On July 31, I mentioned that I had already seen the first Halloween displays going up the previous day, a couple of weeks before the school year even began here in Louisville. (Come to think of it, I think it was even before the Kentucky State Fair, but I digress.) I suspect that the current state of the economy had something to do with it; that retailers are trying to give consumers as long as possible to shop for Halloween decorations, costumes, and candy.

After that, I would not have been surprised to see the Christmas displays going up any time before now. But believe it or not (I'm walking on air), I didn't see my first hint of Christmas merchandise until yesterday -- two days before Halloween.

It was at Walgreens, as I recall. And it wasn't a full-blown display in the seasonal aisle. It was more of a condensing of the remaining Halloween merchandise. On the top shelves of the aisles, and in the vacated space, there were a few cartons. Nothing opened, but the printing on the carton clearly indicated that this was Christmas merchandise.

I am quite certain that in two or three days, I will be seeing much more in the way of Christmas related items, as the Halloween merchandise is gradually pushed aside for another year. But for now, Halloween still holds sway.

Wow. The retailers are showing more restraint that I thought they would back at the end of July.


-jc-

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

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

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

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

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


-jc-

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

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

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

It was the letters section that really made my day.

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

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

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

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

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


-jc-

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

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

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

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

What the hell?

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

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


-jc-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


-jc-

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

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

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

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

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

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


-jc-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Besides, "chocolatesyfy" just looks silly.


-jc-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


-jc-

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-

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-

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-

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-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


-jc-

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

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

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

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

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

To quote Sam Beckett, "Oh, boy."

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

As the saying goes, easier said than done.

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

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

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

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

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


-jc-

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-

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-

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-

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 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-

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-

I got a message from my friend Angel a few days ago. She had been more than a little under the weather, and she was letting all of her friends know that she was all right. The subject line read, "I Get To Keep My Gallbladder!" I saw her later that day, and during our brief conversation, she said that for a while, it looked like she might have needed gallbladder surgery.

Just hearing the words "gallbladder surgery" brought back memories from a few years ago, when another friend did require that particular procedure. It was in late 2000, and I remember Leah mentioning some pain. When she went to her doctor, the diagnosis was gallstones, and she was told that she would have to have her gallbladder removed.

When she told some of her friends about the upcoming surgery, Leah said that it wouldn't take place for a month or two. One of the instructions that Leah's doctor gave her was to minimize her fat intake as much as possible until the surgery. Leah also complained that, of course, this would be the time that she would start getting some major chocolate cravings, and because of those instructions, she didn't have a good way to satisfy them.

That's when I remembered a series of commercials for Hershey's chocolate syrup that had aired recently. (Just to be clear, "recently" means that it was recent at the time this happened.) The main focus of this particular campaign was that the commercials touted the fact that Hershey's Syrup was fat-free. I suspected that if Leah had seen those commercials, she had (understandably) not thought about them.

I decided to jog her memory just a little. A day or so later, I went by Kroger, and I bought a couple of cans of Hershey's Syrup for her -- both the original flavor and the (at the time) new Special Dark flavor. The following afternoon, I dropped by her house, and I presented her with the cans, reminding her that she did have a couple of fat-free options for satisfying her chocolate cravings.

Leah was happy. For the moment, I think I had become one of her favorite people.

I think Benjamin Franklin had it wrong. It is not beer, it is chocolate that is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.


-jc-

Back in January, I mentioned that I really needed to get myself some cards made as a way to tell people about this site. I would be in the position of telling people that I wrote about chocolate, and that I have a site here on LiveJournal where I post those writings. I would then find myself scrambling for any available piece of paper where I could write down the address.

I knew that there had to be a better way of telling people. A nice, tasteful business card, with the website's address, would be just the thing . . . as long as I remembered to keep a supply of them with me. There was just one little problem at the time: I knew where I could get cards printed (several places, actually), but designing them was an entirely different matter. I didn't even know how I wanted the card to look.

In the past week or so, a couple of things happened to change all that. First, at the beginning of the month, I learned that my local library branch would be holding a beginning class on using Microsoft Publisher on August 18, and I signed up for that class.

The class lasted an hour, which as it turned out was more than enough time. I discovered a few years ago that I have something of a knack for picking up how to use different programs. All I needed was the opportunity to sit down to take a look at how to use Publisher, and the class gave me that opportunity. By the time the class ended, I had played around with designs for several different things for myself. (And yes, I remembered to save them.)

While looking over the various templates, I found one that I thought best suited my needs. I went with a brown color scheme, because let's face it, that would have to be the best color for a card for a chocolate-related website.

The second thing happened this past weekend, when Staples opened a new store in the same shopping center as one of my regular haunts -- Borders. Saturday was opening day, and I made a point of stopping by. I went to the print center, told the clerk what I had, and asked him if he could print the cards using my file (no problem), and how much it would cost (quite a bit less than the estimate I got from Kinko's).

I thought about it overnight, and Sunday, I was back in Staples. There was a different clerk on duty in the print center, but she took my disk, helped me choose the cardstock (a nice ivory color that went well with the brown design), and about 20 minutes later, I had my cards. Staples was even running a special where you could get 100 cards free if you ordered at least 100, so I took advantage of that as well.

Monday, I was showing off my new cards to a few friends. I gave one to the librarian who taught the Publisher class, and she seemed to be properly impressed. I'm carrying about 20 cards with me, so unless I run into a large number of people who are interested in A Chocoholic UnAnonymous at one time, I should be set.

I guess you could say that I've finally managed to get myself carded.


-jc-

It looks like I was just a little mistaken about something. I think candy season has already begun.

I did not think that we would be seeing very much of the Halloween decorations, costumes, and candy until after Labor Day. I forgot to take one little thing into account.

