Chocolate milk was always a treat growing up. Not that we weren’t allowed to drink it but it’s just so good that no mater when I had it, I always savored it. I always just made it at home and rarely found the same satisfaction when I bought it in a bottle. It’s been awhile for either home-made or bottle so we compared a national big boy brand with the beloved Hood brand of New England.
Nesquik:
Nesquik had a great chocolatey aroma which I was hoping hinted at the intensity of chocolate flavor.
For me the just tasted like milk with a hint of chocolate. Ethan felt it wasn’t lacking any favor and enjoyed it. I thought this had an artificial taste to it but Ethan didn’t think it was bad. There was just something off about the consistency to me, like I could tell it was made from powder even if I didn’t already know it was.
Hood:
Hood didn’t have a sweet chocolate smell like Nesquik did but we both found the taste was a more sincere chocolate flavor. Ethan said it tasted like when you ignore the suggested amount of powder to add to make chocolate milk and add an extra tablespoon (or two). I liked that this didn’t taste as chemically and would like to think that it was a more pure form of this drink.
Wrap up:
I prefered good ol’ Hood for the reasons listed above, although I have to say I feel Hood’s expertise is in their ice cream products (I mean, what’s better than a Hoodsie eaten with a wooden spoon?) and wouldn’t swear by their chocolate milk as a new favorite. Although Ethan agreed Nesquik was more artificial tasting he still found something appealing about it. He liked both in their own way and said it would depend on his mood as to which one he would buy again.
Loading ...
Not to get into the whole reason why I used geocities instead of the secondratesnacks server to upload some photos, but it was convenient when using this ancient mac laptop (with no ftp and it wouldn’t install filezilla) that I’d blog from when I was in the living room.
Geocities ended the other day and I’ve lost most of my photos on there so you’ll be seeing this lovely red X where a photo used to be. For some reason I thought they were just not allowing new accounts, I didn’t realise they were vaporising all the pages and images but in the end it’s a good thing since I’ll have to keep all my photos on one server now.
Anyhoo, I’ll try to salvage what I can but sorry about any missing images.
There are a number of products that Stauffer’s seems to copy from Nabisco and Minglers seemed to be inspired by Sociables. I did notice that they don’t offer the same flavors but I felt the closest match was garden vegetable to the seasoned flavor of sociables. Both promote a party environment which would be interesting to conduct an evaluation at a social situation but we just tried these at home.
Sociables:
These were kind of bland except for the salt flavor. We could see the seasoning but Ethan and I felt they tasted similar to Saltines. We liked the texture though, it was light and sort of flaky. Overall not a bad cracker.
Minglers:
Minglers were a bit toastier looking and much harder in consistency than Sociables. The taste was a little more flavorful probably from dehydrated vegetable flakes but there was still an absence of any enjoyable flavor.
Wrap up:
Not that we liked them all that much but Sociables win for their flaky texture and mild flavor. Minglers were too hard and had a weird taste to them. They weren’t bad when used as a vehicle for dip but on their own they were kind of gross…and didn’t have the variety of shapes Sociables does, which I think suggests a social atmosphere -a variety of something all hanging out together. Where as Minglers are just the same shape which might suggest “We only mingle with people who look exactly like us”.
Loading ...
Since I saw these new Entenmann’s Swiss Rolls I thought it would be a good idea to test them with the winner of the Swiss Roll/Yodel/HoHo battle: the Swiss Roll. I thought it was kind of ballsy for Entenmann’s to name their product Swiss Roll too but they must be lookin’ for a fight with my girl Debbie so we let them duke it out at my sister’s house with her, our mom my brother-in-law and my 3.5 year old nephew Kyle (and of course Ethan)
Little Debbie:
Everyone agreed that these were very sweet and moist. my brother-in-law Rick really liked the cream. I like the cream and how the chocolate coating stayed on even when cutting or biting into. Steph said she liked the consistency and mom said she thought it was okay but would like it if it had more chocolate flavor.
Kyle said he lies it because it’s good.
