Sounds good...why won't it let me buy any?? Nice big "I want one" button but it won't let me buy!! {{Wahhhhhhhh}}

rainrepublic wrote:We grow chile cobanero here in Northern Guate. It is very spicy and woodsy.

We made this bar in the past for our local market and it was very well received. We will try to make it available for the US market in the near future. Thank for your comments and keep them coming.

This should be part of the next woot offering!

vinithehat wrote:Chile is a nation. You mean chili.

The Voodoo Chile would like to have a word with you.

pi3832 wrote:The Voodoo Chile would like to have a word with you.

I wouldn't use Jimi as an expert in more serious matter than this. But that just me.

Thanks Rain, In for 1! I love how we get reps from the company in here to ask these questions to it really shows your commitment to this launch and that you care about your customers.

Now to just get some wine to go with my chocolate!

~Wings

Well, all this has convinced me... got to get some. In for 3 -- and if I can't finish them, I can share plenty with the people around me.

Fond of 70% cacao since Lindt's brand but with everything people are saying... I've gotta try it.

pi3832 wrote:Peeps are the work of the devil.

Chicagoans are crazy for Peeps!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/peeps/chi-2010peepsfinalists-gallery,0,2565551.photogallery

Yep... looks good. In-fer-one.

I hope the chili enhanced chocolate becomes available soon too! I have been jonesing for more of Chuao's Spicy Mayan but they have been sold-out of many items and now that its April, they'll only ship overnight which is spendy, in fact just shipping is the same cost as this entire deal! Hope the Rain Republic chocolate is as good as reported (lots of great sources down there for cocoa, coffee, sugars, etc.), and hope it gets shipped before the hot weather comes back (light snow here in Nevada today). Maybe RR can start doing a few flavors, and HOT CHOCOLATE too!

P.S. Woot discounted wine fridge arrived yesterday. The inside temperature will be available online using my Woot LaCrosse Weather Station sensor if anyone wants to track it - turn on "Member Data" @ http://www.theweatherclub.com/WeatherMap.aspx It's the only listing in Carson City.

wootmink wrote:Chicagoans are crazy for Peeps!

Chicagoans are the work of the devil, and I say that with authority.

Did anyone see this coming?

Chocolate Rain

A couple of months ago I got an "education" regarding dark chocolate from America's Test Kitchen, and have a question relating to that.

One thing I learned the most from them is that when any dark chocolate says "XX%" it's not what we all thought it meant. That figure includes the total of both the cocoa solids and the cocoa butter. [White chocolate for example has zero cocoa solids and only cocoa butter, with sugar, etc.] What is the ratio of cocoa solids to butter that you use; i.e. what is the percentage of cocoa solids? More curious than anything else also my understanding is the antioxidant qualities in chocolate come from the solids not the butter.

Thanks for the earlier post about bean type I was going to ask that as well. The story sounds like a sassafrass tree which has 3 different leaves all on the same tree.

Some quotes from the ATK site (they tested 60% Dark): "When chocolate makers grind shelled cacao beans, known as nibs, to create the thick paste called chocolate liquor, this paste contains both cocoa solids and cocoa butter. Most manufacturers then add even more cocoa butter, in varying amounts, to help create the texture of the final chocolate. A few also add extra cocoa solids to intensify the chocolate flavor. Ultimately, however, the cacao percentage on the label of a chocolate bar is a total that includes both cocoa solids and cocoa butter—meaning that different chocolates can have different proportions of each and still share the 60% percent cacao designation. As our lab tests showed, the cocoa solids in our lineup ranged from about 17 percent of a bar's total weight to more than 30 percent, while fat ranged from a third of the weight to nearly half of it. Sugar levels varied by nearly 20 percent as well."

