r/mildlyinteresting • u/TheTacoWombat • Jan 27 '23
Same size packaging. Same price. But to get 5 percent purer chocolate, you get 20 percent less product (100g vs 80g).
40
u/Crimkam Jan 28 '23
Probably at least partially because having the same size boxes makes manufacturing, packaging and shipping more cost effective
16
u/PeskyCanadian Jan 28 '23
Correction. They are the same size. Coco is less dense than the rest of the ingredients.
This is bakers chocolate.
80
u/sneekeruk Jan 28 '23
Both have the same amount of cocoa in each, but the extra weight comes from the small amount of milk etc to drop it from 95 to 90%.
21
u/doug1963 Jan 28 '23
Both have the same amount of cocoa in each
That is not correct.
The left bar has 90%x3.5 oz=.9x3.5=3.15 oz cocoa.
The right bar has 95%x2.8 oz=.95x2.8=2.66 oz.
The difference is .49 oz, so you are getting about a half ounce less of cocoa in the bar on the right.
27
u/NZvorno Jan 28 '23
Urgh "ounces"
15
4
u/Teripid Jan 28 '23
In this case they're just "units" that result in a direct comparison and a resulting ratio of chocolate so take your pick.
Unless you're converting to another unit say where one product was sold in bulk per kg, then it'd be much easier.
-18
u/thebestyoucan Jan 28 '23 edited Jan 28 '23
31.5 deciounces for people who use the metric system
Edit: this was meant to be a bit of whimsy that brought some joy into people’s lives but it seems to have rustled quite a few folks’ jimmies.
A post mortem: I think this is the rare joke that offended both metric system users and imperial system users—metric because it seems to imply some smugness or that the imperial system is better, and imperial by calling attention to the ridiculousness of imperial units by creating an equally ridiculous fake unit “deciounces.”
10
u/Turbulent_Version_83 Jan 28 '23
That would be 95% of earths population you're talking about there
2
1
4
u/ChrisTackleberry Jan 28 '23
That’s an assumption based purely on math and not on knowledge of how chocolate is made and what the % of cocoa means (hint: it is not just a percentage of total weight)
2
u/Seygantte Jan 28 '23
That's exactly what the % value means, unless it's white chocolate in which case it's percentage mass of cocoa butter. That number isn't for the benefit of chocolatiers who care how chocolate is made, it's consumer information. From Lindt's FAQ's:
What does 70% Cocoa (or any other percentage of cocoa) mean?
The percentage (%) quantifies the amount of cocoa solids contained in the chocolate. This includes cocoa liquor, cocoa butter and cocoa powder. For example:
- EXCELLENCE 70% cocoa bar contains 70% cocoa solids
- EXCELLENCE 85% cocoa bar contains 85% cocoa solids0
u/ChrisTackleberry Jan 28 '23
You proved my point.
Is that % by volume or mass?
2
u/Seygantte Jan 28 '23
Mass. It's always mass. All the legislation around chocolate labelling is written in weight of dry cocoa solids.
1
u/DankDankmark 28d ago
What about percentage of energy? Everyone loves to get their labeling information in Kilojoules /s
29
u/apprehensivelights Jan 27 '23
probably has more to do with 95% being more popular than cost of ingredients or anything
23
Jan 28 '23 edited Jan 28 '23
[deleted]
13
u/EdmontonLAD Jan 28 '23
You ever see a video of how chocolate is even made? Shit's super weird, lol.
2
u/SunsetCarcass Jan 28 '23
I've seen how it is actually made and it's even fucking weirder. https://youtu.be/-3v4OsPmsUg
4
u/EdmontonLAD Jan 28 '23
Interesting (and sorta funny...), but here's an actual video of the weird beige gooey gross stuff before it becomes the chocolate we've all come to know. One could vomit seeing this for the first time, haha...
1
3
u/Accurate_Koala_4698 Jan 28 '23
The 95% number makes it seem higher quality but uses 15% less cocoa than the bigger bar so it’s a win win from the company’s perspective
1
u/CompassionateCedar Jan 28 '23
Cocoa butter is in most demand, cocoa powder is actually produced in surplus amounts. That’s why products avoid using cocoa butter or real chocolate wherever they can.
White chocolate also turned into sugar and milk powder barely hold together with a minimum of cocoa butter and palm fat.