Here in Louisville, school started last week. The big back-to-school push is over. Well, at least the big push to get the kids outfitted with all the necessary school supplies with which to begin the school year is over.

I was in Walgreens a day or two ago, and as I walked down the seasonal aisle, I was a little surprised to notice that the school supplies had either been relegated to their normal aisle of the store, or were shoved over to one small portion of the seasonal aisle. Replacing the cornucopia of pens, pencils, paper, notebooks, and other school essentials were costumes and multitudes of bagged candy.

There were a couple of store personnel busily stocking the shelves as I walked down the aisle. They hadn’t even put up the prices yet, so I gave the display a cursory glance at best. But based on what I did see, I think I should have at least a few reviews coming out of the Halloween season.

Looks like candy season is starting earlier than I thought it would. Well, to borrow a line from Shannon Foraker, "Oops."


-jc-

It's August, and the stores are brimming with back-to-school sales, specials, and other inducements to attract customers. In about a month, though, the school supplies will be moved away from the seasonal sections of their respective stores, and you know what that will mean.

Candy season will have begun.

Those school supplies will be moved to make way for the Halloween costumes, Halloween decorations, and most importantly . . . the Halloween candy. That will herald the beginning of a season that will last around seven months. At the very least. I'll have to check my calendar to find out the specifics; at the moment, I'm not sure when Easter falls in 2008.

The seasonal aisles of your favorite department, drug, and grocery stores will be filled with various confectionary delights from Labor Day through Easter. Maybe a week or so after that; if Easter comes early, the stores may not be in as big a rush to get the summer merchandise out right after that.

As one holiday gives way to the next, from Halloween to Christmas to Valentine's Day to Easter, the stores will give us numerous (and opportunities) to indulge our sweet tooth. It will be interesting to see what specialties the candy companies have planned for us this year.

Labor Day is September 3. The shelves should reveal all by then.


-jc-

Are Hershey's Kisses one of your favorite candies? Or are you like me, and you go for virtually anything chocolate? Either way, you have probably noticed one little thing if you have picked up a bag of Kisses in the past few months. That would be the logo proclaiming the 100th anniversary of the Hershey’s Kiss.

I didn't realize it myself until I saw the saw the first bags back in January, but the Hershey's Kiss was first introduced in 1907. I don't know what the exact anniversary date is -- I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere on any of Hershey's websites -- so I decided that today would be as good as any to mention it. (Actually, I suspect that no one at Hershey knows the date for certain, either, which is why I haven't seen it mentioned.)

For the longest time, of course, Hershey's Kisses came only in milk chocolate. That changed in 1990, when the Hershey's Kisses With Almonds were first introduced. Since then, Hershey has produced a multitude of variations on that little drop of chocolate we call the Kiss. Some, like the Kiss With Almonds, have been a permanent part of the Hershey product line from their introduction. Others, like the Special Dark Kiss (my personal favorite), started as limited editions, but proved to be popular enough with consumers that Hershey made them permanent products. Some are seasonal editions, like the Chocolate Mint Kisses, which make their annual appearance during the Christmas season. And many, many more have been limited editions, which may or may not be fated to one shining moment in the sun (or on the store shelves) before they disappear forever, leaving only a memory of their existence.

During the past few months, I have noticed quite a few limited editions coming out. Part of me is wondering if Hershey is trying to come up with 100 different versions of the Kiss as a way of celebrating the 100th anniversary. If that is what Hershey is doing, it is quite an interesting way of celebrating the Kiss Centennial -- and the consumers are the ones getting the presents.

So here's to the Hershey's Kiss. Thanks for 100 years of chocolate bliss, and may there be many more to come.


-jc-

When I reviewed the Snickers Dark a few months ago, I lamented over the fact that it was a limited edition. I even called M&M/Mars, and told them that I thought it should become a part of their permanent product line.

I can only assume that a lot of other people called Mars and told them more or less the same thing that I did, because it looks like the Snickers Dark is now a permanent part of the candy shelves. My first indication came not too long ago. I was in Walgreens, and while glancing over the candy shelves, I noticed a carton of Snickers Dark bars. Right below the carton was a sign that proclaimed, "New Product!" And I took a look at one of the bars. The wrapper was the same as before, with one very important difference. The words "Limited Edition" were nowhere to be seen on the wrapper.

A further indication came over the weekend. As I was looking through USA Weekend, one ad jumped out at me. Not quite a full-page ad, it had a black background, and featured a Snickers Dark bar that had been cut to display a cross-section. The text was simple. In brown letters that looked as if they were just fading into view, it said, "It's like peanuts, nougat, and caramel were kidnapped and thrown into a dark chocolate limo." At the bottom of the ad was a very small Snickers logo which was part of the phrase "New Snickers Dark." Below that, in even smaller letters, it said "Snickers on the inside, dark chocolate on the outside."

I was happy when I saw the store display. When I saw the ad, I let out a squeal of joy. (Fortunately, I was at home, and by myself, so I didn't attract any unusual stares.) It's one thing to see a Snickers Dark bar without the "limited edition" tag. It's quite another to see a print ad for the product. If Mars is going to be spending money on advertising for the bar, that means that they are thinking of it as a long-term product.

As I said in my review, I think the Snickers is one of the best new candy bars I've tried in a long time. I am elated that it will be sticking around for a long time.

You made a good call, Mars!

-jc-

As I have mentioned before, whenever I encounter a new chocolate, it's usually something that isn't planned. I had a similar experience early this afternoon. I had gone to Wal-Mart to pick up the Sunday newspaper. As I was walking out of the store, I noticed that the Hershey Kissmobile was making a promotional appearance today at this particular Wal-Mart.