Their tasting results showed: "In fact, our lab results revealed that the chocolate with the lowest fat won the day, while the one with the most fat came in dead last. And would having the most cocoa solids make a chocolate superior? Again, no. Our tasters preferred chocolates with only a moderate amount. Sweetness wasn't the explanation, either: Chocolates in the middle range of sugar levels were preferred over those with the most sugar, though overall the top half of the rankings had more sugar than the bottom half. In the end, we preferred dark chocolate that achieved the best balance of all three major components—cocoa butter, cocoa solids, and sugar."

For those that want the full article (you'll have to supply your email address to ATK; and that's it) here is the link: http://www.americastestkitchentv.com/tasting/overview.asp?tastingid=616&iSeason=

dangerhaus wrote:never had a pope hat, and now that i do, you poop in it.

It's called a miter, and it's not for pooping in. And you people call yourselves snobs.

oh this wooting is really getting to me. in for 2, as they say. i have some dove organic citrus spice chocolate, which i got at my local dollar store, melting on my tongue in anticipation of going back to the rain forest. i havent been to guatemala, but as far south as chiapas. i should stir up a pot of good mayordomo mexican chocolate right now and hie myself safely offline...

LucyT wrote:Oh for crying out loud. Beet sugar and cane sugar are EXACTLY the same chemically and physically. The only difference is marketing.

Beet sugar is cheaper, and bakers and pastry chefs report better results with cane sugar.

Also, it's my understanding that plain refined white sugar is highly processed (with chemicals), whereas evaporated cane juice undergoes very little processing, similar to raw cane sugar (turbinado sugar).

I would have probably picked this up but I really hate buying products with any soy-derived ingredient in it considering it's usually highly processed and/or genetically-modified, which is highly probable since 90% of soybeans are genetically-modified thanks to possibly the worst company in the world--Monsanto. Really good chocolate does not need soy lecithin.

lesj wrote:What type of wine would you recommend to pair up with a dark chocolate? and, does anyone have any good stories about pairing dark chocolate with wine?

For dark chocolate, you'd do best to stick with a big, dark, and lush red. So you'd first want to cancel-out things like Nebbiolo (Barolo), Pinot Noir, Gamay, etc. And because dark chocolate usually has a lot of tannin (and tannin-and-tannin clash very poorly), you'd probably want to avoid things like Bordeaux, Cabernet, and Brunello (unless they have considerable age on them). Basically, the bigger the fruit, the bigger the body, and the lesser the tannin, the better off you'll be. Good pairings to search out would be things like California Zin, Spanish Garnacha, Australian Shiraz, or a Chateauneuf-du-Pape (but preferably an older vintage of the CdP).

But the classic pairing with a really dark chocolate is an aged vintage Port (and if you're on a budget, go with a Ruby or a 'Late Bottled Vintage' Port). Port has the high sugars and ABV to balance the tannin of the dark chocolate and bring out the sweetness.

How is it packaged for shipping? I hear its preetie warm down south (says the Minnesotan)and I worry about ending up with chocolate soup.

vinithehat wrote:yeah, but stop at "thick juice" and you have evaporated cane juice. There's a few less steps involved - you're not separating the crystals form the syrup. I know sugar comes from beets.

Well, the best-tasting sugar comes from cane. Europeans won't have any truck with beet sugar unless it's hidden in some crappy can-processed stuff.

Took me months to find decent sugar for my cereal when I got to the US. Had to go to TJ's or Whole Foods.

whiteyfrooo wrote:For dark chocolate, you'd do best to stick with a big, dark, and lush red. So you'd first want to cancel-out things like Nebbiolo (Barolo), Pinot Noir, Gamay, etc. And because dark chocolate usually has a lot of tannin (and tannin-and-tannin clash very poorly), you'd probably want to avoid things like Bordeaux, Cabernet, and Brunello (unless they have considerable age on them). Basically, the bigger the fruit, the bigger the body, and the lesser the tannin, the better off you'll be. Good pairings to search out would be things like California Zin, Spanish Garnacha, Australian Shiraz, or a Chateauneuf-du-Pape (but preferably an older vintage of the CdP).

