Chocolatiers = Re-melters?

We are packing bars by hand at this very moment! We also make and pack everything here by hand, box it up, and send it out to the US. I understand your point, and we are going to do our best to provide transparency in our upcoming launch and following marketing campaign.

Are your boxes precut and glued? Because I am embarressed to show a picture of my packaging room. I delayed cleaning up all of the "cuttings" because I was really curious to see how much paper was getting wasted and how many packages I needed to cut in order to be able to swim in it- so far I'm 300 in and it's only a kiddie pool!

They are indeed precut and glued.

Jeff: I am lucky to enjoy world class bean-to-bar chocolate every day much of which (not most of which as you correctly note) is produced by chocolate makers (not chocolatiers/confectioners) who do monitor if not control post-harvest processing. Valhrona, Amadai, MC, Devries, and others are directly engaged with the farmers for some of their products. Volker Lehmann's success with Felchelin's Cru Sauvage is a good example. Closer to the source are Grenada, Kallari and other small-scale vertically integrated tree-to-bar producers. Every chocolate bar has a soul - some greater, some lesser. The greater souls emerge in all their splendor from the caring efforts of the humans entrusted with post-harvest handling, especially culling and fermentation. What happens later may or may not yield excellence. But without a fruitful beginning, the potential for truely soulful distinctiveness is diminished.

I like this..."tree to bar" producer. Much more accurate. Thanks for the info.

My 2 cents-There is a lot that the people chocovore listed as producers do to the chocolate. Some are connected with the source, others buy brokered cacao. Either way the manufacturer has a product, that if tasted raw and unroasted would have a very small market, (raw food people I guess). A lot happens to those well fermented or poorly fermented cocoa beans and that is the art of chocolate. Each of the makers listed have a style that regardless of cacao is recognizable (textures, flavors, roasts etc)The fact that they have a style and can be a part of the whole process demonstates skill of the trade.In another thread I quoted Art Pollard of Amano, "The problem with chocolate, is that every step is the most important step".So it's hard to do everything-and that's ok. But the people who do everything, and do it right, deserve the recognition for it. (isn't there a database for this somewhere?! Shouldn't that be authoritative?!)And the people who don't do everything, that's also ok.(They'll be the "star belly sneetches" in the database)

To follow up on Clay's and others' comments about TCHO -Except for our Ghanian "Chocolatey," we source our beans directly from farmers. Indeed, in Peru, we work directly with coops to improve fermentation and drying. We take ownership of those beans, which we use to make our "Fruity" and "Nutty" chocolates, as well as the Madagascar beans we use to make our "Citrus" chocolate, and then arrange their transport to roasting facilities.At those facilities, one or the other or both of our co-founders Karl Bittong and Timothy Childs fly in and personally direct the roasts, implementing process and protocols that we developed in our lab specifically for those beans. Indeed, three of the four roasting facilities we use were actually designed and installed by Karl over his long career. Back in SF, we turn the liquor we created into our chocolate.Ghana is a special case because the sale of beans is a government monopoly; in that case, co-founder Karl Bittong oversees the selection of our beans in person at government warehouses, then directs the roasting of those beans in a Ghanaian facility he built.So, while it is true that our roasting facility is not yet online here in SF, we are certainly roasting our own beans, overseeing the production of our own liquor, and making our own chocolate, just like other bean-to-bar manufacturers.As to the reported comment by a TCHO representative which kicked off this discussion -- over the past three amazing years, we have built a company that joins just a handful of others who are so obsessed with controlling the quality of their chocolate that they actually manufacture it from scratch. This has been incredibly hard -- requiring that we find and develop source at origin, deal with the logistics of supply chains that literally stretch around the world from Madagascar to Amsterdam to Peru to Ecuador to SF, develop roasting profiles and protocols in lab, oversee roasts on equipment that's four stories tall, then refine and conch the liquor we make to flavor profiles we developed over months in the lab and in collaboration with our Beta tasters, before finally molding and wrapping it in packaging we've designed and printed ourselves.I don't know what our representative said at that event, I wasn't there, but her comments about being a manufacturer, as opposed to a maker, may have been taken for arrogance when, in fact, they might have just been pride.

Ooh everyone.Just when I think Im going bonkers in my own little endeavours, I log on to the Chocolate Life and realize -truly- Im not alone.After all this, my question is one of semantics. Can you really say re-melter or is that like saying 'unexpected surprise'. Was the initial product (cocoa liquor -wherever it appeared in the process) ever actually in a melted state, before becoming a solid which goes on to be melted by chocolatiers/fondeurs? Or was it pulverized, liquefied, warmed by mechanical friction...I think re-melter is just an ugly word, if its even a real word. It makes me think of sitting over the chocolate in dirty coveralls with a dangling smoke.But that aside, Im with holycacao.Some people do everything and obsess over every step, and some people make a lot of money on great marketing. Its ok either way, and in the end there's buyers at both ends. (Dove commercial just came on tv) Most of us try to eek out a living somewhere in the middle.Im just excited to be doing it in a time where we can be connected in this forum and see what others are doing via the internet. Its all just amazing. When are all you American chocolate makers going to get some distribution in Canada?