Entenmann’s:
Despite the orange color the creme has the same vanilla flavor as the Little D rolls. Mom and Rick though these were more moist. The cream didn’t seem as sweet as Debbie’s but considering how extremely sweet those were that wasn’t abad thing. Mom liked that these had more chocolate flavor, although we all noted and weren’t crazy about how easily the cocolate coating flaked off.
Wrap up:
Both were good but Rick and mom preferred Entenmann’s for it’s not-too-sweet creme, moistness and chocolate flavor. Ethan, Steph, Kyle and myself preferred the Little Debbie version for it’s stong vanilla flavored cream, moist cake and the chocolate coating staying on the roll.
Loading ...
It’s October and small bowls of candy corn can be found on office desks all over America. Candy corn was always one of the few exceptions of trick or treat harvesting that had some value even though it wasn’t chocolate. And it’s very shelf stable too- I’m not even sure if it has an expiration date, I’m sure it must but I think water is a bigger enemy of candy corn that time. For some reason it was hard to find a competitor to Brach’s for this but we finally found one called Zachary’s.
Brach’s:
These were firm and had a nice yield to the bite. The flavor is sweet but nicely balanced with a vanilla overtone. At least we think it’s vanilla. Ethan said he kind of felt like it was maple but knew it wasn’t. We noticed the package said these contain real honey so I’m sure that helped give these their pleasant taste.
Zachary:
These were a little paler in color and it turned out in taste too. There was a lack of flavor other than just sugar/corn syrup. The texture was pretty good though since it was very similar to Brach’s.
Wrap up:
We both agreed that Brach’s was more enjoyable than Zachary’s. While Zac’s wasn’t terrible, the absence of any flavor just didn’t make the calories seem worthwhile. I never thought much about Brach’s candy corn but I have a newfound appreciation for it and feel that they really give other candy makers big kernels to fill to re-create the flavor I used to take for granted.
Loading ...
I was in Walgreen today and saw a series of chocolate bars called 3 for $1. They come in 4 or 5 varieties but I picked “Double Crisp” and bought a Nestle Crunch to compare it to. Of course my dream match would be Crunch vs Krackle but Hershey’s no longer makes a full size Krackle. Although I will some day get a bag on Hershey’s Miniatures and test them against mini Crunches. I know it’s silly but I like the bars to be the same size.
Anyhoo…
Crunch:
I like Crunch’s thinness, I kind of compare it with getting deli meat sliced extra thin. Ethan and I agreed that there was plenty of rice crisps generously distributed throughout the bar. The only let down is the chocolate, which is lacking good chocolate flavor. Ethan said it was tasteless and I took another bite and agreed even though the wrapper claims “Now Even Richer Milk Chocolate”, it just seemed like a bland vehicle for the rice crisps.
3 for $1:
This bar was thicker and much sturdier than Crunch. The rice crisps dwelled at the bottom of the bar and seemed disproportionate to the amount of chocolate. I liked the taste of the chocolate better but Ethan said it was “gross” and “powdery”.
Wrap up:
Split. I liked the characteristics of Crunch more in every way except the bland chocolate and liked only the chocolate of the 3 for $1 however I’d pick 3 for $1 because the disappointment of Crunch mockolate was just too much. Ethan preferred Crunch despite the lack of flavor, he was really turned off 3 for $1’s powdery grossness and minimal crunch.
Loading ...
I’ve always liked Fig Newtons, they remind me of family outings at the beach. Their fruit and cookie combo always felt like a substantial snack that rally satisfies - and tastes good too! Ethan doesn’t feel the same way but agreed to taste test because he’s such a good sport.
I found these Gonzo brand knock-offs at a gas station in Bellingham, MA. I haven’t seen them anywhere else, but maybe I just never noticed them.
Fig Newtons:
Fig Newtons have a nice golden brown color on the outside of the cookie. I haven’t had these in a while but the cookie seemed kind of dry, Ethan agreed but liked the sweet flavor of it anyway. The fig filling had a nice thick texture and dense fig flavor. I think it’s the best part of the Newton.
