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 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." 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-

Candy Bar Review
SNICKERS ADVENTURE BAR


Last year, M&M/Mars released a tie-in version of their Snickers bar in conjunction with Shrek The Third. Mars didn't do anything too elaborate for the Shrek Snickers -- they colored the nougat a bright green (Shrek green, if you will), but otherwise, it was still the same Snickers bar.

This year, Mars brought out another limited edition Snickers bar as a tie-in with Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull. Mars played around with the basic Snickers bar for this edition, and the results are rather intriguing.

The copywriters at Mars already did a pretty good job of describing the Snickers Adventure Bar. So instead of banging my head against the wall trying to think of a better way to describe it, I will simply quote from the copy on the back of the wrapper:

"Satisfy your taste for adventure! Rich chocolate. Crunchy nuts. And a cliffhanger kick of exotic spice and a hint of sweet coconut flavor."

I'm not sure what that "exotic spice" is. I've sampled more than a few of the Snickers Adventure Bars, some in side-by-side comparisons with the original Snickers bar. Yes, I can detect something there, but the flavor isn't pronounced enough to be distinct from the other flavors. My first guess is that it's cinnamon, but I can't be completely certain.

As for the coconut flavor, I can detect that. There is more than just a hint of coconut flavor in the Snickers Adventure Bar. I would say that it is quite distinct, even coming close to the point of being the dominant flavor in the bar.

The coconut flavor and the spice (whatever it may be) have been added to the peanut butter nougat. I was curious enough to try separate, minute samples of both the nougat and the caramel. The caramel tastes the same as it always does, studded with peanuts. The nougat is what tastes different. And what the wrapper doesn't say is that the bar is that the whole is covered in milk chocolate.

While the coconut flavor is definitely the dominant taste in the Snickers Adventure Bar, it doesn't overwhelm the other flavors. It blends well with the milk chocolate and caramel, and even accentuates the flavor of the peanuts. And of course, the peanuts provide a satisfying crunch, as always.

There is one other bonus that comes with the Snickers Adventure Bar. On the back of the wrapper are one of eight "Indiana Jones Arti-FACTS." These are various bits of trivia relating both to the Indiana Jones movies, and to the Snickers bar.

The Snickers Adventure Bar comes in both full-size bars and bags of Minis. They have been on the shelves for a few weeks, released to build anticipation for Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull. They will be around for at least a few more weeks, but when they go away, they will probably disappear like the Ark at the end of Raiders Of The Lost Ark -- unlikely to ever be seen again, I'm afraid.

Enjoy this limited edition while you can.


-jc-

Candy Review
WILDLY CHERRY M&MS


I'm guessing that Mars produced this limited edition for Valentine's Day. It does seem to be appropriate for the day, in any case. There is just one little thing, though. I don't think I saw this in the stores until a few days after Valentine's Day.

When I first saw the Wildly Cherry M&Ms, I assumed that this would be a twist on the standard milk chocolate M&Ms. I looked at the ingredients list on the back of the package, and quickly discovered that I was wrong. It's not a variation on the milk chocolate M&Ms.

It's a variation on the milk chocolate and dark chocolate M&Ms.

The Wildly Cherry M&Ms are disks of milk chocolate and dark chocolate that have been infused with a cherry flavor. Like the Razzberry M&Ms from a few months ago, these M&Ms are slightly larger than the standard M&Ms.

Of course, like all M&Ms candies, the chocolate is coated with the distinctive sugar shell so that it . . . well, you know the slogan. For this limited edition, the shells come in two colors instead of the various rainbow hues. The milk chocolate M&Ms in this mix have a bright red shell, while their dark chocolate counterparts have a darker red, almost maroon shell. Obviously, Mars is trying to suggest the idea of two different varieties of cherries with these shells.

The cherry flavor is noticeable but not overwhelming. It strongly hints at the idea of a chocolate-covered cherry, but still manages to retain a degree of subtlety. And the cherry flavor seems to be stronger in the milk chocolate M&Ms. I rather suspect that the same amount of flavor has been added to both the milk and dark chocolate, but the stronger flavor of the dark chocolate provides more competition on the tastebuds.

As I said, I would have thought the Wildly Cherry M&Ms would be a perfect choice for Valentine's Day. Maybe they were, and for some reason, they were shipped out later than originally planned. But since I started seeing them right after Valentine's Day, it also means that I have no clear idea of how long they will be staying on the shelves.