Send me a message. Patric Chocolate is available in Canada.

My point is not to single out a certian person within the Tcho company. My point is that Tcho chooses to use the word 're-melter' than any other term. This can be found on your website, on your printed material and spoken directly to customers by Tcho representatives. Yes, Tcho is doing innovative things by marketing by flavor descriptors over cocoa percentages. Great. But mainstreaming 're-melter' may be a bit harder to accomplish. No doubt, as you have read in other people's comments on this thread, not all, but others do agree that the term 're-melter' connotates a certain arrogance by the peron using the term. I'm put my money that no chocolatier doing business in the US prefers to use the term 're-melter'. It's great to take pride in any accomplishments that you do, but my feeling is that there's a layer of arrogance to go along with it.Just my personal feelings. I recognize that it's Tcho's marketing strategy to separate themselves as a chocolate maker over the vast majority of chocolatiers.

I have to agree completely with this. "Re-melter" certainly doesnt suggest the skill or craft on the part of the chocolatier. Using that sort of terminology when describing your competition is derogatory. While it is important to point out what you do differently to make your product unique, I usually find that doing that by speaking negatively of your competition really makes you look bad.Lastly, Im not convinced that anything coming out of a universal should be considered artisan or craft. If a company hires out the roasting (did I misunderstand this part?), and the nib grinding, then throws that into a universal??? If thats your model fine, but you shouldnt then run down the competition by calling them "re-melters".

Also, it doesn't hurt to consider how consumers will take your caricaturing of the competition. I have a choc fridge brimming with Patrick Roger, Amedei, Regis, my husband's Domori and endless amounts "experimental" (read never tried) bars. And I like it all: bars, bon bons, confections, whatever as long as its dark. As an educated (read obsessive) high volume consumer, if I heard or read that re-melter nonsense, not only would I not purchase, I might dissuade friends from doing so as not to reinforce such marketing behavior. As consumers, the pocketbook is one of the only weapons you have.In non-profit work we have a saying: saving the world doesn't entitle you to be an jerk to everyone around you. Although my friends and I just call it the f**king tacky factor, because when you see it you say, "Well, that's just f**king tacky."

It was certainly never our intention at TCHO to cause anyone offense, especially since, with the imminent introduction of our TCHOPro line of technical chocolates, people who buy couverture are also our customers. Our point was simply to differentiate ourselves by pointing out that we are so utterly obsessed by chocolate that we made the fundamental (and perhaps fundamentally insane) decision to integrate backwards to source, and then control every step of the process to making finished chocolate -- bean to bar.Obviously, that there are but a handful of companies in America that do what we do doesn't make us better or worse than most of the other good people who work with chocolate, just different. Apple makes computers; Intel makes their chips. Both companies understand the value they contribute to computing. If Intel was describing themselves, they would rightly say they don't use chips, they make chips. And if Apple was describing itself, it would rightly say it doesn't make chips, it uses them to make great computers. Is one "better" than the other?On "arrogance" -- again, please don't confuse our pride in what we've accomplished with any sense of "superiority." We are a small, young company, and we have spent the past three years engaged in the very difficult endeavor of building a business with a supply chain that spans the developing world, a pier full mammoth machinery, and the daunting task of creating from scratch original formulations for extremely demanding consumers. We are a little start up competing in a very brutal arena with some of the biggest, most established transnationals in the world, and we realize every day that our success is anything but assured -- the last thing we feel is arrogant. On the contrary, I feel incredibly humble and insecure in the face of our manifold challenges.To Hallot: we roast on location while we finish our own roasting facility here in SF. That means we buy the beans directly from producers, take possession of them, develop roasting profiles in our lab for that particular batch of beans, contract for transport to a roasting facility -- three of the four we use were designed and built by our co-founder Karl Bittong -- and then either Karl or Timothy or both are physically on location. for however long it takes, to direct the roast using the roasting profiles we created. We don't think of this as "buying" liquor, as if we were selecting some finished product off the shelf from a producer. Actually, we think of this as manufacturing liquor under very trying circumstances -- out there in the world, rather than in our nice, safe factory. Believe me, we wish our facility was finished here in San Francisco, if for no other reason than it would vastly simplify the logistical, travel, and manufacturing obstacles.But this raises an interesting, larger question. Where should we draw the line over what constitutes bean-to-bar? Say thirty percent of dark chocolate is sugar, and sugar directly contributes not just to the sweetness but the flavor of the bar. Does anyone believe that a bean-to-bar manufacturer isn't because they buy refined sugar, instead of refining it themselves? Is Scharffen Berger not a bean-to-bar manufacturer because they contract out the manufacture of their milk chocolates? What if you contract molding and wrapping? Virtually nobody ferments, so is anyone really a "bean-to-bar" manufacture? What about growing -- if you were making wine, growing your own grapes would be another measure of the care and control you take in making your product. By that measure, there would be very few "bean-to-bar" manufacturers, indeed.