At this point, I'm guessing that at least some of you may be asking, "What is the Hershey Kissmobile?" Let me put it this way: Have you seen Oscar Mayer's Weinermobile? Hershey has a similar vehicle that they use for promotional purposes. Instead of being shaped like a giant hot dog, the Kissmobile is in the shape of three giant Hershey's Kisses.

The Kissmobile's appearance was part of some promotion that Hershey was doing for Mother's Day. I really don't remember the details; the only thing that stayed in my memory was that they were there.

As part of the promotion, the two young ladies who came with the Kissmobile were handing out samples of Hershey's Kisses. They asked me if I wanted some Kisses. I know, silly question, but they don't know me. They were handing out samples of the original milk chocolate Kisses, the Special Dark Kisses, and the Chocolate Truffle Kisses. One of them asked me which Kisses I wanted, and after going through the options, I said, "Yes." It took her a few seconds, but she realized that I did want samples of all three.

I think she said something about me being serious about chocolate. I replied by telling her that I wrote chocolate reviews, and I gave her the address for this site. (I have no idea whether or not she has ever taken a look at the site; I would like to think that she has.) We talked for a few more minutes, then I went on my way -- with a pocket full of Kisses.


-jc-

Well, Easter was just over a week ago. The remaining Easter candy has been moved aside to the discount tables -- and since the candy is now 50% off (or more), I'm taking advantage of it. I'm in the process of putting together Easter baskets for my niece and nephew. I didn't see them at Easter, but I figure that by the time David and Rosemary finally finish the candy they got for Easter, Uncle Johnny is going to bombard them with more confectionary goodness.

Unfortunately, this also means that candy season is now over. We don't see any interesting candy displays again until the Halloween stuff goes up. That comes after the back to school subsides, which won't be until somewhere around Labor Day.

That's four to five months from now. As the song goes, it's going to be a long, lonely summer. Well, it won't be that lonely. I have plenty of reviews to write. And I am sure that the Big Three candy makers will be doing something while waiting for the Halloween to start.

It won't be an idle season -- just one without the plethora of seasonal candy displays.


-jc-

After this past Saturday, I have come to one definite conclusion. I need to get some business cards made advertising this LiveJournal.

I was in Walgreens Saturday afternoon, and as I was looking over the various candy on the shelves, I started a conversation with a lady who was doing the same. The conversation started over coffee -- specifically, the Special Dark Coffee Kisses that Hershey released back in October. For some reason, Hershey seems to have decided to repackage them as "Special Dark Espresso Kisses."

We both talked about how the Coffee Kisses had not sold as well as some variations on the Hershey's Kiss. The lady suggested that it was because this particular flavor combination was more suitable for adults, and it was being sold right before Halloween. I really can't disagree with her on that.

As we talked about the Kisses, and chocolate in general, I asked her if she had Internet access. I usually carry a few index cards with me, and when she said yes, I took one out, wrote the URL for this LiveJournal on it, and gave it to her. I told her a little bit about this site, and she said that she would have to take a look at it.

I have done this a number of times since I created the site several months ago. For some reason, though, it was a few minutes after I gave her the index card when it occurred to me for the first time that it would be really helpful to get some business cards advertising this LJ printed. Nothing overly elaborate; just my name, "A Chocoholic UnAnonymous," and the site's URL. Something that I could hand out to friends, acquaintances, and anyone who might be remotely interested in taking a look.

I know what I want on the card. Now what I need to do is find out how much a batch of cards will cost.


-jc-

You might recall that earlier this month, I wrote about how we are in the middle of a candy season that runs (roughly) from just after Labor Day to right after Easter. And I described the different phases of candy season, as it goes from Halloween to Christmas to Valentine's Day to Easter.

In reality, the transition between the different phases does not run as smoothly as I suggested in that earlier essay. I was reminded of this earlier this afternoon, while I went out just to get out of my parents' house for an hour or two.

During my little sojourn, I stopped by both CVS and Rite Aid. And as I walked through the aisles of both, I noticed one thing. The Christmas candy was already shoved aside to make way for the red heart-shaped boxes of chocolates of varying sizes and prices.

I suppose I really can't blame the personnel at either store. Christmas is just two days away. If people are going to be buying Christmas candy, chances are that they probably have already bought most of what they planned to buy. And those same store personnel are probably eager to get as much of a headstart on setting up the new displays as they possibly can.

I encountered the same kind of overlap a few days before Halloween, and I am willing to bet that right around February 10 or 11, I will see another overlap with the Valentine's Day and Easter candy. Still, wouldn't it be nice to get one holiday out of the way before we have to start focusing our attention on another?


-jc-

I'm in Murray, visiting my parents for the holiday weekend. Or as I now call it, the Hellmouth. I am firmly convinced that if Joss Whedon had ever visited Murray, Kentucky, he would have set Buffy The Vampire Slayer here. (You can tell that this isn't one of my favorite places to visit, can't you?)

Before I left Louisville this afternoon, I made a swing by Meijer, and I picked up the ingredients for fudge. Now, I think I have developed a recipe for marshmallow creme fudge that is pretty easy to make, and I happen to think it tastes pretty darn yummy as well. I wanted to share it with both my parents and my brother and sister-in-law. Not to mention that it would give me the chance to be Evil Uncle Johnny by giving it to my niece and nephew.

When I finally arrived at my parents' house not too long ago, and as I was bringing my luggage in, I told them what I had brought, and what I wanted to do. Mom then informed me that Dad had already made about six pounds of fudge. (I can't be completely certain, but that has to be about three or four batches of fudge.) It had slipped my mind that Dad really likes making all kinds of candy during the holidays; not just fudge. And when he has already made that much fudge (not to mention the chocolate-covered cherries, buckeyes, and other candy), anything I would do would be both anticlimatic and overkill.

