I'm just going by the blurb that was in the description.

But who or what are you donating to? There is no information about who gets the proceeds from the sales. If some of the money was going to the HCP one would think that would be mentioned.

Is that a $100 bar, or is that $100 donation with chocolate thrown in as a thank you?

Does this count? Total weight 105g for $100

https://www.c-spot.com/shop/chocolate/heirloom-chocolate-series/

From C-Spot new website:

Product Description

7 tasting tablets, 15 grams each, of the officially designated Heirloom Chocolate Series

HCP (Heirloom Cacao Preservation) in partnership with the USDA is the first and only to map the world of hi-flavor cacao. In caring for these special trees, HCP faces down the specter of a world in a which chocolate stands for nothing but the color of brown.

My take on the feasibility of a $100 bar is from the perspective of the market. More people need to geek out (be educated) on chocolate like they do on coffee and wine. When there are sufficient flavor junkies looking for the next chocolate high, the chocolate makers that gets a loyal following will naturally be forced to raise prices for not being able to meet all demand. In the mean time, I'm grateful for all the sharing and community spirit that is taking us there... :D

Very interesting topic, however I think the analogy misses on a few points.  Most $100 bottles of wine were originally sold for $20-$50 when new. As they age and get better (not all wines age well, contrary to popular belief) the price increases simply due to supply and demand.  Hence a lot of collectors out there are filling thier cellars up with cases of $20 wines.  In 10+ years, that case of $20 wines *might* be a case of $100 wines.   

Are there winemakers selling $100 for new bottles? of course. But they are few and far between, relatively speaking. And almost all of that is due to reputation.

Secondly, unlike most chocolate makers, winemakers tend to have pure and total control over thier grape production. Many of the finest Bordeux's are from winemakers that have been winemaking for generations. They have grown a reputation, without being able to grow thier production. There's a real difference between a good grape and an amazing grape.  

I know I'm new to the industry and just barely coming out of the hobby, but most of the cacao that I seem to find is a blend of a myriad of different farmers, farming techniques, etc. Further, post harvest ferments and drying can range from great to abominable. All of which is just outside the hands of most chocolate makers. We get what we get and learn to work with it.

I think it's the combination of a bunch of things like this that holds prices where they are even though there are premium artisinal made chocolates vs cheapo candy chocolate. Most of what I've seen for $15+ bars is pure ego, while only some of it is rarity, but mostly ego.  If we can somehow work in something special in one chocolate that isnt in another, that's where I think the prices can and would climb.  

It's not a matter of producing a $100 bar, it's a matter of producing something that becomes worth $100 and people are willing to buy as a matter of value and specialness, and rarity. Elitism is where a lot of high dollar things get thier values.

Well said, Keith.

Kind of recalls that adage, "Just because you can doesn't mean you should..."

yikes....

Okay my friends, here is a look at the $260 To'ak bar. So glad I didn't buy one. Just look at it. It's NOT raw chocolate. No shine. It looks old, crumbly and wasn't tempered correctly.

Ha! I love it. True though. If they had a track record and worked on an exceptional blend for a few years and did something like this, maybe.

Well, you could have a career as a copywriter. I agree with you. This is probably a case of the emperor having ordinary clothes. Singing poetry to the cacao trees probably won't change the taste of the resulting chocolate from them.

yep. I mean we know clay cant say it, and others may be too nice. This, of course, is not my MO. These guys have zero track record for making quality chocolate. ...or ANY chocolate for that matter. I suppose I am just jealous on some level because I am honest to the point of recklessness and feel that what they are doing is dishonest. Its NOKA all over again. I might as well do my own....

"Announcing the world's most expensive chocolate bar! These one of a kind cacao beans were spoon fed to sloths in the costa rican rainforest and extracted from their feces in a loving and kindly manner after fermenting in their slow moving guts for 3 whole days. Each individual bean was hand roasted, one at a time, in a used smack heads spoon from the lower east side with a bic lighter. They are then cracked with a ball peen hammer and then winnowed with the breath of nubile virgins. The sugar was processed in a toaster oven heavily modified by our crack equipment crew having been salvaged from a burned out tenement in the Bronx. After 462 hours of grinding in a mortar and pestle by coca fueled aliens in a Tuscon shitbox the finished chocolate is aged in an old gold mine in a pool of fulminated mercury for 6 months. Each individual 100 gram bar is wrapped in the dried skin of an alapaca that died of natural causes no later than 1749 and was skinned by a shaman under the influence of ayahuasca and mummified at high elevation in the Bolivian Andes. Each one of these shaman blessed bars is certified gluten free, certified organic, certified vegan, certified GMO free and only $1000.00 per bar."