Dear Louis,Thank you for taking the time to explain all of this in detail. I appreciate it. It certainly clarifies the situation.Very best,Alan

Sorry. No amount of explanation is going to transform an ugly word to something else.

Robert --Actually, I don't think that they are straw man arguments.I've been giving this topic a whole lot of thought in the last couple of weeks as I've talked with other chocolate makers and chocolatiers and what we're beginning to finally discuss are some important differences in our attitudes about chocolate and other gourmet foods and beverages.I think that a lot of the confusion stems from how new chocolate as a "serious" gourmet food is. We're still working on developing the vocabulary - and the target is moving while we're doing it. The world is a lot more complex than our current language to describe it. We can either ignore the changes and force the world to fit the existing pigeonholes or we can work on finding better ways to talk about what the changed reality is. 10 years ago bean-to-bar was adequate. Today it no longer is.I certainly feel the need to revisit some of the "accepted" definitions and rewrite them because they are clearly not working any more.:: Clay


--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
clay - http://www.thechocolatelife.com/clay/

I get your point, and with regards to your production - if Tcho was going to use that model permanently, then I would say that it would be stretching it to use "bean to bar" as a marketing tool. However, since it is only a stop gap measure, then it makes sense. In any case I wish you guys only the best.Your post does, however, bring up another issue that begs definition. You call Tcho a small young company. Young certainly, but any of us who have had to bootstrap our chocolate business would probably take exception to selling yourself as small. How many of the chocolatemakers here could afford to have a "pier full mammoth machinery" or that great San Francisco location? The photos on your site of all the people brainstorming your products... Those are luxuries that most of us cant afford. You guys are well funded and will be able to buy into a market that the rest of us struggle to get into.I recently mortgaged all of my business and personal assets so that I could afford to convert completely to bean to bar. If my business fails the result is personal bankruptcy. Most of the makers here have their lives invested in the business. Im sure that by Wired Magazine standards, you consider yourself small, but lets be real here.

Hi Everybody,Brad Churchill here from Choklat ( www.SoChoklat.com ).I've spent the last little while reading the various exchanges with regard to the topic of "re-melters", and would like to add my own 2 cents for what it's worth.4 years ago I began researching how to make my own chocolate, because as a consumer I learned that all of the chocolatiers I purchased from locally here in Calgary, bought bulk chocolate, melted it down, wrapped their name around it and called it "their chocolate". Personally, I felt lied to, and vowed never to purchase another chocolatier's confections again.At some point my recreation, transformed into business analysis, and in August of last year I opened "Choklat" - the first company in Western Canada that makes chocolate from bean to bar.Here in Calgary, the prolific chocolatier/measuring stick is Chocolaterie Bernard Callebaut - grandson of the founder of the Belgian Callebaut Chocolate factory. EVERY DAY for the first 6 months we were open I was asked what made our chocolate better than that which Bernard Callebaut makes. EVERY DAY for the first 6 months I had to explain that Chocolaterie Bernard Callebaut DOES NOT make chocolate. Some people were offended that I would speak such blasphemy about a local icon - at least until I produced the letter his lawyer sent us, threatening court action against me because I was "making him look bad." Yet, as a business person, I was simply differentiating my product from his, and telling the truth!I publicly stated that Mr. Callebaut bought his chocolate from one of the largest factories in the world. His lawyer wrote that he actually purchased his chocolate from THREE sources. It was all I needed!For over 20 years, he has led almost all Calgarians to believe he made the chocolate he used in his confections.I didn't back down. In fact after I sent him a PFO letter, I continued "educating" the public, and as a result have been receiving many accolades of my honesty and refreshing approach to the industry. People LIKE the truth, and the fact that I've had over 2.5 million hits to my website, and business is growing exponentially is testament to that statement.As far as I'm concerned, if you are a chocolatier and use someone else's couverture to make your product, that's fine. Be proud of it, and let people know you're proud to use a specific maker's chocolate.However, if you tell people you make chocolate, and there's no roasters, winnowers, or refiners which you have control over in your process, you better be prepared to be called a liar, and I'll be the first to stand up and point the finger.As a true "maker" and chocolatier, I can understand another maker's frustration in trying to differentiate their product from the rest of the marketplace. It's tough. Public perception has been skewed for many years.In the end though, what really matters is how the product tastes to your customer. If they like it better than the next chocolatier's they'll buy it regardless of whether or not you make it from the bean. By controlling 100% of the process, the maker has an edge in being able to make a better quality chocolate than that which every other chocolatier is only able to purchase.That's my two bits for what it's worth.

