Today Sun Mon
It is forcast to be Chance of Snow at 10:00 PM EST on February 11, 2012
Chance of Snow
-2°/-3°
It is forcast to be Chance of Snow at 10:00 PM EST on February 12, 2012
Chance of Snow
2°/-5°
It is forcast to be Partly Cloudy at 10:00 PM EST on February 13, 2012
Partly Cloudy
3°/-2°

12 Comments

news

The Great Torontoist Challenge: Chocolate Box Edition

banner2_knittingskwerlgurl.jpg
Photo by knittingskwerlgurl from Flickr.
Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hannukah, Kwanzaa or Festivus, this is the time of year to give gifts and eat way too much food. Torontoist is no exception in enjoying these pastimes, and finds that giving a gift that is food is most often the best way to go. Giving a box of chocolates is a pretty sure way to make someone’s day better, and is a firm favourite of primary school teachers, bosses, letter carriers, and garbage-collecting agents alike. Torontoist would like to note that we have carefully avoided any reference to idiot-savant Southerners and what their mamas might say about life.

The Contestants

Chocboxes.JPG

The Criteria

Additional Criteria

We have ranked these by cost without considering weight, as one of the contestants did not have it listed on the box. We leave the math to you!
Godiva ($34.99 per 283 g.); Chocolate Concepts ($16.99 per 12 pieces); Laura Secord ($14.10 per 200 g.); Le Chocolat ($9.99 for 150 g.); Pot Of Gold ($6.99 for 410 g.).

Results

Conclusions

chocconcepts2.jpg
Chocolate Concepts’ offering, Forever Cocoa, was the loser of our challenge. While it did come in second place on visuals and was Noah-style in having two of each flavour, it scored a zero in the mapability category due to its complete lack of one. Torontoist was then forced to blindly try different pieces in the hopes of finding one that we enjoyed. What we did find was that each selection was a solid, which means serious limitations in variety. It was also noted, in an attempt to share a piece between two judges, that these chocolates are really hard to split or bite into. Our try at cutting one sample in two resulted in chocolate flying everywhere and the judges scurrying to keep it from the dog.
PotofGold2.jpg
We’re pretty sure we gave a box of Pot of Gold to at least one teacher in our varied yet glorious grade school career. If we could turn back time we may have chosen differently. The crux of the matter is such—Pot of Gold isn’t so much a box of chocolates as it is a box of candy. This stuff is so sweet and has a made-by-giant-Willy-Wonka-robots quality to it that our judging panel could not agree with. A large number of the chocolates looked the same, and though the map was helpful, it was a close call on some of our selections. On a whole it is what it is—less expensive, chock-full of sugar, and henceforth perfect for children the world over. Blink.
LeChocolat2.jpg
Smack dab in the middle is Shoppers Drug Mart’s Le Chocolat. While Torontoist does raise its eyebrows at the rather obvious attempt at making this item seem a bit more chichi with a French appellation, we do have to agree that these chocolates were yummy. The window in the lid of the packaging suggested a hint of cheapness to some, while others found it helpful to see the wares prior to purchase. The chocolate was of good quality and the flavours were delicious, however the lack of variety—especially when one considers the cost—was a downside. Certainly these chocolates were larger than the other contestants’, but sometimes you’d rather sample a couple different flavours rather than filling up on one.
LauraSecord2.jpg
In second place was Laura Secord’s Assorted Miniatures. The visual presentation for this contestant was clean, simple and classic. Their showpiece, the iconic cameo, was maybe not super exciting to taste, but it had an elegant look and did the trick of centering the collection. As stated above, Laura Secord won for the best of the maps. You will be hard-pressed to mess up your selection and the fruits of your labour—the labour being strenuous map reading—will be delicious. Though Laura Secord may not have the highest, most pure, sourced from a small village in Belgium populated only by cocoa-refining Oompa Loompas-type of chocolate, it was still not waxy or too sweet. It was good quality and the flavours were delicious and varied, if at times a bit on the safe side. Torontoist would not hesitate to bring a box of these wee yummies to a dinner party or holiday kegger as a delightful hostess gift.
Godiva2.jpg
The winner, by a narrow margin of under two percent, is Godiva. Of our contestants, Godiva most definitely had the highest quality of chocolate. The flavours on offer were delicious and at times quite creative compared to what was available in the other boxes. There were two downsides to Godiva as a contestant—the cost and the map. The cost requires no explanation; the map, on the other hand, does. The map itself, in terms of the graphics and explanations, was clear. The issue arose when our panel realized that Godiva doesn’t only provide a list of chocolates residing in the current box. Instead they provide a list of every bloody chocolate they make. And so, friends, Torontoist found itself taking a good time longer to make a selection. You may want that Pecan Caramel Cluster, but that doesn’t mean it will be there, and to be honest, that just isn’t cool. They may have great flavours and top-quality chocolate on offer, but don’t tease the consumer! That’s just plain rude. Rant aside, Godiva does know how to make a superb chocolate and of our contestants they had the best to offer. The way that Godiva has gotten around the map issue is simple—every single chocolate in that box was not only good, it was fan-fucking-tastic. Shrug. Makes one forget about the value of the reading material that came with it.
Photos of our contestants by John Reitsma.