-jc-

You know, a lot of the candy reviews I do are limited editions. They are on the shelves for just a brief time. This can be . . . maddening at times, especially if the company releasing a particular limited edition has come up with something that is absolutely wonderful.

Sometimes, you get lucky. The limited edition turns out to be so popular that the company decides to make it part of their regular product line. Hershey brought out the Special Dark Kisses two or three times before that became part of the regular product line. Mars did a lot better with the Snickers Dark bar. They must have realized that they had a hit on their hands right away, because I think I saw it become a regular part of the candy aisle before the limited edition had a chance to disappear.

With others, you don't get so lucky. I think Steve Almond is still hoping that Hershey will bring back the Dark Chocolate Kit Kat bars. (I can't say that I blame him; they are quite scrumptious.) But other than occasional appearances in bags of miniatures, it hasn't happened yet.

In any event, I'm beginning to think that I need a standard disclaimer to use on any review of a limited edition. Something that says something like this:

"This is a limited edition. I have no idea how long it will stay on the shelves. This production could be a one-shot deal. It could be something that [add manufacturer name here] could be planning to release on an occasional or seasonal basis. It might even be a test run to see how popular the candy bar might be. I don't know. My best advice to you is to get it now, while you can."

I have been putting something like that in my reviews in one form or another. Usually, I do it in a somewhat whimsical manner. But I'm finding that I am running out of funny ways to state it. Maybe I should just keep referring back to this little disclaimer, and leave it at that.


-jc-

Candy Review
BRACH’S CINNAMON CHRISTMAS NOUGATS


I think it should be obvious by now that I have a deep and abiding affection for all things chocolate. At the same time, though, I do have an appreciation for candy where there is no sign of chocolate. One flavor that I particularly like is cinnamon, and these nougats from Brach are delightfully wonderful. (Or should that be wonderfully delightful?)

Brach actually produced three different varieties of Christmas nougats -- peppermint, spearmint, and cinnamon. But as I think I have mentioned, I am more or less indifferent to peppermint, and I absolutely detest spearmint. So, we're going to concentrate on the nougat flavor that I do like.

The Cinnamon Nougats are round. Well, I think they start out as being round. They are soft enough that, during what I assume is the entire process of packaging and shipping them to stores, some of the individual candies get a little squished to the point where they are only sort of round. They are primarily pink, with red stripes around the edge of the candy, and a green Christmas tree in the center.

More than anything, the nougats remind me of beads made from polymer clay. It looks as though different colors of cinnamon-flavored nougat were shaped into incredibly long logs, then sliced into individual pieces.

Now, I did mention that the Christmas Nougats were soft enough that some of them became a little squished in handling. I should emphasize that they are not super-soft by any means. These nougats stay firm until the right amount of pressure is applied -- say, as when they are between your teeth as you bite down on one. It is then that they become increasingly soft as you chew.

The cinnamon flavor is not immediately noticeable when you first put one of the nougats in your mouth. It is only as you chew that the cinnamon flavor is gradually released over your tastebuds. The cinnamon flavor is rather mild, compared to other cinnamon candies. It is not the "curiously strong" cinnamon flavor of a Cinnamon Altoids, nor the flavor you find in Red Hots or Hot Tamales. The nougats do have a nice cinnamon zing to them, but it isn't overpowering. I have one friend who doesn't like any of the other cinnamon candies mentioned above, because she finds their flavor too strong. I think she might actually like this cinnamon candy, though.

Since these are packaged as Christmas Nougats, you can guess how long they will remain on the shelves. I would hope that Brach's will also make similar versions available at other times. I have always thought that cinnamon candy was an ideal match for Valentine's Day.


-jc-

As I mentioned not too long ago, Cadbury decided to get more milage out of their Creme Eggs by putting them in a Christmas-themed package. I was in Walgreens last week, and something else caught my eye.

Right next to the case of the Christmas Ornament Eggs, I saw a similar-sized case of the Orange Creme Eggs that Cadbury introduced this past Easter. No renaming, no Christmas-color foil wrapping -- just the same Orange Creme Egg that thoroughly delighted me last spring.

I was a little surprised, and now I'm getting just a little curious. Does this mean that Cadbury is planning to market their Creme Eggs year-round? Or are they jumping the gun just a little, forgetting about Valentine's Day and going straight from Christmas to Easter?