So, the fudge ingredients are still in my car, waiting for the return trip to Louisville. I know I will be making it at some point, although I'm not certain when at this point.


-jc-

I've been thinking about this for quite some time, and I thought I would throw it out to anyone who might be reading this. What ingredients would your ultimate candy bar contain?

Think about it for a moment. Suppose one of the big three candy makers (Hershey, Mars, Nestle) came to you and asked for your input on designing a new candy bar. You have carte blanche to make whatever you think would be the ultimate candy bar. What do you put in it?

I have a pretty good idea of what my ultimate candy bar would contain. Of course, some of the details are always subject to change, depending on my current whims.

For the outer coating, I'm not going to choose between milk or dark chocolate. I would use both. I'm still trying to decide whether it would be more esthetically pleasing to have the outer layer be dark chocolate, and a milk chocolate layer under that, or vice versa. Either way, I would use both types of chocolate.

Now, for the inside of my fantasy candy bar. I would base the center of this bar around a core of caramel. This would not be fluid, but a somewhat solid caramel. Not so firm that the caramel is the last thing that remains in your mouth while chewing, but one that is just soft enough to give a pleasantly chewy texture. The caramel in the Milky Way and Milky Way Midnight bars are probably the closest consistency to what I have in mind.

The caramel wouldn't be the only thing in the bar's center. Imbedded in the caramel would be pieces of macadamias, crunchy toffee bits, and toasted coconut. Here, I want something that would give a crunchy counterpoint to the caramel, but instead of a single crunch, I'm looking for multiple crunches, each contributing a slightly different texture to the mix.

No, I have no idea what I would call this bar yet. And I realize that the chances of a candy company actually bringing this idea of mine to life is slim at best. Still, a guy can dream, can't he?


-jc-

If I asked you to name the seasons, you would probably respond with, "winter, spring, summer, fall." While I suppose that is true, I deal with two other seasons on my calendar -- candy and non-candy. These two seasons each cover roughly half the year -- but unlike the traditional four seasons, there is no definite beginning or ending date on the calendar.

Come to think of it, it's not a completely equal division, now that I think about it. Candy season lasts roughly seven months, while non-candy season lasts only five.

We're in the middle of candy season at the moment. It begins more or less right after Labor Day, and runs through late March to mid-April. Candy season kicks off with a bang once all of the back-to-school promotions have faded away. At that time, the stores are in a mad rush to put all of the Halloween candy (and related items) on the shelves.

We're in the middle of the second phase at the moment. That begins on November 1, as the remaining Halloween candy is unceremoniously shoved to the clearance tables, and the Christmas candy takes over the place of honor on the shelves.

December 26 begins the third phase of candy season. The Valentine's Day candy is now taking the spotlight, and the Christmas candy slinks off to the clearance table, much as the Halloween candy did several weeks earlier.

The final phase, of course, begins on February 15. That's when the Easter candy takes all of the attention, and the remaining Valentine candy is discounted.

And the day after Easter? Well, that's when candy season ends. Okay, it might last a week or so beyond that, as whatever Easter candy that went unsold is marked down. But that eventually disappears, and the long non-candy season sets in.

Okay, that might be something of an exaggeration. There is always some sort of candy that is being sold. But for those five months between April and August, there isn't any holiday that has any special candy being produced for it. I think the closest thing to a holiday candy that comes out during that period is the red, white, and blue M&Ms for Independence Day.

As I suggested earlier, the good thing about non-candy season is that it is shorter than candy season. Now, if we can just think of seasonal candies for other holidays, so that we can make non-candy season even shorter . . .


-jc-

As I mentioned in my review of Candyfreak, Steve Almond is more than a little opinionated when it comes to candy, and he is not the least bit shy about making his feelings known. In particular, he is more than willing to vent his rage at what he perceives as the injustice of the demise of what he thinks were quite wonderful candy bars, while other, lesser bars lead a continued existence.

The one bar for which Almond grieves the most is the Caravelle. Indeed, he considers it the impetus for the entire book. The Caravelle was produced by Peter Paul during the late 1960s and early 1970s, before the company was acquired by Cadbury. It was, to use Almond's words, "a strip of caramel in a thick shell of milk chocolate, which was embedded with crisped rice." (He does have a wonderfully descriptive way with words, doesn't he?)

Almond concedes that, yes, this is the same description of Nestle's 100 Grand bar . . . and there is where the rant begins. In Almond's eyes, the 100 Grand is a vastly inferior product when compared to the Caravelle. Again, quoting Almond:

"But no one with even the dullest palate could ever have confused the two. The chocolate in the 100 Grand is mild and crumbly. The crisped rice is mealy and deflated. The caramel is the color of a washed-out varnish. And the balance is all wrong. There simply isn't enough chocolate or crisped rice to sustain the salivary breakdown. As a result, you wind up with a mouthful of rubbery caramel.

"The Caravelle tasted more like a pastry: the chocolate was thicker, darker, full-bodied, and the crisped rice had a malty flavor and what I want to call structural integrity; the caramel was that rarest variety, dark and lustrous and supple, with hints of fudge. More so, there was a sense of the piece YIELDING to the mouth. By which I mean, one had to work the teeth through the sturdy chocolate shell, which gave way with a distinct, moist snap, through the crisped rice (thus releasing a second, grainy bouquet), and only then into the soft caramel core."

Reading Almond's description of the two bars made me wish I could do my own side-by-side comparison. Unfortunately, since the Caravelle has been out of production for oh so many years, and since I don't have a DeLorean with a functioning flux capacitor, I will have to rely on his memories, and trust that they are more or less accurate. The 100 Grand is, of course, still available, and since it has been some time since I had one, I decided to refresh my own memory, and see if Mr. Almond's assessment of it is accurate.