I do not think that most chocolatiers ("re melters"??) just melt and re label their chocolates. I need not repeat what I have previously written. which is along the same line as what others have written on this thread. I also do not think that most of us lied. Some do happen to mention the chocolate they use, some do not, but not in order to trick their customers. Some use a few different kinds, some blend to get a certain profile, some don't.Just like a chef doesn't tell his customers that he raised certain cattle and bred them and fed them this and that. He buys his meats or products and then creates recipes.If it weren't for us bean to bar would not fair so well.I can certainly appreciate the amount of learning, effort and thought that went into your baby, and nobody should think otherwise. But, those chocolatiers that you bought chocolate from did not just melt and wrap their name aroundtheir goods and so trick you. Each field deserves its due.I think it is obvious that chocolatiers do more than just melt. I think most do not trick or lie.
updated by @ilana: 09/11/15 10:52:06AM

I respectfully disagree about your point about it being obvious that most chocolatiers do more than just melt. Take for example the following:On Chocolaterie Bernard Callebaut's own website you will find the following quote: "...When Bernard is making chocolate, he's in the zone..."How does it get any more blatant than that?Given his family history and background in the confection of all people he should know better than that!Or maybe you can visit www.KerstinsChocolates.com - a well known chocolatier in Edmonton Alberta, and read her first press release where it states that she imports some of the finest single estate varieties of beans from Venezuela, OR... you can even watch a video of how she "makes" chocolate right on her website!!! That's a doosey! Right on local television she proudly pronounces "This is how you make chocolate." while pouring callets into a double boiler!!!Having done 4 years of in depth research into this industry, I can cite example after example of misuse of the phrase "making chocolate" which ALL contributes to the general public being misled.Maybe because you and others on this forum have more knowledge of the industry you (and some of us on this forum) are aware that most chocolatiers don't make their own chocolate. However, if you begin asking around (and I've asked THOUSANDS of people), the general public isn't quite so savy.Having said that, I want to clarify that in no way do I wish to discredit those chocolatiers who make beautiful creations with someone else's couverture while at the same time using phrases such as "the chocolate we use in our confections...." and so forth. There are some. Ganong here in Canada is one of them, and kudos to them for not being misleading.

Perhaps the issue is that of the phrase "making chocolate"- perhaps by connotation it refers to making chocolate confections. In other languages you find the same thing- chocolates can refer to those beautiful creations. When somebody asks me what I do, being a rather new chocolatier I feel sometimes hesitant about using "chocolatier" so I say "I make chocolates". I in no way mean to disinform anyone. (When can on say with full confidence that she is a chocolatier?!) I mean chocolates as in sweets from chocolate. Anyway, most people here have no clue either way and don't even know that the cacao bean is what it is...

I agree 100% with what you just wrote. In North America, we refer to a chocolatier's creations as "chocolates", whereas in other areas of the world, they are referred to as pralines, bon bons, and confections in order to mitigate confusion.In Europe, a chocolatier is defined as a person who makes confections using chocolate. Chocolate makers are defined just as that - a chocolate maker, and most often don't have the title as chocolatier. There are of course exceptions to the rule, such as with Pierre Marcolini, who is not only a chocolatier, but also a chocolate maker.When I first opened my shop, I too was a bit uncomfortable referring to myself as a "chocolatier". I was even uncomfortable wearing a chef jacket. However over time I realized that because I owned a chocolate business, and worked with the product every day, I could be called a chocolatier. I also came to terms with the fact that just as in any industry/trade there are many different levels of skill. All should be recognized with the same respect, as it takes a lot of practice to make the beautiful works of art we've all seen in a chocolate shop at one time or another.In my case, I don't aspire to be that creative. My focus is on quality of taste, and educating the consumer - which is why I'm so opposed to people who pass off chocolate as "theirs" when they sell it to the customer. The confections are, but the chocolate certainly is not, and people shouldn't be led down the wrong road.It sounds as though we're of the same mindset. I just may be a bit more crass in my response.Best Regards, and happy chocolatiering!Brad Churchill www.SoChoklat.com

Exactly!! I wouldlove to be able to "make" chocolate as you do! I need to be younger for all these dreams! I do love creating though and I get very upset when I am not at the level I "see" in my mind! I feel very muchthe same about the jacket, and mostly wear an apron! BTW on my site I do say which chocolate I use and most people say "But Belgium is the best, we want Belgium!" Where do I begin? I pay 3 times more for my "raw" material!!!Perhaps one day I will be in Canada and will come to buy your chocolate! All I have had is Callebaut, Valrhona and holycacao's (which is very nice). I did order 5 kilo of claudio corallo out of curiosity. But no one here was interested.Thanks for the interesting discussion! I hope I didn't sound too ruffled (as in my feathers)!!