-jc-

I hope all of you are enjoying your Thanksgiving, and that you haven't overdone it too much with the turkey and everything else.

I have something simple for today. Pumpkin pie, of course, is the traditional Thanksgiving dessert. But for anyone reading this, do any of your Thanksgiving traditions include some sort of chocolate dessert? And if so, what might they be?

I would really like to hear what you have to say. Enjoy the rest of the holiday!


-jc-

Candy Review
CADBURY ORNAMENT CREME EGG


"What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet."

Cadbury seems to have taken the words of Shakespeare to heart this Christmas. The Ornament Creme Egg should be very familiar to anyone buying candy during the Easter season. It's the same Creme Egg made famous in those commercials with the clucking bunnies, only given a red foil wrapper more suitable for Christmas.

Outside is a shell of Cadbury's creamy milk chocolate. Inside that shell is a soft yellow and white fondant. And as I said, it's the exact same yummy little morsel of sugary goodness that you will encounter in March and April.

Repackaging the Creme Egg for Christmas is a cute idea, but I was a little disappointed with Cadbury. As long as you're making a Christmas version of the Creme Egg, why not give it a little something to make it distinctive from the Easter Creme Egg? While I'm not the world’s biggest fan of peppermint, giving the fondant a touch of peppermint flavor would be a good seasonal touch. Or better yet, give the fondant center a cinnamon flavor. That would be a candy to trigger memories of hot chocolate with cinnamon -- perfect for this time of year.

Since I haven't seen any commercials for the Ornament Creme Egg, I suspect that this year might be something of a trial run for Cadbury. If the Ornament Creme Egg sells well this year, for 2008, we might be lucky to see some Christmas-specific variations.

And I would love to see commercials of clucking bunnies wearing Santa hats.


-jc-

I have a slight cold at the moment. It hasn't affected my sense of taste any. It hasn't even killed my desire for chocolate. (No chocolate? Ridiculous! Chocolate is one of the four basic food groups, isn't it?)

At the moment, though, my analytical abilities seemed to be just a little dampened. I'm having a little trouble getting myself interested in picking apart the insides of a candy bar, when I feel as though I'm trying to run a marathon while knee-deep in molasses.

Yes, this cold is definitely not conducive to writing anything resembling an interesting review.


-jc-

I have a mystery that I'm trying to solve.

A chocolate mystery.

To be precise, I'm trying to remember the name of a candy bar from a long time ago. And I'm hoping that someone reading this will have a "Eureka!" moment. I'm hoping that this entry will trigger a long-forgotten memory, and that someone will snap their fingers, say, "Oh, yeah! That was the ______," and have the answer I seek.

Here is what I do remember about this mystery candy bar:

1. It was a product of one of the Big Three American candy manufacturers. In other words, Hershey, M&M/Mars, or Nestle.

2. It was made during the early 1970s.

3. It was what I privately refer to as a "flat" candy bar: It was, if I'm remembering correctly, about the same dimensions as the standard Hershey bar, but a little thicker. (Hey, if my memory was perfect, I wouldn't be writing this entry. I would know the name of this mystery bar.)

4. There were three layers to this candy bar. The bottom layer was dark chocolate. The middle layer was white. If the bar was being made today, it would probably be white chocolate, but back then, it was probably something vanilla-flavored. And finally, the top layer was milk chocolate.

5. I'm not completely certain, but I'm getting memory flashes of a wrapper that was red, white, and blue. Again, this could be my memory playing tricks on me, but when I try to picture the wrapper, those are the colors that readily come to mind.

6. I seem to remember seeing at least one TV commercial for this candy bar.

7. It is not being produced anymore, and probably went out of production sometime during the Nixon administration.

Those are all the clues I have to this mystery candy bar. Based on what little information I have presented, can anyone tell me the name of this candy bar, and who produced it? And if you have any other information, I would appreciate that as well. This is something that has been occasionally popping up in my memory for a number of years. My curiosity has been aroused; I would love to satisfy it.


