Hershey's, Scharffen Berger & Joseph Schmidt

[Ling]

^I've used Scharffen Berger chocolate and Baker's chocolate in the same recipe (not together). I can definitely tell the difference even when the Scharffen Berger goods are baking in the oven--the aroma is so fragrant. Whether they are "4x better" is debatable though.

[lia]

FWIW, according to news reports, John Scharffenberger is staying on, and is promising that the chocolate will not change.

←

I love it, yeah, I sold my company to huge conglomerate, but don't worry, my product won't taste crappy like theirs.

[laurenmilan]

I have a 2 kilo box of SB 70% bittersweet here, and now I feel the need to ration it... considering that Godiva went downhill when it was bought out by Hershey, I do think that SB may surrender to the bottom line, and soon will be a great chocolate in reputation only...

Ironically, SB's rise was partially due to its popularization on TV Food Network

[SuzySushi]

considering that Godiva went downhill when it was bought out by Hershey

←

Huh? Godiva was never owned by Hershey. It's been owned by Campbell Soup since the 1960s.

Hershey has never owned a gourmet chocolate brand before, so we don't know what will happen.

[LindyCat]

I'm sorry to hear this; I tend to think, too, that even if quality doesn't decline that the social-equality commitments of the company will get rolled over by the bottom line.

I certainly think Scharffenberger is worth using in baking, at least in some recipes. When you make something where the chocolate is the star and not just an optional additional flavoring, the difference is very noticeable. In blind tastings of seven chocolates in mousse and glaze, my friends (just ordinary folks, not foodies) all prefered the Schbgr hands down, with a Guatemalan varietal coming in second. But I hesitate to say whether I would bother with it in a cake or cookies or something else where a more complex set of ingredients would reduce the need for (IMO) or ability to distinguish all those subtle, interesting flavors.

[Alinka]

I'm sorry to hear this; I tend to think, too, that even if quality doesn't decline that the social-equality commitments of the company will get rolled over by the bottom line.

I certainly think Scharffenberger is worth using in baking, at least in some recipes. When you make something where the chocolate is the star and not just an optional additional flavoring, the difference is very noticeable. In blind tastings of seven chocolates in mousse and glaze, my friends (just ordinary folks, not foodies) all prefered the Schbgr hands down, with a Guatemalan varietal coming in second. But I hesitate to say whether I would bother with it in a cake or cookies or something else where a more complex set of ingredients would reduce the need for (IMO) or ability to distinguish all those subtle, interesting flavors.

←

LindyCat, thank you for sharing your opinion. I really liked Scharffen Berger chocolate for eating as is: it had a surprisingly complex flavor for something I considered expensive (overpriced?) baking chocolate. The tart I baked was very delicious, but I am still not sure whether it's the recipe or the chocolate . I will definitely buy the chocolate for eating.

[ScorchedPalate]

Joseph Schmidt, too

[susiew]

Hershey is on a rampage!

From August 15: "The Hershey Company Acquires Joseph Schmidt Confections and Completes Scharffen Berger Acquisition, Extending Reach Into Premium Chocolate Segment"

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050815/phm039.html?.v=15

An optimistic thought: Perhaps John Scharffenberger can go on to being more influential in Hershey's cacao sourcing practices.

[Patrick S]

Well, I suppose only time will tell whether the product will change. I'm not terribly worried though, because I'm not a huge fan of Scharffen Berger chocolate. It has a complex flavor, which is good, but it seems remarkably bitter compared to other chocolates with similar cacao percentages. I DO hope they change their cocoa though -- its one of the worst I've ever tasted.