On the whole, I have to say that Almond's assessment isn't that far off from my own impressions. The caramel is, as he put it, on the rubbery side. Now, I like a caramel that's firm and chewy, but the caramel in the 100 Grand is almost too firm. It's still in the mouth long after the chocolate and crisped rice have made their exit down the esophagus. A slightly (repeat, SLIGHTLY) softer caramel, one that would not stay behind as long, would be a definite improvement.

I don't know if I would use the word "deflated" to describe the crisped rice, but there definitely is something lacking in it. It just isn't as crisp as it should be, and it doesn't have the right amount of crunch that it should have.

And the chocolate IS crumbly, particularly at the sides of the bar. If I were to venture a guess, I would have to say that there is too much crisped rice and not enough chocolate in the outer shell of the 100 Grand. There is just barely enough chocolate to hold the shell together. I also noticed that, when I made a careful study of the cross-section made when I bit into the bar, that the top of the chocolate/rice shell doesn't come into contact with the caramel. That gap, be it ever so slight, may also be contributing to the crumbliness of the shell.

And there isn't a good balance of flavors in the bar. The caramel is overwhelmingly dominant, almost to the point where it's hard to notice the flavors of the chocolate or the crisped rice. The stiffness of the caramel also overwhelms any crunch the crisped rice may have, to the point where it is barely noticed as well.

Now, I remember the Caravelle bar. As I recall, I was rather fond of it, though I doubt my fondness ever reached the degree with which Mr. Almond reveres it. I don't think I was ever as disappointed over its disappearance as he was. But reading Steve Almond's description does make me wish for a chance to try the Caravelle at least one more time.

Hershey now handles all of Cadbury's North American production (including the Peter Paul products), so they would be the ones to bring the Caravelle back. Since Hershey does produce quite a few limited editions every year, I think it would be a wonderful idea to bring back the Caravelle as a limited edition, and see if it would be as popular as Almond thinks it would be.

Of course, if that were to happen, Steve Almond would probably try to buy the entire production run, just to boost the chances of the Caravelle being brought back permanently.


-jc-

As I mentioned more than a few entries ago, I learned last Christmas that my niece Rosemary has inherited my chocoholic gene. And of course, Evil Uncle Johnny has taken some advantage of that.

I didn't get to see Rosemary or her brother David at Easter (I knew in advance that I wouldn't), but I made up for it later. The day after Easter, once all the Easter candy had been marked down, I began assembling a belated bag of Easter goodies for both of them. It included packages of Peeps, Cadbury Creme Eggs, and assorted other confectionary delights. I got the same things for both of them, plus some other stuff that went into a shared bag.

A few weeks later, I finally had the chance to present them with their bags. Yes, David and Rosemary were excited, ecstatic, and otherwise delighted at their surprise presents. Yes, my sister-in-law Patsy was less than thrilled at my generosity (I seem to remember her giving me at least one "Gee, thanks" look). Although when I asked how the kids enjoyed their gift some time later, Patsy told me that they still had some of the candy, and that she was slowly distributing it to them.

Well, I was going through Mall St. Matthews last week, and at Williams Sonoma, one item in particular caught my eye -- a 10-pound slab of chocolate. Bittersweet, I believe. Now, I have seen these in room parties at a several science fiction conventions, in all varieties of chocolate. Usually, the slabs have been placed on a table, with a hammer and chisel nearby. The hosts left it to the guests to use the hammer and chisel to break off their own chunk of chocolate.

That big slab of chocolate was still on my mind when I called Patsy this past Tuesday night. We talked about several things, and at one point, I said, "Oh, by the way, I think I found Rosemary's present at Williams Sonoma a few days ago."

There might have been just the slightest trace of suspicion in her voice as she asked, "Oh?"

"Yeah -- a 10-pound block of chocolate."

I could just see her eyes widening as a dropped that little bombshell. I don't remember her precise words, but the general gist of it was, "Please tell me you're not serious." I let her dissuade me from going through with my threat, but I did tell her that I was going to be doing something to cultivate Rosemary's appreciation for chocolate.

I suppose 10 pounds of chocolate for a 4-year-old might be just a little too much. But really -- there is no way that she would be able to eat THAT much chocolate in a single sitting. It would take me several months to eat that much, even if I was eating a little every day. For Rosemary, that would probably be enough to last her all year.


-jc-

If you were to contact me by phone, more than likely you would get my answering machine. In my message, I open by stating my area code and phone number. I then say, "Promise me anything, but give me chocolate."

My friends and family are well familiar with the message. And since they are well aware of my particular indulgences, they probably weren't all that surprised the first time they heard the message. But there are those who are surprised. I can think of several wrong numbers that were totally surprised. One person apparently didn't realize she had dialed a wrong number, and after a moment's pause continued with leaving a message for the person she (mistakenly) thought I was. And in between giggles, one teenage girl said something about having to mention the message on her MySpace page.

Recently, though, I had several messages from a lady whom I will call "CC." CC was calling on a business matter, but at the end of her message, she said, "And by the way, I love your message." At the end of another message, she said, "If you come in, you're going to have to bring me some chocolate."

I had been meaning to return her calls, but it kept slipping my mind. I had several errands to run today, and while figuring out everything that I needed to do, I realized that most of those errands would take me in the general vicinity of CC's office. I decided that it would be easier for me to swing by her office than keep forgetting to return her calls.

I also decided to bring her the chocolate that she requested. I put together a small bag of assorted chocolates, mostly different varieties of Kisses and Nuggets.