-jc-

Candy Bar Review
100 GRAND DARK


It seems that every time I write about a 100 Grand bar, I keep coming back to Steve Almond, and his quite vociferous dislike of the bar. Or at least, his assertions that the 100 Grand is a vastly inferior candy bar when compared to the late lamented Caravelle. But there is something else that brings me back to Mr. Almond this time, and that is his rhapsodizing over the Dark Chocolate KitKat bar. After reading his description of that bar in Candyfreak, I am fairly certain that he absolutely loves dark chocolate. And I suspect that when Nestle brought out this limited edition several months ago, he would have been at least curious enough to try one.

The 100 Grand Dark bar takes the same basic structure as the original: A core of caramel is covered in chocolate, and the top of the chocolate has crisped rice imbedded in it. The obvious change, of course, is that in this version, the caramel is covered in dark chocolate rather than milk chocolate.

The dark chocolate seems to be a better choice for the outer shell of the 100 Grand. When I look at the cross-section created when I bite into the bar, the dark chocolate shell is the same thickness as the original's milk chocolate shell. But it appears that the dark chocolate has more structural integrity than the milk chocolate. It doesn't crumble the way the milk chocolate does -- one of the main reasons Almond feels that the 100 Grand is far inferior to the Caravelle, even all these years after the latter was taken out of production.

If it weren't for the fact that you can see the crisped rice on the bar, you might find yourself wondering if it was even there. In Candyfreak, Almond described the crisped rice in the original 100 Grand as being "deflated." I tend to agree with his assessment, and his description holds true for the 100 Grand Dark as well. There is a little crunch at the beginning, but it quickly disappears. And the malty flavor you normally find in the crisped rice just isn't there. Or if it is there, it has been completely overwhelmed by the flavor of the dark chocolate.

The dark chocolate also seems to have an effect on the caramel core of the bar. The caramel doesn't seem to be quite as rubbery as it is in the original (yet another of Almond's complaints). The caramel is still firm and chewy, but it doesn't give you the feeling that it takes forever to chew.

When you bite into the 100 Grand Dark, the dark chocolate is the first flavor that hits your tastebuds, and it is the dominant flavor. but as you chew, the flavor of the caramel gradually becomes stronger, and it is the last flavor to leave your tongue. And as I mentioned earlier, the crisped rice unfortunately doesn't add the flavor accent here that it does in the original 100 Grand bar. That may be the only drawback to the bar, because overall, there is a good blending of flavors.

Unfortunately, this was a limited edition, and it came out several months ago. Maybe even last year; time does have a tendency to fly much faster than you think. It has disappeared from the shelves, and I have no idea if Nestle will ever bring it back. It would be nice to see it again, even if only on an occasional basis.


-jc-

Candy Bar Review
TWIX PB


Not long after I picked up the research material I needed for my review of the Twix Peanut Butter bar, I noticed something a little unusual. What I noticed was that particular candy bar was disappearing from the shelves. The disappearing act went on for at least two or three months, and my initial reaction was that Mars had ceased production of the Twix Peanut Butter.

Kind of made my review a little useless, didn't it?

But after two or three months, I began to see it gradually reappearing, with what I thought were merely cosmetic changes. While it was still a predominantly red color, the wrapper had been redesigned, and the candy bar now sported the name Twix PB.

But while I thought the changes were merely cosmetic, a closer look revealed that they went beyond the wrapper. The changes went into the composition of the bar itself.

They changed the cookie.

The vanilla cookie that had been the base of the Twix Peanut Butter (and is the base for the original Twix bar, as well as being the base for most of the recent limited editions) has been replaced by a chocolate cookie. Now, this is a darker chocolate cookie than what was used as the base of the Twix Triple Chocolate bar. As a rough estimate, I would say that Mars put at least twice the cocoa in the batter for these cookies. As a result, the cookie has a deeper, darker, richer brown color.

There is one other noticeable change with the new cookie. Its flavor isn't completely overwhelmed by the milk chocolate and the peanut butter. Those two flavors still fight to be the dominant flavor on your tastebuds, but the cookie's flavor has more presence.

The texture has also changed with the new cookie base, although it is still the dominant texture in this candy bar. I'm not completely sure how to describe the difference, other than to say that there is one. It would be easier if I had samples of the two cookies, without any of the other ingredients. I think I could make an accurate comparison then. I do suspect, though, that if I were to sample both the vanilla and chocolate cookie bases, the chocolate cookie would produce more crumbs as I ate it.

The change in the cookie base is the only one. The rest of the Twix PB remains the same. The cookie base is still topped with a smooth peanut butter, and the whole thing is still enrobed in milk chocolate. And there are still two slender bars in each single size package.