That's how I feel. Marketing ploy. The problem is all of the the people that know really good chocolate and the entire process won't pay that much for BS. I has also said their website needs some work in ease of navigation and consistency. I'm glad someone agrees with me. I also want to know how these 100 year old rare trees came into existence all of a sudden with 14 farmers. So odd. Being in both chocolate and marketing, I say bullshit as well. I don't think anyone in the chocolate world has called them on it yet. They're getting press for the price.

annmarie? There is no way on the face of this earth that the toak chocolate is what they say it is. Their website is inconsistent(we have 14 farmers--but only a few 100 year old trees?))...to the packaging and hype around it. So this ex wall street guy goes on a surfing safari, falls in love with chocolate and voila...he makes the worlds most expensive chocolate bar? I will call bullshit on it everyday from now to eternity. What they claim is just not possible. nor do these guys have any experience making chocolate. It takes years of practice and experimentation to get a quality product, even from really good beans. This bar is marketed to the 1% and they will buy it...but you can well bet it is not any better than Pacari or even a Guittard Ecuador for that matter....

So interested in this. I just can't fathom spending that much on a bar. Mind you I've been doing this for awhile and I have about 200 bars on my shelves right now. Just seems like a marketing ploy to me.

Couldn't agree more. What Woodblock is doing is a different animal than what they're doing at To'ak Chocolate. Clay, curious to how you feel about this. I can't wrap my mind around spending that much on a chocolate bar. It doesn't get better with age. You'd have to enjoy it within a year. The Maranon Fortunato No 4 isn't more than $10 anywhere I've seen. Do you think this is all hype? I can't help but think so. I mean, come on, a $260 chocolate bar.

Scott -

I saw this last night and posted it to Twitter (@DiscoverChoc) and Facebook (as you mention) and got several responses there.

I have to agree with the point that this appears to be more of a fundraising program than a serious attempt at creating the "$100 bar of chocolate." But it's also important to recognize that Woodblock is being straight up and open about what they are doing. They're not promoting the project as something that it's not. What is on offer is the opportunity to support the important work the ICG is doing (now without direct government support) plus a rather unusual bar of chocolate made from beans from the trees that grow in the germplasm bank. While there's no way to know how good the chocolate will be, the bar (and the label) should have some value as a collector's item. Hopefully Charley will recognize that and batch/number the bars. If the project is successful I can see Woodblock doing this on an annual basis as it's (the ICG) is a project worth supporting. That said, it might make more sense as a tax-deductible contribution to the ICG where the perk is a bar. Of the $100 donation $X would be attributed to the bar and not be tax deductible. This might get more people to support the ICG.

I ran into someone at a great shop in SF called "Chocolate Covered" that'sabout the best overall variety of high-end chocolate bars anywhere. She said she'd been to a tasting of Toak the night before and liked it, "but I've also had ones that I liked better." We both agreed that we were "not there yet" with respect to valuing that particular bar at the current asking price.

Via Clay on Twitter, here's a $100 bar from Woodblock Chocolate . Since "all proceeds will contribute to the [International Cacao Genebank's] 'living library' of cacao," this is really more of a hundred dollar donation than a hundred dollar chocolate bar.

Scott

I used to have an online shop, so I have inventory left.

Good for them if they can achieve a sold out "vintage". I need more info. I can't even bring myself to find 3 others to share that. I have learned expensive doesn't mean good.

100 bars? I feel better now. Most I've had is about 20-25, max, and I get heat about that. Part of me would like to compare the To'ak bar to one of my favorite single origin varietals or something similar and see how each one shapes up. A cynical part of me is thinking these makers are sizing up the cash they'll pull in from 574 bars priced at $260 each --a cool $149,240. Not a bad haul for about 63 pounds of finished productso for me, I have to balance wanting totaste this chocolateagainst feeling like I'm being ripped off. For now, I say the maker is getting the better end of the deal, IMHO, but to each his/her own.

I hear you! I live and breathe chocolate, however, $260 for a 50 g bar seems ridiculous to me. I have a few Nacionl bars right beside me that I spent about $12 each for - same beans - different country which of course will make them different in taste. I need to know why it's worth that. They aren't doing a good job on doing that. Plus, as I said in my comment, chocolate gets worse with age, not better. You can't "collect" it for the long run. I do, however, have about 100 bars around to enjoy.