But the classic pairing with a really dark chocolate is an aged vintage Port (and if you're on a budget, go with a Ruby or a 'Late Bottled Vintage' Port). Port has the high sugars and ABV to balance the tannin of the dark chocolate and bring out the sweetness.

Chocolate has tannin?? Ah, that explains why my Scharffen-Berger worked with a [disappointing 06) Sanford Pinot Noir I had recently, when I usually don't like chocolate with wine.
Recommendation: eat good chocolate with disappointing Pinots to help rescue them! I'd also try a Syrah with it, definitely. And I'll therefore bet that Scott Harvey's Mountain Selection Barbera would also work (one of my favourite lightish but complex-fruity wines at the mo, and you can find it for $15). I'd not use it with the woot Reserve Barbera though, as it ain't ready yet.

"Barolo" wines I've had were all about the tannin, i thought. I grew up drinking them whenever we went out for Italian in England (yes I started young). How come you say they pair?

I don't find chocolate goes well with serious vintage port (like the Graham's 1977 I still have a case and a half of). The complexity of the port seems to get lost by eating chocolate with it. but if you do, from what I can tell this'll go well.

So what I'm saying is, it may well be personal preference as to what wine you like with your dark chocolate. I'm disagreeing a fair amount with whitey here, but tht doesn't mean what he posts doesn't work for him. I like the "avoid tanniny wines" idea though, and that helps me realise which wines work for me.

richardhod wrote:Chocolate has tannin?? Ah, that explains why my Scharffen-Berger worked with a [disappointing 06) Sanford Pinot Noir I had recently, when I usually don't like chocolate with wine.
Recommendation: eat good chocolate with disappointing Pinots to help rescue them! I'd also try a Syrah with it, definitely. And I'll therefore bet that Scott Harvey's Mountain Selection Barbera would also work (one of my favourite light wines at the mo, and you can find it for $15). I'd not use it with hs reserve Ones though, which are heavier and more complex.

"Barolo" wines I've had were all about the tannin, BTW, as I grew up drinking them whenever we went out for Italian in England (yes I started young). How come you say they pair?

I don't find chocolate goes well with serious vintage port (like the Graham's 1977 I still have a case and a half of). The complexity of the port seems to get lost by eating chocolate with it. Perhaps lighter ones or tawnies work.

So what I'm saying is, it may well be personal preference as to what wine you like with your dark chocolate. I'm disagreeing a fair amount with whitey here, but tht doesn't mean what he posts doesn't work for him. I like the "avoid tanniny wines" idea though, and that helps me realise which wines work for me.

Thanks for the input!

very dark chocolate has lots of tannin (which explains a lot of the bitter and dry sensation it has).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tannin#Chocolate

I had actually said that Barolo would be one of the first things you would want to cancel out (as in NOT use to pair).

My main experience with pairing chocolate with port actually comes from running wine tastings. In particular a Port tasting with the US import rep for Graham's, who was advocating either vintage, ruby, or LBV (although Tawny could work in a pinch). That said, I agree about not using an epic bottle like a '77 (I'm jealous of your haul, btw), but with a wine like that, it's best by itself. A bit of a trade secret is that wine and food pairing is very, incredible subjective. But even more so, many chefs don't like to have their food paired with exceptional wine, and most sommes would rather drink their special bottle without food getting in the way. There are many technical details (biological and chemical) that do a lot to explain why, but I don't want to be even more of a bore than I already have been. If you want to know more read Emile Peynaud's "The Taste of Wine".


btw, one reason that Sanford Pinot was disappointing is that Richard Sanford (the one who gave the winery its reputation) is no longer with them ever since they got bought out by Terlato. If you want to try the real Sanford Pinots, check out Alma Rosa. They're pretty good.

whiteyfrooo wrote:Thanks for the input!

very dark chocolate has lots of tannin (which explains a lot of the bitter and dry sensation it has).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tannin#Chocolate

I had actually said that Barolo would be one of the first things you would want to cancel out (as in NOT use to pair).