One other thing hasn't changed about the Twix PB. It still doesn't have the contrast in textures that the other Twix bars do. That, of course, is because the peanut butter lacks the chewiness of the caramel present in the other Twix bars.

The flavors of the peanut butter and the milk chocolate make for a good pairing, as they do in just about any other candy where they appear together. The slight saltiness of the peanut butter (very slight in this bar) and the sweetness of the milk chocolate both blend together and contrast with each other simultaneously. And as I said earlier, the chocolate cookie does not completely fade into the background. It provides some slightly darker chocolate undertones which provide an interesting contrast with the milk chocolate.

Switching to a chocolate cookie base for the Twix PB was one of those rare changes that really is an improvement. I hope that Mars decides to use this chocolate cookie in other Twix products. It would work particularly well if Mars ever decides to bring back the Twix White Chocolate bar for another run. As I mentioned when I reviewed that bar, I thought that the overall effect was a little bland. Using the chocolate cookie base would provide the right balance and contrast with the white chocolate.


-jc-

Candy Review
RUSSELL STOVER STRAWBERRY CREAM PUMPKIN


And here I was, thinking I had run out of pumpkins to review. Well, I was wrong. I found one more offering from Russell Stover.

On the outside, the Strawberry Cream Pumpkin is like all of the other candy pumpkins from Russell Stover -- a vaguely pumpkinish shell of Russell Stover's milk chocolate. Inside that shell is a fluffy strawberry-flavored cream filling.

Well, it's supposed to be strawberry flavored. It's a nice bright pink color, but I really don't detect anything resembling the flavor of strawberry in the center. I really couldn't detect any sort of flavoring in the center, come to think of it. It's sweet, but that is about all I could taste.

Fortunately, the chocolate shell does not disappoint. As always, the chocolate is rich and velvety on the tongue. With this particular candy, the chocolate is the overwhelmingly dominant flavor, because the filling provides almost nothing in the way of contrast.

And since today is Halloween, this may have already disappeared from the shelves of your favorite store. But on the off chance that it hasn't, and you have discovered more than a few still available, I would suggest waiting another 24 hours. The Strawberry Cream Pumpkin is definitely one that can wait until it gets discounted.


-jc-

When I designed the business cards for A Chocoholic UnAnonymous, I knew that they would be a great way to tell people about the site. I learned just how good it was last night.

I was in Kroger, getting something other than chocolate. (Believe it or not, I do eat things other than chocolate.) As I was walking toward the cash register, I paused at a display of candy bars. A couple of young women were at the display, deciding on what if anything they were going to purchase.

One of them was looking at a Reese's Whipps bar, and I told her, "I would definitely recommend that." I used the description I gave in my review of the Whipps bar; that it was like a Snickers bar without the caramel.

The young lady had one question: Did the bar really have a good peanut butter flavor? I assured her that it did. I then added that I write about chocolate, and that I had done quite a bit of research when writing the review. (Both of them started chuckling as they figured out what that research entails.)

I mentioned the site, and it just so happened that I had some of my cards with me. I gave a card to each of them, and both of them seemed to be amused by the whole concept. They said that they would have to check out the site.

I think I may have just found a couple of new readers.


-jc-

Candy Review
RUSSELL STOVER CHOCOLATE MARSHMALLOW GHOST


I'm still trying to think of the right riff on the Ghostbusters theme for this review. I know that the best one would involve some reference to Mr. Stay-Puft, but finding the perfect way to make that reference is still eluding me.

One more candy ghost for Halloween, again from Russell Stover. The Chocolate Marshmallow Ghost looks even less like a ghost than the other candy ghosts I have reviewed. More than anything else, it looks like your average candy bar -- rectangular in shape. On the outside, milk chocolate. On the inside, chocolate marshmallow.

The marshmallow, like the marshmallow in the Russell Stover marshmallow pumpkins that I have reviewed, is a little different from the marshmallows you buy in your grocery store. I believe some of the adjectives I have used in describing it are light, fluffy, springy, spongy, and bouncy, just to name a few. The same holds true for the chocolate marshmallow inside the Chocolate Marshmallow Ghost.