Good for them. There mightcome a day when I buy one but today isn't it. There is a certain niche population that will love being part ofan elite group of purchasers (or maybe they're just curious). I'm sure the chocolate is terrific (or word will spread really quickly to the contrary!) and they would have no regrets about the purchase. As for me, I was never one to line up days early to buy the latest iPhone either. Great marketing however and sure to sell out.

It's already happened. To'ak Chocolate has a $260 bar.

https://toakchocolate.com/

A 50g bar for $260 (=$520/100g) has arrived. To'ak Chocolate . Their wording on the website makes it sound like this is their first batch to be sold. At this writing 56 of the 574 bars in this harvest have been sold.

I have a 0-10 Rating/Grading system. See the ChocoFiles website for details. I would be glad for my rating system to be the new standard.

We have a 10 pound bar that is over $100 so price shouldn't be the goal. Supply and demand determines price but marketing affects demand. The industry needs to be able to use a grading system like Robert Parker has done for wine.

Diamonds, gold all have ratings. The average consumer needs a guide to help rate the many nuances of cocoa, it is the only way to compete with the chocolate giants that influence demand. Perhaps using a flavor wheel to identify the strengths of each chocolate would help educate consumers.

This is really a fascinating conversation, and the idea of a $100 chocolate bar intrigues me. It seems like a bucket-list item - something an average consumer mighthope to one day afford for the thrill of it. Or another kind of status symbol for the diamond-studded Rolex wearer.

Speaking as someone largely oblivious to the deep inner workings of the chocolate industry (I don't make it or sell it, I just appreciate theheck out of it), I'm desperate for more information on what distinguishes one chocolate bar from another. This is what motivated me to start researching chocolate production in the first place - clear and compelling information about origins is just not that available to the average consumer.

I'mhoping to change that very soon.

So maybe a $100 chocolate bar would raise the awareness of the public on their chocolate options. It certainly gets your attention ;o)

Brad:

This is not a competition. I don't feel the need to prove anything to you. I offer up my observations and advice freely - both actually and figuratively.

You may be right, I am not your customer. And I never will be as you long as you think we're in competition in any way - and continue to frame things in competitive terms.

But what I do think is relevant to your business, albeit in a way that probably has very little actual effect on your sales as your market is pretty much self-limited to Calgary, Alberta and my "market" is a community spanning more than 160 countries. What I do is improve people's awareness and appreciation of fine chocolate, and I do it on a global scale. And I give you the opportunity - at no charge to you (does that make me a bad business person?) - to share your views with my global audience. I invite you in to participate in my business.

You may scoff at that statement, but I have extended global awareness of your brand, your company, and you.

I am sure you have more customers than TheChocolateLife counts members, but we use very different systems to calculate their value to us. We have very different ends, and are pursuing very different means to achieve them.

But what we are not is competitors.

Brad, that is the point that what you are producing and selling to your customers is right for you and them.

But if the general quality is ever going to be uplifted, then it needs something else. Whether we need"professional tasters", can be argued, but so long as the marketing of chocolate iscompletelyin the hands of the mass producers, then things are not going to get muchbetter.

My point is that unless someone such as yourself is prepared to take on that effort, there will be no change, and you are proving me right by saying what you say... a sort of "I am all right Jack".

I am not criticising that I am just stating that that sort of response is what Clay is going to be fighting against, and so his argument becomes circular with no way to break it.

Yes Clay, I was just joking about the $100 bar.

However when it comes to the quality of my product for the market I'm selling to, that sir is something I don't joke about. Again, whether you like it or not is irrelevant. You aren't my customer, and the recipes aren't designed for you or other self appointed "professional tasters". They are designed for the general public, who, after buying $2 Million worth of my chocolate in the past couple of yearshas a very different palate(and evidently a very different opinion than yours and Marc's)

I'll tell you what though Clay. When you match what my customers buy I promise to care what youthink. How does that sound?

Cheers

Brad

You're probably right. One thing that would tip the scales (and this is unlikely to happen, but...) is if a particular varietal chocolate was found to have unique benefits. It would have to be something special, such as lowering cholesterol better than a medication, boosting libido, curing XYZ condition, etc. and would have to be unique to that particular chocolate. Taste alone, at least at this point, may not be enough of an impetus.

Clay I am glad that you realise that this is a circular argument. And will continue to be nothing more than that until there is an artisan chocolate maker with sufficient funds and foresight to fund at least one group of chocolate sommeliers.

That would be a vast risk, and in honesty I cannot see anyone every being prepared to take that risk... can you?