My main experience with pairing chocolate with port actually comes from running wine tastings. In particular a Port tasting with the US import rep for Graham's, who was advocating either vintage, ruby, or LBV (although Tawny could work in a pinch). That said, I agree about not using an epic bottle like a '77 (I'm jealous of your haul, btw), but with a wine like that, it's best by itself. A bit of a trade secret is that wine and food pairing is very, incredible subjective. But even more so, many chefs don't like to have their food paired with exceptional wine, and most sommes would rather drink their special bottle without food getting in the way. There are many technical details (biological and chemical) that do a lot to explain why, but I don't want to be even more of a bore than I already have been. If you want to know more read Emile Peynaud's "The Taste of Wine".


btw, one reason that Sanford Pinot was disappointing is that Richard Sanford (the one who gave the winery its reputation) is no longer with them ever since they got bought out by Terlato. If you want to try the real Sanford Pinots, check out Alma Rosa. They're pretty good.

Hah! thank you. Yes, I'd go with that. I like to drink and eat the best stuff on its own too.

I'd bought the Sanford after buying some '04 direct from the tasting room back in 05 and before I'd read in Hugh Johnson about the disappointing change in hands. And before I discovered wine.woot! I wonder if anyone here knows of any other formerly-excellent wines which we ought to avoid now.

Thank you for the book rec! And, yes please, please bore us with technicalities. This is a great place to discover more.. wine.woot is all about that!

They supply 24% of the RDA for fiber? Really?

Nutritional Facts:
Serving size: 1 bar
Calories: 360
Fat Cal.: 230
Percent daily values are based on 2000 cal. diet.
Total Fat: 25g 38%
Sat. Fat 76%
Total Carbs: 28g 9%
Dietary fiber: 24%
Protein: 5g
Calcium: 4%
Iron: 35%
Not a significant source of trans fat, cholesterol, sodium, vitamin A and Vitamin C.

bob857 wrote:They supply 24% of the RDA for fiber? Really?

You know what happens if you eat too much chocolate, right?...

greggarcia wrote:Yep... looks good. In-fer-one.

I hope the chili enhanced chocolate becomes available soon too! I have been jonesing for more of Chuao's Spicy Mayan but they have been sold-out of many items and now that its April, they'll only ship overnight which is spendy, in fact just shipping is the same cost as this entire deal! Hope the Rain Republic chocolate is as good as reported (lots of great sources down there for cocoa, coffee, sugars, etc.), and hope it gets shipped before the hot weather comes back (light snow here in Nevada today). Maybe RR can start doing a few flavors, and HOT CHOCOLATE too!

P.S. Woot discounted wine fridge arrived yesterday. The inside temperature will be available online using my Woot LaCrosse Weather Station sensor if anyone wants to track it - turn on "Member Data" @ http://www.theweatherclub.com/WeatherMap.aspx It's the only listing in Carson City.

Thanks for the input. With all the positive comments about spicy chocolate we will be sure to add it to our line-up. We've already gotten a couple of Wooters to agree to test a formula or too, so when its perfect we'll release it on the web.

bob857 wrote:They supply 24% of the RDA for fiber? Really?

Nutritional Facts:
Serving size: 1 bar
Calories: 360
Fat Cal.: 230
Percent daily values are based on 2000 cal. diet.
Total Fat: 25g 38%
Sat. Fat 76%
Total Carbs: 28g 9%
Dietary fiber: 24%
Protein: 5g
Calcium: 4%
Iron: 35%
Not a significant source of trans fat, cholesterol, sodium, vitamin A and Vitamin C.

That's correct. No Trans-fats either!

jwink wrote:A couple of months ago I got an "education" regarding dark chocolate from America's Test Kitchen, and have a question relating to that.