The marshmallow is a light brown color. If you can grab a small fragment of the marshmallow all by itself, you will be able to detect the slightest hint of chocolate flavor. Otherwise, it will more than likely be overwhelmed by the rich flavor of Russell Stover's milk chocolate.

I've given the matter a little thought, and I think perhaps a white chocolate outer shell would work better with a chocolate marshmallow. Give the marshmallow just a little more chocolate flavor, and the two would contrast nicely off each other. Actually, giving the marshmallow just a little more chocolate flavor would be an improvement even with the milk chocolate shell. A slightly bolder flavor in the marshmallow would be an improvement no matter what the marshmallow's flavor is. Russell Stover makes a very rich milk chocolate; it needs stronger flavors in its fillings so that the chocolate doesn't overwhelm the fillings.

The Chocolate Marshmallow Ghost does have a nice compact size. With two graham crackers and 20 to 30 seconds in the microwave, you should have instant s'mores. That is an experiment I will have to keep in mind for after October 31. I can wait until after Halloween to play mad scientist in the kitchen.


-jc-

Candy Review
RUSSELL STOVER COCONUT GHOST


I thought of opening this review with some play on the theme from the movie Ghostbusters. Unfortunately, a satisfactory one doesn't come readily to mind at the moment.

Another Halloween goodie from Russell Stover; this time around, it's the Coconut Ghost. This particular candy didn't suffer from any blurring of details as the Peanut Butter Ghost did. Then again, it doesn't make much of a difference, because there really weren't any details to blur. The candy is an amorphous shape; a shape that vaguely suggests a ghost. Using a mold that would have put some recognizable details in the chocolate would have worked better, if only from an esthetic point of view.

The outer shell, like all of the Russell Stover Halloween candies I have seen so far, is milk chocolate. (I think I may have said this before, but I would love to see the offerings varied with some dark chocolate selections as well.) The chocolate shell surrounds a mass of sweetened coconut.

The obvious comparison would be to an Almond Joy without the almonds, and it's at least a fair one. The coconut tastes similar to that used in both the Almond Joy and Mounds bars, perhaps a little sweeter. And the milk chocolate that Russell Stover uses falls somewhere between Hershey's milk chocolate and their dark chocolate in terms of the percentage of cocoa solids used. (At least, that is how my rather unscientific tongue describes it to my brain.)

The richer milk chocolate dominates the taste of the candy, but its flavor doesn't totally overwhelm that of the coconut. Unlike the peanut butter in the Peanut Butter Ghost, the coconut has a flavor that is strong enough to stand up to the chocolate. And the coconut's chewy texture is enough to make it's presence known as you bite down on the Coconut Ghost.

Standard holiday disclaimer: Keep in mind that the Coconut Ghost, like the other Halloween candies, will be disappearing soon after the trick-or-treaters have made their annual raids on your homes.


-jc-

Candy Bar Review
TWIX
TWIX PEANUT BUTTER


Since I started A Chocoholic UnAnonymous, I have written several reviews of different limited edition variations on the Twix bar. For a change of pace, I've decided to do something different. (Or as John Cleese might say, "And now, for something completely different.") I thought it might be interesting to review the Twix bars that are always on the shelves.

I think I may have mentioned this in a previous review, but let's start with a little bit of background. The original Twix bar was first introduced in 1979. It proved to be popular enough that three variations were released during the following year -- Peanut Butter, Chocolate Fudge, and Cookies & Creme. The last two disappeared from the shelves after only a year or two, leaving only the Original and the Peanut Butter Twix bars until the recent limited editions.

The Original Twix bar is a long, thin vanilla cookie, which is topped with caramel, then covered in milk chocolate. An individual-size package contains two of these bars.

The tagline for some recent Twix commercials proclaim, "It's all in the mix." (It might even be the tagline of the current ad campaign; I haven't seen a Twix commercial recently, so I can't say with any degree of certainty.) Yes, the tagline fits, because I think it's a pretty accurate description of what eating a Twix is like. Its about how the various elements of the candy bar come together in your mouth.

When you first bite into the Original Twix bar, the dominant flavor is the milk chocolate. As you chew, the caramel's flavor gradually becomes stronger, until it becomes the last flavor standing on your tastebuds. Occasionally, there are flashes of vanilla coming from the cookie, but at best, it provides undertones of flavor.