Brad (recognizing that there is probably more than a little tongue in cheek in your response) -

Nope. Packaging and shipping can't be included. The chocolate itself has to sell for $100 bar.

You can price it however you want, but the community of people who rate and review the chocolate need to agree with you that it's worth that price. It has to sell at that price. People need to be willing to buy at that price. I've tried your chocolate and, IMO (as a professional taster), it's not at that caliberyet. And not just me, C-Spot agrees.

AND you(as the manufacturer) and the distributor(s) have to spend money to support the marketing and sampling of the bar and support the community of chocolate critics and chocolate sommeliers who educate the consumers.

ANYBODY can price a bar as a stunt (and several have - remember Noka? [and I am not comparing you to them]), but in the end stunts work to the detriment of the community at large.

The point that I am making is that until there is a selection of chocolate bars that command prices an order of magnitude higher than the average prices today ($5-9), then there will be no money in the system to support the chocolate critics and chocolate sommeliers who can then educate people about why it's okay to spend that amount of money.

It's a circular argument, I am aware. But as long as the only marketing budgets belong to mass-market candy makers, the market for gourmet, craft, artisan, chocolate is hindered.

I've had so many requests to ship my chocolate that I give up. I'm finally bending to the pressure!

I will now sell ALL of my chocolate bars for $100 each and will package and ship them to wherever you like (except outer space). Packaging and shipping is included.

THERE. Now the industry has a $100 chocolate bar.

Of course when standardized to the price per 100g, Amedei has already been selling expensive bars for a long time. Amedei Porcelana is currently $39.90/100g (at the Meadow). More than Rogue Porcelana bar at $30/100g. In addition, since Bonnat sells 100g bars, some of theirs already sell for $22-25 too; the cost feels higher when you have to shell out $25 for 1 bar.

Rogue's 80% Porcelana is an incremental step in the direction of $100 bar. I wonder how it is selling? When standardized to the price per 100g this bar is bar is $30/100g. Rogue has certainly developed the credibility to entice people to pay this much for this bar.

The non-existence of the $100 chocolate bar tells a lot abou the level of development of the chocolate business.

It is true that marketing/ranking/the press are sometimes the only justification for a wine to sell for several hundred dollars, but I beleive the usual reasons are the offer/demand ratio and the intrinsic difference/characteristics of the wine.

A bottle of say, "Chateau Latour" from the Medoc region of Bordeaux never sells for less tha $300 per bottle "young" because, by law Chateau Latour cannot produce more than a certain volume of wine per hectare and because, yes its tastes unique. The wineyard next door will look like the Chateau Latour, but tastes different and is easily identifiable. So when the rich Chinese who likes the taste wants a bottle, he is competing with the rich Americans, Indians Russian etc.. Add to this the "banking" characterics of quality wine that make it predictably increase in value over the years and the resulst are these astronomical prices.

Now, to cacao. Producers of high quality cacao beans are mostly small owners in hard to get places of the world. They have no organized structure beside a State controled entity that cares more to the volume producers than the fine bean plantor. Even if they find a chocolate producer ready to pay the high price for the beans, they have little recognition because the "Chocolatier" in Europe or the U.S. will promote his name rather than the (small) producer or producers. Then, although growing, the demand for chocolate is not as high as for wine, in part because people are not exposed to the same permament marketing and social pressure that wine enjoys. Add to this teh lack of exposure through magazines, exhibitions etc.. and you have the current price levels.

Clay, I think the $100 chocolate bar will only happen when a global ecosystem has been built. And this will take more than 5 years.

I heard that Noka is no longerin business. Scams don't usually last long.

This is a really interesting story with Noka

http://dallasfood.org/2006/12/noka-chocolate-part-1/

It reminds me of Chivas Regal, who raised their price above their competitors who sold similar quality, sales rose because of the perceived quality. Or for a chocolate reference, "The best thing about Belgian Chocolate is how good Belgians are at promoting it"

I often tell people who wince at what I pay for an 80 gm bar that it will last me longer than the bottle of wine they bought and will drink within a few hours. That said, I can agree with both Tom and Paul: it needs to be a "destination" but also one that people can reach fairly easily. It also needs to be in a region where there are multiple options so people can go on e "cacao crawl" as it were, and sample several in a day or two.

Of course, there was a lot of talk on the news this morning about the huge increases in cocoa prices over the past year, what with India, Russia, China, and other co8untries getting in on the chocolate craze and hiking demand. This could lead to more chocolate planting in the long term (and I hope it's good quality stuff that is planted). That $100 bar may not be as far off as it originally sounded.