One thing I learned the most from them is that when any dark chocolate says "XX%" it's not what we all thought it meant. That figure includes the total of both the cocoa solids and the cocoa butter. [White chocolate for example has zero cocoa solids and only cocoa butter, with sugar, etc.] What is the ratio of cocoa solids to butter that you use; i.e. what is the percentage of cocoa solids? More curious than anything else also my understanding is the antioxidant qualities in chocolate come from the solids not the butter.

Thanks for the earlier post about bean type I was going to ask that as well. The story sounds like a sassafrass tree which has 3 different leaves all on the same tree.

Some quotes from the ATK site (they tested 60% Dark): "When chocolate makers grind shelled cacao beans, known as nibs, to create the thick paste called chocolate liquor, this paste contains both cocoa solids and cocoa butter. Most manufacturers then add even more cocoa butter, in varying amounts, to help create the texture of the final chocolate. A few also add extra cocoa solids to intensify the chocolate flavor. Ultimately, however, the cacao percentage on the label of a chocolate bar is a total that includes both cocoa solids and cocoa butter—meaning that different chocolates can have different proportions of each and still share the 60% percent cacao designation. As our lab tests showed, the cocoa solids in our lineup ranged from about 17 percent of a bar's total weight to more than 30 percent, while fat ranged from a third of the weight to nearly half of it. Sugar levels varied by nearly 20 percent as well."

Their tasting results showed: "In fact, our lab results revealed that the chocolate with the lowest fat won the day, while the one with the most fat came in dead last. And would having the most cocoa solids make a chocolate superior? Again, no. Our tasters preferred chocolates with only a moderate amount. Sweetness wasn't the explanation, either: Chocolates in the middle range of sugar levels were preferred over those with the most sugar, though overall the top half of the rankings had more sugar than the bottom half. In the end, we preferred dark chocolate that achieved the best balance of all three major components—cocoa butter, cocoa solids, and sugar."

For those that want the full article (you'll have to supply your email address to ATK; and that's it) here is the link: http://www.americastestkitchentv.com/tasting/overview.asp?tastingid=616&iSeason=

This is a really insightful comment, thanks.

Further discussing cocoa fats I would like to comment on our processing. Our cocoa liquor is made of whole bean cocoa. As each bean, depending on size and type, has a different amount of fat, we adjust each formula during processing. Did you know that cocoa beans can be up to 50% cocoa fat(cocoa butter)?

Most companies remove the cocoa butter from the bean via chemical processes. Removing the fat beforehand makes the whole process more standardized. We do not. We like the fact that our formula varies seasonally. Its more fun that way.

We also add "non-deodorized" cocoa butter that we mechanically press using the same Guatemalan cocoa beans. So, we actually have single origin cocoa butter too-4X! We think the extra effort is worth it to produce the most authentic tasting chocolate possible.

Josh, here's another thought... chocolate-coated Guate coffee beans... mmmmmmmm!...

Still wondering about the transportation/climate issues.
On another forum people were complaining about chocolate Easter candy arriving as a sloppy mess.

southsidellynn wrote:Still wondering about the transportation/climate issues.
On another forum people were complaining about chocolate Easter candy arriving as a sloppy mess.

I'm with you. That's the one thing keeping me from purchasing at this point -- I'm not a snob or even that much of a chocolate lover, but I haven't had "high-quality chocolate" before and this seems like a unique opportunity to treat myself.

Still, it is at least shipping from TX and not Guatemala, right? That is, I'm sure it's been sampled at Woot first and will leave TX in good shape.

In for one. I live in Carlsbad, CA, the home of Chuao, so this stuff better be good. :D If you dig Chuao's Spicy Maya, you should try their Firecracker. It's incredible.

greggarcia wrote:Yep... looks good. In-fer-one.

I hope the chili enhanced chocolate becomes available soon too! I have been jonesing for more of Chuao's Spicy Mayan but they have been sold-out of many items and now that its April, they'll only ship overnight which is spendy, in fact just shipping is the same cost as this entire deal! Hope the Rain Republic chocolate is as good as reported (lots of great sources down there for cocoa, coffee, sugars, etc.), and hope it gets shipped before the hot weather comes back (light snow here in Nevada today). Maybe RR can start doing a few flavors, and HOT CHOCOLATE too!