After taking care of some other matters, I found myself at CC's office. I gave the receptionist my name, told her who I was there to see, and after a brief wait, CC came out to see me. As we went into a conference room, I said, "Oh, I have something for you."

I took the bag of chocolates out of my pack, and as I handed it to CC, her eyes lit up with sudden recognition. "Oh, you're the one with the message . . . "

I finished, "Promise me anything, but give me chocolate. You did say that you expected me to bring you some chocolate."

CC was delighted by the little surprise. I think her precise words were, "You just made my day." We conducted our business, and as I left, she thanked me again for the chocolate.

It's nice to know that just a little something can brighten a person's day like that.


-jc-

I'm sure that you have heard a number of recent news reports about how chocolate is rich in antioxidants. Well, I read a news story today which suggests that there might be yet another health benefit to eating chocolate.

The story came from Reuters, and was about a study that Johns Hopkins University was conducting on aspirin and heart disease. Specifically, the study looked at 1200 people with a family history of heart disease, and was looking at the effects of aspirin on platelets in the blood.

Before receiving the aspirin, the 1200 volunteers were instructed to stick to a strict exercise regimen, not smoke, and avoid caffeinated drinks, wine, grapefruit juice, and chocolate -- all known to affect platelets.

Some of those volunteers -- 139 in all -- just couldn't give up chocolate for 24 to 48 hours before the testing. (I can't say that I blame them. I might be able to do it once, maybe twice, but it wouldn't be a very good idea to ask me more than that. I start to get mean when I suffer from chocolate deprivation.) Some of them said, "I can do anything but I can't stay off my chocolate," and the doctors conducting the study knew that they would violate the restriction.

As Diane Becker, one of the doctors conducting the study, put it, "Nobody ate like a chocolate chip. If they were going to eat it, they ate some chocolate. It went all the way from a chocolate chip cookie to someone who ate a gallon of chocolate ice cream with chocolate chunks and two chocolate chip cookies at one sitting."

The "chocolate offenders" were eliminated from the aspirin survey, but Becker looked at their blood anyway. Researchers ran platelet samples from both the chocolate offenders and those who managed to abstain before the test through a system designed to time how long it would take for platelets to clump together in a hair-thin plastic tube. What they discovered was that the blood of the chocolate eaters took longer to clot than did the blood of the abstainers. Urine tests showed that the chocolate eaters had lower levels of thromboxane, a platelet waste product.

While Becker states that while eating chocolate doesn't come close to matching the effects of taking a single baby aspirin a day, her team wants to conduct another study. This one would measure how much chocolate people eat, and see if chocolate eaters have a lower incidence of heart attacks and stroke.

The antioxidant qualities of dark chocolate have been trumpeted for the past couple of years. But I have read several news stories about this discovery, and from what I have seen, the type of chocolate consumed didn't seem to have any difference on what the researchers found. Of course, judging from some of Becker's comments, someone would have to consume massive amounts of chocolate daily to equal the effects of aspirin on clotting.

Okay, so how is this a problem?


-jc-

I went by Mall St. Matthews last night. As I was wandering around, I noticed that See's Candies had once again set up a seasonal kiosk this year.

Of course, I stopped to take a look. Most of the merchandise is the same as what was offered for sale last year -- based on my admittedly limited experience, the seasonal kiosks tend to have the same stuff for sale every year. There were, however, a few items that I had seen previously only in the See's catalog.

I asked how long the kiosk had been open, and was informed that they had opened only a couple of days earlier. That was good news to me, because at the time, See's had not updated their website to show that it was open. (I had been checking. And it has since been updated.)

As I was looking at the merchandise available, I mentioned that they had opened just in time. The stash of See's candy bars that I had accumulated last year was running low, and was in dire need of replenishing. I knew one of the sales clerks from previous years, and I mentioned to her once again that it would be really nice if See's had a store open in Louisville year-round.

I also mentioned that at least See's now had a permanent presence in Kentucky, but it was less than convenient to have to go all the way to the Cincinnati airport just to satisfy a craving for See's Candies. The clerk gave me a puzzled look, and she said something along the lines of, "The Cincinnati airport? Wouldn't you be going to Ohio for that?"

No. Believe it or not, the Greater Cincinnati Airport is located in Boone County, Kentucky. Yes, that may sound a little confusing the first time you hear it. Don't worry; if you're flying to Cincinnati, the pilots know where to go. And as I told the clerk, at the moment, Terminal 2 of that airport is the only permanent sales presence for See's Candies. It's something of an improvement; this time last year, the nearest store that was open year-round was in the Chicago area.

While I plan to take full advantage of the kiosk's presence while it's open, I would really like to see something permanent here in Louisville. Hey, I would be happy even if it was something at Louisville's Airport. At least I could get there with relative ease.


-jc-

I had an interesting time at the library today. I stopped to talk to Angel, one of the children's librarians, and . . . let's just say that she was having "one of those days." Saying that she was stressed out would be putting it mildly. She looked like she needed a lift, and since I had a few of the Special Dark Coffee Kisses with me, I gave her one.

The first thing she said was, "Where were you earlier?" She then told me that about an hour earlier, she had taken some medicine that, based on her description, had left a rather foul aftertaste in her mouth. (Haven't we all experienced that at one time or another? I know the feeling well.)

After she popped the Kiss in her mouth, her eyes widened with both surprise and delight. She asked, "Where did you get these?" I told Angel where I had purchased the Kisses (Kroger), and I mentioned that they were a limited edition. Angel then said something about having to go buy all the availble bags.

Fortunately, I don't think Kroger is the only place that is selling them. I would hate to think that this turned into a case of no good deed going unpunished.