Interestingly Jacques Genin, the latest chocolate sensation in Paris, describes himself as part of his main logo branding as "foundeur en chocolat".May be we just need better words in English than "remelters" and "bean to bar".For our part we produce at the moment from liquor (although we have plan to go back to beans but not enough money yet) so we are not purely remelters and not beans to bars as we are "liquor to chocs". Very confusing for customers.I am not English speaker but may be this community is the best place to develop new names...Any suggestion?

In my opinion, I don't know that there needs to be a more defined nomenclature with regard to "making" chocolate. Where I think much of the public confusion relates directly to chocolatiers and confectioners here in North America referring to their confections as "chocolates".There is actually legislature in both Canada and the US, which defines what can and can't be called "chocolate". That legislature defines the percentages of cocoa butter and cocoa solids that a confection must have in order to be properly called a chocolate.Having said that, I would hazard a pretty good guess that the confections that chocolatiers sell as "chocolates" don't contain enough cocoa butter and cocoa solids to appropriately be called "chocolates". They have cream, sugar, flavourings, toppings, etc. and should rightly be called confections, or bon bons at that point.In our shop, I don't call our truffles "chocolates", nor do I call our other confections "chocolates". They don't fit the definition. They are confections that use the chocolate we make....and in reply to the previous post of Artisan not being a remelter; what if you made a 100% chocolate bar? It's entirely possible for you to do that with the liquor that you buy. If you did so and put your name on the bar, what difference would that be from the "re-melters"? After all, liquor is technically 100% chocolate at that point.I'm not writing this to be antagonistic, so please don't take it that way. I'm just posting this as a rhetorical question.Anyone else's thoughts on this?Brad.

How about 70% truffles/pralines etc? 70% what?! Cocoa solids, no way, maybe 70% fat that's almost believable but not marketable, so I think by labeling confections with percentages they obviously are reffering to an ingredient used in the "creation"/recreation of said confection.Marketers can kill language by using references out of context. (example "less fat"...than what?)What bothers me about this thread is that when I read it, I feel myself completely agreeing with Brad on many points. I don't like having to sell my product and explain that while it's true that there might be better tasting chocolate in Israel, we're the only ones who actually "make our chocolate" by cleaning beans and roasting, and finish by cutting packages and hand wrapping. It's hard to educate people in a completely un condescending/loving way. That's what I was hoping for in this thread. Everyone agreeing to drop the word "remelter", adopt fondeur, its french, marketable, and not to be confused with melanguer, which they don't use, unless they're actually french and are referring to another type of mixer.I think the real culprit in this thread was the word "makes" as in "i make chocolates". That's a lot harder of a definition to pin down. I don't know if the word "makes" means that you start from chocolate couverture and mold it into a bar, since they "form" the bar with couverture. That may constitute "making chocolate". But the word "makes" can also mean made from liquor, or beans, or starting from the tree.. or , maybe it is altogether impossible to "make" anything. Who made the system in which all of these components are processed in these ways and the result would taste like chocolate?-An obvious proof of G-d's existence, and possibly one of His best creations!

LOL Yup. You're right Lana!But Bon Bon sounds pretty good - almost like a Ricky Martin Song - "Shake Your Bon Bon! Shake Your Bon Bon!"LOL