P.S. Woot discounted wine fridge arrived yesterday. The inside temperature will be available online using my Woot LaCrosse Weather Station sensor if anyone wants to track it - turn on "Member Data" @ http://www.theweatherclub.com/WeatherMap.aspx It's the only listing in Carson City.

If you want it to be possessive, it's just 'I-T-S.' But, if it's supposed to be a contraction then it's 'I-T-apostrophe-S,' ... scalawag.

(Im sure someone has already pointed this out, but still...)

clsours wrote:If you want it to be possessive, it's just 'I-T-S.' But, if it's supposed to be a contraction then it's 'I-T-apostrophe-S,' ... scalawag.

(Im sure someone has already pointed this out, but still...)

I don't know what "Im" is, but if you want to spell the contraction for "I am" it's "I'm"...

How long before these expire/start to noticeably go bad? I'd like to use some as a mothers day gift, but can it survive sitting out (or in the freezer) for a month?

brucedoesbms wrote:I don't know what "Im" is, but if you want to spell the contraction for "I am" it's "I'm"...

Too too true, but I dont write copy for a serious business.

teknomls wrote:How long before these expire/start to noticeably go bad? I'd like to use some as a mothers day gift, but can it survive sitting out (or in the freezer) for a month?

This batch will be good until March 2011, just make sure to keep it in a woot place, not really the freezer nor the fridge, but just a dry, woot place, and out of the sun.

LucyT wrote:Oh for crying out loud. Beet sugar and cane sugar are EXACTLY the same chemically and physically. The only difference is marketing.

That would be true if your sugar is 100% sucrose, but it isn't.

There are trace impurities left by the extraction process such as calcium hydroxide (aka milk of lime), carbonic acid, sulfur dioxide, and anything left over from the beets (or canes) themselves.

Molasses is the stuff that doesn't crystallize and has 50-70% of the non-sucrose stuff. Usually you get beet sugar crystallized and syrups are made from crystal sugar, because crystallization is fairly cheap, and it is better than 99% effective in separating the sucrose from the other stuff.

But wait, cane doesn't need all those nasty chemicals to extract the sugar. That's how come "cane juice" and raw cane sugar is different from sugar beet sugar. Beet sugar is fine, but it is not exactly the same as cane sugar.

Once you get down to white powder (which requires sulfur dioxide) they are almost the same (typically 99% to 99.5% sucrose) but never identical.

(I live in a big sugar beet growing area with a sugar beet processing plant under 15 miles from where I'm sitting right now. And believe me, you can chew on sugar cane like candy, but sugar beets are nasty.)

LucyT wrote:Oh for crying out loud. Beet sugar and cane sugar are EXACTLY the same chemically and physically. The only difference is marketing.

No, they are not. I worked at a popcorn shop for years. We made carmel popcorn from scratch in big copper kettles. I made the mistake of ordering up beet sugar instead of cane sugar, and it cooked up very differently. The results were very unpleasant when you followed our standard recipe.

lesj wrote:Thanks for the advice! Here in Guate we get a lot of Chilean and Argentinean wine, so what would you think of a Carmenere?

Carmenere- absolutely delicious!! I recently tried some of the varietal from a WA state winery (the 3rd largest growing region in the US) and it was velvety rich with a peppery spice to it and it was wonderful!! Not too acidic or too bold of Tannin, just a great wine with a nearly perfect finish- I would say this chocolate would pair very well with as would the Chile Habanero bar I would think!!

Not sure if any company representatives are aboard, but is the soy lecithin in this genetically-modified? And what is the process of producing soy lecithin?

teknomls wrote:How long before these expire/start to noticeably go bad? I'd like to use some as a mothers day gift, but can it survive sitting out (or in the freezer) for a month?

It said that it will last in room temp for up to 1 year & then will start to lose it's intensity...