Filed under: , , , , , ,

Report error Send a tip

Comments

  • beth maher

    Once again the “Great Torontoist whatever” meme fails to be either great, or or have much to do with Toronto.
    I have one question for you: where the heck is Soma’s box of chocolate. Where is it? It’s the best chocolate shop in the city. Why is it not here?
    I understand you are cheap/lazy/without alternate modes of transportation, but then maybe you should leave this to people who actually care/have money/own a car.
    It really would have been nice to see a few more of Toronto’s independent chocolate makers featured here, instead of a bunch of selections from the mall, that pretty much anyone with a mouth is already familiar with (gee, Pot of Gold is filled with sugar? I was unaware).

  • Ben

    Why no local chocolate shoppes?
    May I suggest that in the future you give different categories different weightings? I just saying that the map isn’t equally as important as the quality of the chocolate. Maybe you could rate the map out of 10 or something.

  • Carly Beath

    I understand you are cheap/lazy/without alternate modes of transportation, but then maybe you should leave this to people who actually care/have money/own a car.
    Wow. That’s really harsh for something that’s supposed to be a fun, light-hearted feature.
    Cheap? She gets paid very little for writing the article and buys the food herself. I’d hardly call that cheap. Lazy? That’s just rude. And suggesting someone should have a car in order to write about food is just ridiculous, especially in Toronto. I used to be a food critic and I certainly don’t own a car.

  • Jonathan Goldsbie

    Jesus Christ, Beth, we expect comments like that from matty, but from a former contributor?
    Not that you shouldn’t be critical. We love criticism. You know we do. You make good points. But why be such an asshole when making them?
    And $35 isn’t enough to spend on a box of chocolates? Maybe you’re not such a cheap date after all.

  • Julie Reitsma

    wow. i just got into work and had a look to see if i got any comments. *jackpot*
    beth—on top of the fact that you have no bloody clue who i am and have indeed been beyond rude, i’d like to point out the following:
    1) i actually don’t get paid at all by torontoist as i don’t post enough. the reason i don’t post enough is because it’s too expensive. some challenges have set me back over $100. see the vicious circle here? either way—i have a “feeling” that soma doesn’t cost $4.00.
    2) i do own a car. however, i have another job (cause i have to pay bills and can’t spend all my money on satisfying your needs by going to soma) and i also have other responsibilities outside of writing these posts. so it isn’t that i don’t think of soma or other fantastic places in toronto. rather, i have to consider the money (as per above) and i also have to organise to get a panel together (which can be difficult when people have jobs, kids, etc.), then i have to go and get all the contestants. if you would like to perhaps look at my budget and schedule and come up with some suggestions i’m sure myself and my editors would be more than pleased to consider them.
    i think it speaks volumes that you feel a need to make personal attacks against people you don’t know over what is intended to be a light hearted post about boxes of chocolates that could be given as gifts. in the end any good points you’ve made are totally lost.

  • Marc Lostracco

    I think that all five boxes of chocolates are probably the five brands most likely to be bought or consumed over the holidays, so it’s pretty relevant.
    “We all know where the rainbow goeeeeesss…we are told it’s a Pot of Gooold!”

  • ThatGuyJeff

    For one I would like to suggest that everyone here is focussing too little on the fact that Pot of Gold is absolutely marvelous and yet got the el shafto horriblo.
    Where are the bonus points for it being the subject of a fabulous Shawn Majumder bit? There’s your Toronto (er… Mississauga) connection, baby!

  • gdgrrl

    “we all know where the rainbow goes…we are told it’s a pot of gold…”

  • paigesix

    Still though, you could have at least TRIED to represent or at least mention a few local or at least Canadian companies.
    It wouldn’t have been too hard to get Purdy’s in there, would it?

  • onetwothree

    who knew a fun little column would spark such anger and malice from people. is chocolate that important to you beth, that you feel the need to put others down? i, among many others, enjoy this column and am happy others are doing the leg work of researching and testing the best foods. much appreciated julie!! and beth, if you cared so much, have so much money and own a car…why don’t you do something more productive with your time than whine and complain.

  • beth maher

    They are not personal attacks, in any way. They are simply based on previous comments made in previous “great Torontoist challenges” as to why the choices made were not more interesting and more local.
    Julie pretty much just reinforces what I said by making a wealth of excuses rather than give me a legitimate reason as to why the choices were so lame.
    My comments were, perhaps, sarcastic (and admittedly sarcasm occasionally has a hard time distinguishing itself from meanness over the internet).
    I’m sorry if I take food seriously, and would love to see it taken seriously on my favorite Toronto based blog.
    Some of us (and I’m thinking it’s more than just me, as these things seem to get great quantities of comments, many of them along the lines of “why would you make those choices?”) would like these challenges to be a little more thorough.
    Indeed, Ben seems to agree with me.

  • meenu42

    dear beth,
    who pee’d in your cheerios…?