This whole discussion has been very helpful for me because it points out how the language we use affects our perceptions. Re-melter has a negative connotation to it that fondeur seems not to, perhaps because of the "re-" prefix. It's also clear that the phrase bean-to-bar no longer (if it ever really did) adequately describe the complexities of the process. Praline (with/without the accent) is one of the most overloaded words in chocolate/confectionery, and here in the US the confusion caused by a final "s" or lack thereof is, well, unnecessarily confusing.To start the attempt to formally clarify the situation, here's my take on the matter.ROLESChocolatier = Confectioner = Candy MakerFor the purposes of this discussion, these three labels are nearly semantically equivalent. No matter what label they use, these people/companies purchase ingredients from other companies to make finished goods. Depending on where you live, these finished goods might be called pralines, bon bons, truffles, and/or chocolates.Chocolate ManufacturerA chocolate manufacturer is a person or company that makes FINISHED chocolate - that is chocolate that can be eaten as-is or used as an ingredient by a Chocolatier/Confectioner/Candy Maker - from beans or intermediate products (combining butter/powder, or from from nibs or liquor).Cocoa ProcessorA cocoa processor is a person or company that makes cocoa products from fermented, dried cocoa beans: cocoa butter, cocoa powder, cocoa nibs, cocoa mass/chocolate liquor. These cocoa products are often used as ingredients in chocolate products by chocolate manufacturers.Owner/GrowerA grower is a person or company that makes dried, fermented cocoa beans for use by a cocoa processor or chocolate manufacturer.Note that we haven't applied any labels here that have to do with scale or other attributes. It's also important to note that a person or company can fulfill more than one role.Scale AttributesMicro-batch - 50kg or lessSmall-batch - 50kg - 250kgMedium-batch - 250kg - 1 tonneLarge-batch - 1 tonne - 5 tonnesIndustrial-scale - manufactures using automated continuous processing techniquesThese scale attributes can be applied to any role. A person or company can be a micro-batch chocolatier or an industrial-scale candy maker.Intent and Process AttributesCraft/Artisan - Craft or artisan (they are semantically equivalent in this context) refers to a person or company that emphasizes hand production techniques and direct involvement by people in all aspects of the manufacturing process on equipment that they own and operate.From-the-tree: from wet beans to finished productFrom-the-bean: from dry beans to finished productFrom- nibs/liquor: from liquor to finished productFrom-chocolate: from finished chocolate to finished productThese intent and process attributes can be applied to any role but cannot be applied to industrial-scale manufacturing. A person or company can be an artisan chocolatier or a craft chocolate manufacturer. Note however that it is possible for a company to have product lines that cross scale boundaries. Please also note that the craft/artisan designation does not mean that the person/company assumes/asserts control over all processing for all ingredients. Thus, a craft chocolate manufacturer purchases key ingredients such as sugar, vanilla, and perhaps even cocoa butter from ingredient and raw materials suppliers.So now we have this matrix. How does it apply in some real world cases?Original Hawaiian Chocolate Factory - Original Hawaiian is an owner/grower, from-the-tree, medium-batch, craft chocolate manufacturer. They own their own trees, ferment and harvest their own beans (though they may also purchase wet beans from other farmers in the area and ferment and dry those), they manufacture finished chocolate and produce bars using equipment located in their own factory that get sold to consumers.Garden Island Chocolate (ChocolateLife member Koa Kahili) - Garden Island Chocolate is an owner/grower, from-the-tree, mico-batch, craft chocolate manufacturer. They own their own trees, ferment and harvest their own beans, they manufacture finished chocolate and produce bars using equipment located in their own workshop that get sold to consumers.Amano Chocolate (ChocolateLife member Art Pollard) - Amano is a from-the-bean, small-to-medium-batch, craft chocolate manufacturer. They manufacture finished chocolate and produce bars (and nibs) using equipment located in their own factory that get sold directly to consumers.Guittard - Guittard is a from-the-bean large-batch craft chocolate manufacturer (the E Guittard line), a from the bean industrial-scale manufacturer (chocolate and compound coating), and a cocoa processor.Felchlin - Felchlin is a from-the-bean small-batch craft chocolate manufacturer (their Grand Cru line is finished in 160kg conches), and a from-the-bean large-batch craft manufacturer. They also produce non-chocolate ingredients and raw materials for use by chocolatiers and pastry chefs.Cluizel - Cluizel is a from-the-bean large batch chocolate manufacturer as well as a chocolatier. They also produce non-chocolate ingredients and raw materials for use by chocolatiers and pastry chefs.TCHO (ChocolateLife member Louis Rossetto) - TCHO is a from the bean large-batch chocolate manufacturer. They purchase beans directly from growers, they personally oversee roasting and grinding according to custom protocols in facilities around the world (thereby adding value in the country of origin which is important to consider), and produce finished chocolate sold directly to consumers in their facility in San Francisco. Because they do not not perform all major aspects of production on equipment they own, the craft/artisan designation does not apply.Artisan du Chocolat (ChocolateLife member Artisan) - Artisan is first and foremost a from chocolate chocolatier/confectioner. They buy ingredients, including chocolate from suppliers and combine them to form finished products sold directly to customers. They are also a from liquor micro-batch chocolate manufacturer making some of the chocolate used in some of their finished products.


--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
clay - http://www.thechocolatelife.com/clay/

I think, Brad, that the terms we use speak to the level of commitment and personal knowledge of the industry.As discussed in our personal conversation, I would never claim to make chocolate. Because it would be like saying I could do your triple by-pass on Sunday afternoon. But of course, people always say...'she makes chocolate' or 'wow you make chocolate?'. I always clarify, but some might consider it a competitive advantage.Misrepresentation in marketing is not new. Especially in the food industry. Seen a White Spot ad lately, Tuscany? Really? or Kentucky Fried Chicken... not from Kentucky... possibly not chicken. Insofar as chocolatier-ing I think one's personality would dictate whether this misrepresentation or misleading would be appropriate. I find the attention scary, but some people thrive on it and I can see why they would run with the ball - though Im not condoning it.I applaud your efforts in educating the public, and I think it's important for us all to continue in this vein... Whether or not chocolate will go the way of wine is unknown, but education is certainly the key. People are more interested than ever in where their food is coming from. Some are more interested in the processes by which it is harvested and transported. There seems to be a market for all of it, and once tapped in to that market, you've taken care of yourself and your customers.