-jc-

I found this information while surfing through the various pages of Hershey's website. It was a page defining the different types of chocolate products that Hershey makes, based on the FDA's Standards Of Identity for chocolate and cocoa products. Yes, the FDA has definitions of what qualifies for the various types of chocolate. They're based on ingredients that must be present, and in what percent.

MILK CHOCOLATE is defined as "A combination of chocolate liquor (not alcohol), cocoa butter, sugar, and milk or cream. Milk chocolate must contain at least 10% chocolate liquor and at least 12% total milk ingredients." [They really should have defined "chocolate liquor" first, but that is a few entries down on the list.]

SWEET CHOCOLATE is "a combination of chocolate liquor, cocoa butter, and sugar, but contains at least 15% chocolate liquor." [I think the German's Sweet Baking Chocolate used to make German chocolate cake falls into this category.]

SEMISWEET or BITTERSWEET CHOCOLATE is "A combination of chocolate liquor, cocoa butter, and sugar, but contains at least 35% chocolate liquor. Sweet chocolate and semisweet chocolate are often called DARK CHOCOLATE."

CHOCOLATE, UNSWEETENED CHOCOLATE, or BAKING CHOCOLATE -- Now, we finally get around to defining what "chocolate liquor" really is. "Chocolate or chocolate liquor is produced by grinding cocoa beans smooth into a liquid state. This chocolate can be sold as unsweetened or baking chocolate; or used to make other chocolate types such as milk chocolate, sweet chocolate, or semisweet chocolate."

You know, I had heard or seen the term "chocolate liquor" used for years before I finally discovered what it really was. I think I was a little disappointed when I learned that it had nothing to do with alcohol, and perhaps even more disappointed to discover that it was nothing more than a fancy name for unsweetened chocolate.

WHITE CHOCOLATE is "Made from the same ingredients as milk chocolate (cocoa butter, milk, sugar) but without the nonfat cocoa solids. In 2002, the FDA established a standard of identity for white chocolate. White chocolate must contain at least 20% cocoa butter and 14% total milk ingredients."

Before 2002, you couldn't legally call something "white chocolate" here in the US. According to the FDA, there was no such thing, because according to them, chocolate had to include some amount of cocoa solids/chocolate liquor. I'm guessing that this had to be at least the 10% that they give as the standard for milk chocolate. Since white chocolate doesn't have any of the chocolate solids, the FDA didn't consider it to be chocolate. Yes, that sounds stupid, but please remember that we ARE talking about a government agency here.

COCOA "is the product made by removing part of the fat (cocoa butter) from the cocoa beans and grinding the remaining material minus the shell." According to one little blurb on their website, powdered cocoa is Hershey's longest running product. They have been making it since 1894 -- a full six years before their first candy bar.

So, there you have at least a basic idea of what delineates and defines different types of chocolate. When I start talking about a particular type of chocolate in my reviews, now you'll know what I mean.


-jc-

I've been paying attention to limited edition candy bars since Hershey started releasing them in 2002. And there is one thing I have noticed. Sometimes, there is just no rhyme or reason to how a company will release a special edition.

I guess the best example is the PayDay Chocolate Avalanche. It was first introduced last year as a limited edition, and it was released only in the King Size bars -- a bar that's roughly twice the size of the standard candy bar. But when it was brought back this year as a permanent product, it was finally available as a standard size bar.

Most of the limited editions that I have seen have been released as standard size bars. But there have been a few that have been released only as King Size bars, and even a few that were released as the big bars -- the five-ounce (or larger) bars.

I suppose what really irritates me about this is the apparent absence of logic when determining the size of different limited editions. There is plenty of thought given to the particular variations in limited editions. There are often done with a particular theme in mind, right down to the store display. For instance, Nestle released dark chocolate versions of their Crunch With Caramel and 100 Grand bars together, and Hershey brought out the marshmallow variations on the Reese's Peanut Butter Cup and the Take 5 bar as part of the same limited edition campaign. And the vast majority of these are the standard size bars. But every once in a while, I see a limited edition that is available only in a King Size (or larger) bar -- and I find myself scratching my head trying to figure out why that size was chosen.

Of course, there is also the matter of location and distribution. For the most part, when I see a limited edition for the first time, I might see it at Kroger or Walgreens. But within a few days, I will be seeing it at other stores. But every once in a while, I will see a limited edition at one store (or chain), and that will be the ONLY place that I will ever see it. Again, head scratching and trying to fathom the logic behind the mystery.


-jc-

As you have seen from reading this LiveJournal, I have managed to accumulate quite a bit of information and knowledge about various things chocolate. Then of course, the question becomes, "What do I do with all of this information?"

Well, it usually gets stored in the dark recesses of my mind until something happens to trigger a recall of that information. That happened last night at Kroger. I was walking by a candy display, and encountered a young woman making up her mind as to what she would purchase. This particular display included, among other things, bagged miniatures of the Mounds Island Orange and Almond Joy Toasted Almond limited editions.

I had commented in passing that just about anything on the display would be a good choice. She decided on a bag of Hershey's Nuggets -- milk chocolate with toasted coconut and toffee (which I haven't reviewed yet). She held up the bag and looked at me questioningly, asking if she had made a good choice. I nodded my head vigourously, assuring her that she would be pleased.

Just before she made her way to the cashier, I made a comment about the Coconut Kisses. She asked what they were like, and I said, "You know the cream of coconut you use to make pina coladas?" She nodded, and I continued, "Well, imagine that inside a shell of milk chocolate." Her eyes lit up, and she said that she would have to pick up a bag of those on her next visit.

It's nice to know that I'm able to use my information-gathering powers for good.


-jc-

If you've been reading this LiveJournal site, you probably know that I chose this particular username because of my love for both chocolate and science fiction. Well, I think I've been doing a good job of covering the chocolate half of the name. So why haven't I been doing as much with the science fiction?