The cookie is most noticeable for its texture. Both the caramel and the cookie take equal yet contrasting roles. The caramel is firm and chewy, yet soft enough that it yields to pressure from the teeth. When you bite into a Twix bar, your teeth s-l-o-w-l-y sink through the chocolate and caramel, until they suddenly reach the rigidity of the cookie. But the cookie provides resistance for only a moment. As the teeth shear into the cookie, it gives way with a pleasing crunch. And as you chew, the bits of cookie become distributed through the caramel, giving the caramel an oddly pleasing granular feel.

The Twix Peanut Butter uses the same basic structure as the original bar. As the name suggests, peanut butter replaces the caramel on top of the vanilla cookie, and once again, the whole is enrobed in milk chocolate.

The peanut butter is smooth and creamy. The slightly salty flavor makes a pleasing contrast with the sweetness of the milk chocolate. Unfortunately, the peanut butter is also a little on the bland side. Normally, this would not be a particularly bad thing, but it is almost a little too bland. It almost needs to be just a little bolder, to stand out the same way the caramel does in the Original Twix bar. In the Peanut Butter Twix bar, the peanut butter's flavor is almost a shadow to the chocolate's flavor.

The cookie takes on something of a paradoxical role in the Peanut Butter Twix. On the one hand, the cookie's texture is clearly dominant. Here, the cookie isn't competing against an equally-dominant chewy caramel. The creaminess of the peanut butter clearly fades into the background as the cookie's crunch comes to the forefront. On the other hand, the flavor of the vanilla cookie is bland; even blander than the peanut butter. There doesn't seem to be the occasional flash of cookie flavor as it is ground to crumbs and rolls over your tongue.

Taking that first bite into a Peanut Butter Twix is also a slightly different sensation from the initial bite into an original Twix. Without the viscous resistance of the caramel to slow things down, the teeth quickly snap through the bar. The peanut butter offers little if any resistance, and as a result, the teeth have built up a little more momentum by the time they encounter the cookie.

The one good thing about both of these bars is that they are permanent parts of the Mars product line. I still think the Dark Chocolate Twix is probably the best version that Mars has produced, but unfortunately, they haven’t seen it that way yet.


-jc-

Candy Bar Review
REESE'S WHIPPS


As is usually the case, this candy bar took me just a little by surprise when I first saw it in Kroger a few days ago. I picked up a couple of bars for research purposes, and prepared to be pleasantly surprised by this new confectionary delight. (Hey, I am rarely displeased by encountering a new candy bar.)

The Reese's Whipps bar is built around a core of peanut butter nougat. A "light and fluffy" peanut butter nougat, according to the wrapper. (Call me crazy, but I can't recall having ever seen a nougat that wasn't light and fluffy.) This nougat is then covered in milk chocolate.

The nougat is indeed light and fluffy as advertised, and has a rich peanut butter flavor. It has a slightly salty taste to it, which both contrasts and harmonizes with the sweetness of the milk chocolate. The nougat also melts into a river of peanut butter flavor on the tongue as you bite into the bar. I think Hershey uses this nougat as part of the Reese's FastBreak bar. I can't be completely certain of this, though; one of the problems with nougat is that while you can detect its presence in a candy bar, unless it's the sole component of the candy bar's interior (such as in the 3 Musketeers bar), the flavor can be overwhelmed by the other components of the bar's core.

From what I can tell, the flavor of the Whipps's nougat is close to that of the peanut butter nougat in the Snickers bar. Again, I can't be completely certain, for the same reasons I just mentioned. In the Snickers bar, you do notice the presence of the nougat, but it tends to take a back seat to the chocolate, caramel, and peanuts.

Now, if Mars had released this bar instead of Hershey, it probably would be a variant of the Snickers bar. Remember the Snickers Xtreme limited edition that was released last year? That was the Snickers bar without the nougat. The Reese's Whipps bar (or any similar version produced by Mars) is a Snickers bar without the peanut-laden caramel.

The wrapper for the Whipps bar also makes the claim that it has 40% less fat than "the leading chocolate candy." I can believe that. A fluffy candy ingredient such as nougat would be deflated by the addition of too much fat. Besides, Mars makes similar claims for the 3 Musketeers bar.

The Reese's division of Hershey has long known that chocolate and peanut butter are two flavors that work well together. The Reese's Whipps bar is yet another example of how well they do work together.