Fair point on 100% bars (which we do) but in any case we still conche and refined the liquor as it's very coarse in the form we buy it and conching helps make it more edible too.Speaking for the UK, most people called bonbon, chocolates and not confections.

I would imagine that you would conche it further in order to crush the sugar crystals too. I've tasted various forms of liquor and find it very coarse as well.Clay's clarification up above was excellent. Now the uphill battle of teaching the consumer, many chocolatiers, and their employees. Sigh......;-)Brad

There's no conflict here - milk and sugar are ingredients that chocolate manufacturers purchase to make finished chocolate, whether they start from wet beans (seeds), dry beans, nibs, or liquor. Sugar and milk are added during what is usually called the refining step, irrespective of type of refiner used (e.g., roll refiner or integrated refiner/conche).The entire purpose of conching is to make the chocolate edible on two fronts: physical (texture) and taste (removing unwanted flavors, developing desirable flavors).AW: In the UK, most people use the word bonbons or chocolates, not confections? No worries, for the purposes of this context they are equivalent terms.BC: You think these are hard, try moving people off of "single origin" which is meaningless when the "single" origin is an entire country. I prefer to use "named origin" (or just "origin") where the origin that is being named can be huge (a blend of beans from an entire country) all the way down to a single plantation.


--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
clay - http://www.thechocolatelife.com/clay/

Clay;I'm not even going to go there. For 25 years here in Calgary the predominant chocolatier has been Bernard Callebaut (grandson of the founder of the Callebaut factory in Belgium).The average consumer here in Calgary is still reeling from the bomb I've dropped by publicly stating that Mr. Callebaut does NOT make the chocolate he uses in his confections!Just the fact that I have bars made with the same recipe but from different cocoa beans has been enough of an uphill battle here in Calgary. To try and differentiate region and plantation would send our customers into a full out tailspin - at least for now.To give you and the general public an idea of what I'm up against, I've uploaded an advertisement that he put in a local, very popular food magazine here in Calgary. This is the kind of misconception that I LOVE to preach about, and while it doesn't say specifically that he makes chocolate..... well.... I'd be interested in your opinion given the fact that he buys bulk chocolate and has absolutely no control over the beans or cacau used in it.Happy Viewing All!

Hi Brad,That does seem pretty blatantly misleading. We have had a couple of companies down here try similar marketing, but so far, they have been called out on it, and they have also been much younger companies, which makes it easier to do so.I can see how an established larger company marketing in that way can be very troublesome for you.Best,AlanP.S. Just out of interest, why do you spell cacao with a "u"? To the best of my knowledge, "cacau" is Portuguese and not English.

Sam:This is a very strong example of how stepping back from the process to re-examine it can reveal meaningful differentiators. Forget the notion of "bean-to-bar" (I notice that you used) but, "We make chocolate from cocoa beans we roast ourselves" is an easy to comprehend concept and the analogy to coffee is good, though imperfect, as we know. However, most consumers can probably tell that there is a difference between roasting coffee beans, grinding them, and making coffee than buying roasted (and perhaps already ground) beans from someone else and making coffee with that.This works for you and for many others. Artisan in London works from cocoa liquor which means someone else roasts and grinds the beans so this distinction doesn't work for them.:: Clay


--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
clay - http://www.thechocolatelife.com/clay/

Brad:Bernard C has chocolate made to his specs by the Barry-Callebaut company. I would be interested in knowing whether the chocolate is made in Belgium or in St Hyacinth which is where B-C has a manufacturing plant in Canada (they also have one in St Albans, Vermont).However, it may be true that Bernard C DOES get involved in selecting the beans for the chocolate he has made. However, the language is ambiguous and leading.I don't know how much it's worth fighting this but figuring out a meaningful point of differentiation that the consumer can quickly and easily comprehend that does not directly compare you with this icon. Not easy I know, but more valuable to you in the short run than fighting the misconception.