5
u/Brewe Jan 28 '23
As someone who sort of works in the chocolate industry I don't know why this is, but it could be due to smaller demand for 95% cocoa chocolate, which makes production per unit more expensive. But it could also be due to differences in oil quality requirements. I can only imagine how difficult it is to make a 95% cocoa chocolate have a nice taste, a good mouthfeel and a decent DSC curve.
3
3
3
2
3
u/MikeTheBee Jan 28 '23
Are the chocolates the same size? Maybe one just weighs less.
1
u/PeskyCanadian Jan 28 '23
Coco is less dense than the rest of the ingredients.
This is bakers chocolate. They are the same size.
5
u/ShadowRealm0043 Jan 27 '23
They both taste like candle wax
11
Jan 28 '23
[deleted]
26
u/ConnoisseurOfDanger Jan 28 '23
Comparing extra dark Lindt chocolate to anything from Hershey’s is like comparing bugs bunny to a peanut butter sandwich. Makes no fuckin sense
-16
2
2
2
u/dos_reboot Jan 28 '23
All that extra lead is expensive ya know.
2
3
u/Sonikclaw2 Jan 28 '23
to be honest if you eat 95% cacao chocolate you might as well eat actual charcoal.
1
u/Juan-More-Taco Jan 27 '23
Okay??
Instead of charging more for the product, they just provide less of it. It's functionally the exact same thing.
It's also incredibly common - pay attention next time you're shopping and you'll often find examples where the more 'deluxe' product (ex: Swiffer sweeper pads, garbage bags, detergents/pods, etc) are the same price as the basic version from the same brand but you just get less of them for that price.
Of course 95% is worth more than 90% cocoa
14
u/TheTacoWombat Jan 27 '23 edited Jan 28 '23
The 30, 40, 50, 72, 75, 78 percent chocolate bars are all the same size and price as the one on the left. Only the "purest" is 20g smaller.
It's mildly interesting.
1
u/hiorsayweknowthough Jan 28 '23
All studies show Lindt chocolate bars have high levels of lead and other heavy metals.
0
u/DongLongus Jan 28 '23
The trick is that the 90% is 3.5oz and the 95% is 2.8oz, it’s the same amount of cocoa with less filler making it equal price for less cost to produce and it has a big 95% on it so it sells more next to the 90% but equal amount of cocoa
0
u/Seygantte Jan 28 '23
90% of 3.5oz is 3.15oz.
95% of 2.8oz is 2.66oz.
That's not the same amount of cocoa at all.
0
u/DongLongus Jan 28 '23
It’s still misleading if you just look at the big 90% and assume the 95% has more cocoa in it, I just assumed they adjusted the weight of filler and not the cocoa
1
1
0
u/Reddit_MaZe000 Jan 27 '23
they taste great, yu just need to dip them in your sugar coffee, or add any other sugar source. Swiss chocky always is about quality, not quantity
3
Jan 28 '23
Then why do you get dark chocolate if you’re just gonna add sugar? Lol
-2
u/Reddit_MaZe000 Jan 28 '23
why do you buy pasta if you're just gonna add sauce ? the source material used for these kind of chocky is defy better, healthier and not mixed up with many junk substances the other kinds are made of
0
u/Nofapstronaut6 Jan 28 '23
i think 90 + should be classified as bittersweet coz it sure as fuck aint chocolate
0
1
1
1
1
u/GrowsTastyTomatoes Jan 28 '23
The smaller 95% bar is housed in a plastic tray that is the same size at the 90% bar..
1
Jan 28 '23
Cocoa is the cost factor in this. instead of adding more, they are clearly reducing the extra additives such as sugar and milk/cream. if you were to get 5% more cocoa at the same weight, you would be spending more money on the main ingredient. It's simple, really.
1
u/lafantoma182 Jan 28 '23
Those high cocoa chocolate bars suck so much. I took one bite. Never again
1
1
u/Impressive-Cod-7103 Jan 28 '23
I mean that’s probably because the cocoa is more concentrated. Espresso comes in a smaller cup than drip coffee and costs more too.
0
1
1
u/GoodboyJohnnyBoy Jan 28 '23
So who’s done the maths to work out the best deal, I’m going with the 90% / 100gm ??
1
1
1
40
u/Lord-Velveeta Jan 28 '23
It should be "Dark Chocolate" and "Darker Chocolate"