-jc-

Candy Review
RUSSELL STOVER PEANUT BUTTER GHOST


Well, I have run out of candy pumpkins to review. So, I'm moving on to Halloween ghost candy. First up, the Russell Stover Peanut Butter Ghost.

This particular candy is more or less ghost-shaped. (It's a little hard to tell; it apparently melted slightly on my way home, and any details of the chocolate mold have been blurred.) The outer shell is Russell Stover's milk chocolate, which surrounds a peanut butter filling.

The taste and texture of the Peanut Butter Ghost is not too dissimilar from that of a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup. There are distinct differences, though. Russell Stover uses a richer milk chocolate formula than Hershey, and its flavor tends to overpower the flavor of the peanut butter. The peanut butter has, for lack of a better term, a little blander flavor than the Reese's peanut butter. I don't know what it might be, but the peanut butter that Russell Stover uses is lacking in something that would give it more of a punch. There isn't anything to strike a contrast with the chocolate. And as a result, it's not as good as it could be.

Nice try, but I will have to say "Booooo!" to this ghost.


-jc-

Candy Review
HERSHEY ORANGE MARSHMALLOW PUMPKIN


Pumpkins and oranges are only similar when it comes to color. They don't share any sort of similarities when it comes to flavor. So if you are going to produce a candy pumpkin with a marshmallow interior that is the color of a pumpkin, why not also give it the flavor of a pumpkin?

Hmmmmm . . . I may have just gone into overanalyzing when it comes to these reviews.

Like Russell Stover, Hershey has its own version of an orange marshmallow pumpkin. Outside, it's Hershey’s milk chocolate. Inside is marshmallow that has been both tinted and flavored orange.

The orange marshmallow seemed to be a little denser than the marshmallow in the Hershey Marshmallow Pumpkin. It's still not quite as dense as the marshmallow in the S'Mores bar, but it doesn’t have the sponginess that I have found in some of the other marshmallow pumpkins.

The orange color of the marshmallow in Hershey's pumpkin is as bright and vivid as that of the marshmallow in Russell Stover's version. The flavor, however, is another matter. Hershey's pumpkin has a very noticeable orange flavor. It reminds me of the orange flavor in the Cadbury Orange Creme Egg that was produced for the first time this past Easter -- very sweet, with a pleasant orangey aftertaste that remained in the mouth long after you finished with a bite. The stronger orange flavor harmonizes well with the milk chocolate, and would probably do equally well with a dark chocolate shell. (Not-so-subtle hint here!)

Okay, maybe a marshmallow pumpkin with a pumpkin-flavored marshmallow wouldn't sell as well. I think it would be interesting to see a pumpkin-shaped candy that actually tasted like pumpkin. Well, pumpkin pie, at least.


-jc-

Candy Review
HERSHEY MARSHMALLOW PUMPKIN


And here I thought that I was finished with reviewing chocolate pumpkins. I forgot that Russell Stover isn't the only candy maker to make chocolate pumpkins for Halloween. Hershey makes a pumpkin or two of their own.

Hershey's version of the Marshmallow Pumpkin isn't all that different from Russell Stover's version. Both have an outer shell of milk chocolate, and an interior of marshmallow. The shell is molded in the shape of a pumpkin, although it is not as elaborate as some of the Russell Stover pumpkins. (And one interesting thing to note is that while almost all of the wrappers for these chocolate pumpkins feature art of a pumpkin carved into a jack-o-lantern, none of the candies themselves are jack-o-lanterns.)

The shell is Hershey's usual milk chocolate; nothing out of the ordinary. The marshmallow was a little disappointing to me. Hershey does great marshmallow. Just try one of their S'Mores bars, and you will experience a wonderfully dense, chewy marshmallow. Unfortunately, Hershey didn't use that wonderful marshmallow for this pumpkin. Instead, they used a marshmallow with a lighter, springier, spongier texture. It's a little sweeter than your average Jet-Puffed marshmallow, which does make for a good contrast of flavors with the chocolate. But after sinking my teeth into a S'Mores bar and its marshmallow, I have found that I really want to experience that marshmallow more often.

I find that I am running out of ways to state the obvious. You know, that since this is a seasonal product, it will be around only until the end of the holiday. I figure that most people would already know that, but I suppose it never hurts to mention it. In any case, if you wait until November 1 to look for these, you will be stuck with whatever gets pushed to the clearance shelves.


-jc-