti-FACTS for the Mint Crisp M&Ms. Each one contains a little bit of trivia about the Indiana Jones movies, and something about M&Ms. In this case, though, some of the M&Ms trivia is a little less than completely serious.

The Mint Crisp M&Ms hit the shelves a few weeks ago, at the same time as the Snickers Adventure Bar. They are available in both individual-size bags and party-size bags. And while I am sure that they will be around for at least a few more weeks, I suspect that once the Mint Crisp M&Ms are gone, they will be gone for good.

I wouldn't mind seeing Mars doing another edition of the Mint Crisp M&Ms, or even just a Mint M&Ms without any other embellishment. I would hope that, if Mars does try again, they would make the mint just a little more subtle -- and give the chocolate a chance to make its presence known on the tastebuds.


-jc-