--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
clay - http://www.thechocolatelife.com/clay/

Hi Clay;To the best of my knowledge Bernard C doesn't have control over the beans used. A couple of his staff were in my shop the other day buying some bars, and were complaining about the latest shipment of chocolate and the smoky flavour it has. They were also mentioning that there was talk in the company of finding another supplier due to the inconsistency they have been receiving in the last while.I am also aware that in the past he's purchased chocolate from Qzina when his main supplier has run low. Apparently a couple of the varieties of chocolate Qzina offers for sale are very similar to what BC uses.At the end of the year I will in fact switch my strategy, and begin explaining WHY making one's own chocolate is better than buying a bulk product, regardless of whether or not the purchaser has control over the cocoa/cocoa butter content.In fact, even to that extent, I don't believe he has control over the type of cocoa butter used either. There are many different qualities of cocoa butter on the market, and even differing qualities from a single company! I know of 3 types alone from Cargill - my current supplier - and each smells different and imparts a different flavour in the chocolate when used. I HAVE to specify the exact type when I place my order.With regard to "fighting the icon", it's a strategy that has required effort and careful use of terms and phrases in order to not step over the slander/libel line, but is making a big difference in the cash register. It appears that people like to learn, like to think of themselves as ethical and moral purchasers, and for the most part like how open and honest we are about the industry. In fact that curiosity can be directly translated into the 2.5 million hits to my website in just the last 9 months.

Alan;I use cacau as the plural term in reference to "a ton of cacau" as opposed to "a ton of cocoa".For some reason I have it stuck in my head that when I hear cocoa by itself, I think of cocoa powder. I guess I believe that if I think that way, I'm sure others may possibly as well.As a result I use "cocoa bean" as singular, and "cacau" as a plural reference.One of my quirks, I guess.Best RegardsBrad.
updated by @brad-churchill: 01/26/15 04:56:54AM

Lana;Thanks for asking the questions.In answer to your first question, it isn't misleading at all. In fact it furthers my point about the incestuous nature of the chocolate industry. Hersheys is supposed to be a chocolate maker, yet they are purchasing bulk chocolate from someone else... What's up??? In fact without looking at the recipe, who's to say it isn't the same?With regard to your second question, confection centers that do not have preservatives, or at least 75% sugar, or alcohol, will go bad regardless of whether or not they are enrobed. I've actually bitten into mouldy enrobed truffle centers. When you have a cream and butter mixture sitting at room temperature for 7 days, take a whif. You'll find that in many cases it's gone bad, IF your sugar content is less than 75% of the content. In our case we don't recommend that people refrigerate their confections OR their bars. Chocolate is notorious for absorbing odors and moisture from its surroundings. It won't take more than a day or two for a real nice truffle to smell like left over roast beef, or that plate of garlic fettucini you thought was covered. In fact even Bernard C himself says that his confections should be consumed within 14 days of purchase. Again, the sugar content is the magic key, and that number is standard in commercial food preparation.
updated by @brad-churchill: 09/09/15 09:08:55PM

Actually Its mostly about the water activity of the center. Unbound water will definitely cause troubles at the 2 week range, but confections can certainly have a much longer shelf life than that. Although its not my thing, many famous chocolatiers use corn syrup in a ganache which lowers the water activity dramatically and extends the shelf life without the use of preservatives. The Joseph Shmidt confections that Whole Foods used to sell had a 2 month shelf life with no preservatives. No Idea how they accomplished that. Knipshildt also has a very long shelf life without preservatives.The easy way is to say "eat it within a week" so that you are covered. However, when you learn the science behind the food you learn that there are proper techniques to creating high quality confections in a way that protects against mold growth.

One of my sources is a book by Minifie called Chocolate, Cocoa and Confectionary - considered by many in the confectionary industry as the standard reference "bible". I also have others.This discussion is going sideways. Until you can tell me definitively that the total sugar content of a BUTTERCREAM truffle center I refer to in my internet material is less than 75% and still has a shelf life of longer than 14 days, I stand by what I say.You seemed to miss the part where I write about reducing the dairy content. I've pasted the text here for your reference:"Chocolatiers can get away with extending the shelf life of their product by lowering the dairy content, increasing the amount of sugar in the product, adding alcohol, in the center, and even using preservatives."At no point do I say they all must use preservatives, and once again, I reiterate that I refer to BUTTERCREAM and not ganache. Ganache does not contain butter, and has MUCH less milk fat to go rancid. In fact, a ganache can easily be made with skim milk and no cream at all, thereby extending the room temperature shelf life.Further to that you mention that an enrobed ganache "SHOULD" last 3 weeks. The term "should" is synonymous with "hypothetically". So... Sure. Maybe under the ideal conditions. However, can you guarantee that every customer is going to keep their confections in ideal conditions?? Why risk it? Why even tell your customer that??The first person who eats a bad chocolate, gets sick, and complains to the media and/or health department because they were told it "should" last that long will play a big part in finishing your business off. It's not worth the risk.My educated 2 cents for what it's worth.

Not to beat a dead horse.. But I was just selecting my booth for the upcoming NY food show and noticed the description that Tcho used. Note that this is directly from Tcho, and not some employee who was overly proud as was suggested:TCHO is serious about chocolate. "We arent just re-melters" (like the majority of people who work with chocolate), we are manufacturers, with our very own factory capable of producing 4000 metric tons per yearThat suggests that re-melter is the party line at Tcho - and 4000 metric tons certainly doesnt hold with their self description as small.Just saying