Fig Bars:
These were a little lighter, the cookie was thicker and not as well proportioned as far as cookie-to-fig ratio. I know it doesn’t look like it but the cookie was so thick, it masked the fig “experience”. I detected a weird chemical taste too. Ethan didn’t seemed to be bothered by it and liked the sweetness of the cookie
Wrap up:
I’d stick with Fig Newtons for the fig flavor and more natural taste. Ethan felt the Newtons were more natural tasting but the Gonzo brand was better as a tasty treat. I will say I like Gonzo’s packaging though. The scalloped lines at the top looks like a curtain rising to reveal the treat inside. Nice font for “fig bars” too.
Loading ...
Mmmm, donuuuuuts. There’s nothing like a good fresh donut. These aren’t them but at least resemble the spirit of a donut and if this is all you have available and you’re in a donut state of mind, you may find yourself giving one of these a shot.
Hostess:
I don’t really have a history with these but Ethan said he used to eat them when he was in High School and liked them. We were both surprised that these didn’t really taste like anything. The only thing “donuty” about these is the shape. The powdered sugar doesn’t even taste like sugar and the dough is just flavorless, dry cake.
Cafe W:
Walgreen’s version actually had some taste to it. The powdered sugar tasted sweet and the cake had a slight lemon flavor that complimented the sugar. These donuts were also not quite as dry as hostess and we found ourselves enjoying these more.
Wrap up:
We have to give it to Cafe W for making a donut that tastes like something, not really like a fresh donut but at least it’s something. Hostess just seemed void of anything and was all about texture. Dry, powdery texture. It’s interesting that so far Cafe W has been up to par or better than Hostess. I’d be interesting in trying more of Cafe W’s products in the future.
Loading ...
Canned ravioli was my first introduction to ravioli as a kid and I loved it. As an adult I have an appreciation for home-made or restaurant quality ravioli but I have no problem saying there is just something about the canned stuff that’s just so nice in it’s own way. I forgot all about Libby’s as a brand, I haven’t looked them up but I know there was something else they made that I liked, I’ll have to do a little searching later but my only experience with canned ravs has been with Chef Boyardee so I was interested to see what Libby’s was like.
Chef:
This is so familiar, I have a hard time describing it but it’s the lovely mushy pasta squares with an even mushier meat filling. What provides the most texture are the bits of meat in the soupy tomato sauce. The sauce was lacking a little in the flavor department but provided a nice base for the raviolis to slide around in.
Libby’s:
Looks almost identical Chef’s but a little more sauce. The texture of the pasta and filling were the same but we both noticed there was more flavor in the ravioli and the sauce was more “tomatoy”. The bits of meat in the sauce were a little less than Chef’s.
Wrap up:
Both provide the same mushy, slurpy texture (which the 8 year old in me loves) but we were surprised that Libby’s had more flavor and we found our enjoying it more. We agreed that it wasn’t enough of a difference to shun the Chef, he still makes an enjoyable can of mush but since we were evaluating one right after another we did notice Libby’s has a little bit of an edge.
Loading ...
I have always steered cleared of gummi (or gummy) bears for the fact that they’d stick to my teeth. Ethan and I were debating if they were called “gummi” or “gummy” bears and then we found there are versions with both spellings. I know I’ve heard of Haribo but never heard of the Black Forest brand, there are probably many more brands but these are the two that were available.
Haribo “Gummi”:
I was really surprised that these didn’t stick to my teeth at all and I could chew freely without worry. While these aren’t pretty to look at Ethan agreed with me that these had a nice bounce to them. We liked the flavors, (apple, cherry, orange, lemon) but the best to us was the clear bear which was pineapple.
Black Forest “Gummy”:
While they had a decent bounce when chewed and they didn’t stick to my teeth, they seemed to have the potential to if bitten on too hard. The flavors were kind of muted, none of them really tasted like anything to me but Ethan said the red has a strong cherry flavor. I think visually they look better and resembled bears more than the gummis.
Wrap up:
Gummis won with both of us. We found the texture, non-stickiness and satisfying flavor to give it the winning edge. I would give Gummys a few point for presentation and use them for decoration on a gingerbread house.
Loading ...