There's a good reason for that. While a lot of SF fandom shares my love for chocolate, I've noticed that there is a definite lack of chocolate being mentioned in science fiction. At least, it isn't mentioned with any great attention.

There are a few exceptions. The first that comes to mind is Star Trek: The Next Generation. Somewhere around the third season, it was revealed that Counselor Deanna Troi was a chocoholic. A few months later, Marina Sirtis was at a Creation convention that I attended. (Yes, that was a nasty habit, but I've sworn off Creation. It's not like they're going to be coming back to Louisville in the near future.) She said that the writers made Troi a chocoholic at her insistence, because she is a chocoholic herself. (I also seem to remember her saying something about how easily she could be bribed with gifts of chocolate . . . )

The second is David Weber's Honor Harrington series. Unlike most officers in the Royal Manticoran Navy, Honor is not particularly fond of coffee. (She admits that coffee does smell wonderful, but she feels that the taste leaves something to be desired.) During some of the earlier books in the series, there were a few scenes where Honor was teased about her dislike of coffee -- all with the utmost respect, of course.

Instead of coffee, her preference is hot chocolate -- the richer the better. Fortunately for Honor, her high-gravity metabolism allows her to indulge in hot chocolate the way she likes it as often as she likes, without any consequences. And her faithful steward, James MacGuinness, has long experience in making it just the way she likes.

Unfortunately, those are the only occurrences of chocolate lovers in SF that immediately come to mind. Now, I can think of plenty of chocolate lovers in SF fandom, but that's a different topic. Does anyone know of any other SF characters who are chocoholics?

-jc-

Once upon a time (1928, if you really want the date), there were two brothers who perfected the recipe for a candy bar, and began selling it. The brothers were Bayard and Everett Heath, and their candy bar was an English toffee covered in milk chocolate.

The candy bar sold well, and the Heath bar grew in popularity. During World War II, it was even part of soldiers' rations (it was discovered that the bar had a very long shelf life).

Over a half century later (1983, to be precise), another candy maker decided that they wanted a piece of this particular candy action. The other candy maker was Hershey, and the bar they introduced was Skor. I remember the original TV commercials for Skor, and they called the toffee in the Skor bar "Swedish toffee." The commercials also featured a brunette model who, after one bite of a Skor bar, began turning blonder and more Nordic-looking. Her speech also changed, going from Standard American Dialect English, to English with a Swedish accent, to (presumably) Swedish with English subtitles.

Why did Hershey do this? As Steve Almond put it in Candyfreak, you can't patent a candy bar. You can trademark a name for a candy bar, but you can't make an exclusive claim to to the ingredients in that candy bar. And let's face it, there are other candy bars that are quite similar. For instance, Butterfinger and 5th Avenue are virtually identical, as are Hershey's Krackel and Nestle's Crunch.

As time went on, the company that produced the Heath bar went through a couple of changes in ownership. In 1996, it was purchased by Hershey, which produces both the Heath and Skor bars to this day.

Now, you might wonder why Hershey would continue to market two identical candy bars. Why continue to produce the Skor bar, if they are now producing the older (and probably better-known) Heath bar?

Well, guess what? They aren't identical. You don't have to take my word for it; all you have to do is take one Heath bar and one Skor bar, and break each one in half.

The toffee in the Heath bar is a lighter color, a very light tan with a touch of yellow. Both toffees contain almonds, but bits of almond are more readily visible in the Heath toffee. The Heath toffee also has a lighter taste to it.

The Skor's toffee is a much darker tan, only a couple of shades lighter than the milk chocolate covering it. It has a deeper, richer flavor than the Heath toffee, and almond bits are rarely seen.

Differences aside, the two bars do share a few similarities. The toffee in both seem to have the same degree of hardness -- the same amount of crunch between the teeth. And the milk chocolate does appear to same for both bars.

There are probably other differences and similarities that exist between the two bars. Documenting all of them, though, would take more analysis than I really want to devote to the subject. I would much rather sit back and enjoy one or the other -- or maybe even both.


-jc-

Are chocoholics born or made?

Simple question, really. Is a love for chocolate part of our genetic makeup, or is it something that we learn through our lives?

Personally, I think that it's probably a little of both. I suspect that there are some chocolates that, for some people, may take some adjustment. For instance, someone who has grown up mainly eating milk chocolate may be in for a surprise the first time they taste a dark chocolate that is 77% cocoa solids. Or any chocolate that is outside what they might consider the norm.

On the other hand, I am firmly convinced that there is a chocoholic gene. I know that I have it, and I am just as firmly convinced that my four-year-old niece Rosemary also has it.

This past Christmas, my brother and sister-in-law used (among other things) five-ounce Hershey bars as stocking stuffers. As I was opening my presents, my parents and Patsy (the aforementioned sister-in-law) all warned me to keep the Hershey bar hidden if I wanted to get it home. They told me that if Rosemary saw it, she would probably claim it as hers. (Patsy also strongly hinted that she would not be pleased if I let this happen.)

I kept the bar hidden. I did it partially to keep Patsy happy, and mainly because I did want to get it home. I was also pretty certain that because of the general Christmas excitement, Rosemary was already hyper enough as it was, and topping it off with an additional sugar buzz would probably have been A Bad Thing.

I was pleased to hear that Rosemary is a budding chocoholic. I would like to think that I have the opportunity to turn her into a true chocolate connoisseur. I hope it's an opportunity to develop a shared interest with her. And yes, it's an opportunity for me to play the evil uncle on occasion, and give her all sorts of stuff that I know her parents would probably rather I not give her (and David, my seven-year-old nephew).


-jc-