Observations from the 2008 Academy of Chocolate Awards
This year’s Academy of Chocolate Awards were the largest to date and saw over 350 entries from more than 40 companies, with entries from companies based in Sweden, France, the US and Italy, as well as established and new chocolatiers from the UK. Judging of the Awards took place over five days in late January 2008, with six independent Academy members joined by over thirty external judges – a mix of food journalists, writers, chefs and chocolate connoisseurs. For the first time the panel was joined by international judges, from Sweden and the US. To ensure complete fairness, any Academy members whose companies had entered any of the fourteen categories were barred from entering the judging hall.
Following two intense days of sampling, the ‘grand jury’ of independent Academy members retired for another three days to double check the scores for consistency and any mistakes, and then finally deliberate on what level of mark deserved gold, silver or bronze in each category.
There’s no doubt the 2008 Awards were the best organised yet, however, as the number of entries again increased, there were many lessons learnt and given the likely rise in entries again next year, the judging system will most likely be enlarged and lengthened to cope with the huge amount of interest the Awards are beginning to attract.
One aspect ripe for improvement is the Academy’s ability to provide feedback to the entrants, whether they were winners or unsuccessful entrants. The current judging system is not yet geared up to giving feedback for individual entries, so this short write up about the Awards tries to layout what appealed to the judges, what were the subtle differences that could change a score from a bronze to a gold, and what separated the winners from the many worthy, yet unsuccessful entries.
Before proceeding it is worth making one final point. Entries were only accepted where the product entered lived up to the Academy of Chocolate’s definition of fine chocolate. This means no artificial flavouring or preservative, no vanillin or vegetable fat and over the recognised percentages for the chocolate used. So for the many products that didn’t win an Award, it’s still worth recognising that the companies who entered them have achieved something beyond the quality of many of the commercial products available on the wider market.
Technique
While flavour must be uppermost when appraising chocolate - after all chocolate is a food, if a luxury one - the way in which a product is made and the balance and interaction of its textures will have a huge impact on the delivery of that flavour to the tongue. This affects the level of enjoyment for the consumer as well as the perceived quality of a product.
What makes the best chocolate or filled bonbon or praline is of course a matter of opinion, but from the observed reactions of the judges we can draw some conclusions about what worked for the judges and what didn’t, and these may help any future entrant to improve their chances.
For filled chocolates, a common mistake seems to be a chocolate coating or shell that is too thick. This makes the chocolate more difficult to eat and the chocolate slower to melt in the mouth, unbalancing the delivery of flavour between the centre and the shell. The chocolates that did best tended to have a light shell that can easily be broken on biting. The quality of the tempering of the chocolate can also affect the overall quality of the bonbon, as well as the appearance.
If the aim of a filled chocolate is to deliver the chosen flavour to the eater’s tongue, it’s generally best for filling to be neither too hard nor too runny. Too hard and the chocolate won't be fun to eat and the flavour dull, too runny and you'll be left with a fast disappearing taste, a confusion in the mouth and sticky fingers! This was particularly noticeable for ganache fillings, where the texture should not be too grainy and the ganache neither too hard nor too soft. In other words; ‘just right’.
With so many samples to try, all the filled chocolates were cut into halves or quarters, while a single complete example was placed on each plate for overall reference and appearance. This gives a chance to examine a cross section of the inside of the chocolate, which was often very revealing. Technical points looked for included the thickness of the shell or coating, how well the filling adhered to the coating, and whether any air pockets or spaces were present. The centre of a well made chocolate or bonbon should stick seamlessly to its outer shell. Any air bubbles will present possibilities for bacteria to grow, thus shortening the shelf life of the chocolate and also having a negative affect on mouth-feel.
It’s also important that the shell or coating is completely sealed, keeping flavour in and moisture and bacteria out. One style of truffle making is to make a thick ganache into a ball and dust this in cocoa powder without and chocolate coating. This might be fine when made at home for immediate consumption, but when stored, truffles made in this way will tend to dry and lose flavour, and this is really not recommended for commercial products.
There was no separate marking section for technical aspects in the judging this year – technical notes were taken into consideration in other sections such as appearance and mouth-feel. It is likely though that future awards will take a more structured approach to technique, with guidelines for the judges on what to look for and a mark given specifically for technique.
Technical notes for bars
Most of the chocolate bars entered were from large manufacturers with equipment capable of producing well made products. There were still variations though, and the quality of finishing did influence the appearance mark. Examples would be whether the back of a bar was as well made as the front, or whether there was any sign of air bubbles or blooming. Any sign of streaking would be a negative and indicate a problem during tempering.
Creating chocolate from the bean is a long, complicated process and we won’t try to diagnose all the technical aspects of this art here. It is worth noting though that the texture of chocolate from some of the newer bean to bar makers was not quite as good as that from the more established manufacturers, which is not surprising as this is an aspect that can take years to perfect.
Many hand tempered and moulded bars were also entered, and these generally stood up well when compared with the bars from the larger manufacturers.
Presentation
There’s always been some debate within the Academy as to whether products should be easily identified during judging, or whether there should be some attempt to make the tastings ‘blind’. The problem, though, is that the appearance of a product does have an effect on its appeal and can be an important indicator of technical skill and overall quality.
In the case of bars, re-tempering and re-moulding in a standard mould make it less obvious which chocolate maker made the bar and negate any potential bias, but the danger is the structure and texture of the chocolate may change, and even the flavour notes may be subtly altered or dulled. Tempering is a significant part of the chocolate making process, and the final look and feel of the chocolate all important.
The reality is, when sampling a whole series of products side by side, differences of quality and flavour become very obvious, and any partiality or familiarity tends to go out the window. By judging in teams, each product can be discussed and compared to the other entrants in the category, allowing the process to become more objective. Batch variation in some of the bars entered help to demonstrate this, as even some of the most experienced judges were surprised when some chocolate didn’t so well while others surprisingly shined. In the end, the fact that a certain maker’s name could be seen on a piece of chocolate had little influence on the marks given.
Visual look is a much greater part of the appeal of filled chocolates. When a chocolate or bonbon both looks good and tastes great, the judges really have something to get excited about. There’s no doubt that it’s worth spending extra effort on making sure products look appealing and well made, and if possible to have that certain special visual ‘something’ – a dash of gold leaf in just the right place, a perfect, shiny mould, or a rustic look that’s enticing but not ‘cheap’.
Excellent visual presentation is no substitute for overall quality though, and there were several products that disappointed when the flavour didn’t live up to the look, such as a well moulded and decorated filled chocolate turning out to be far too sweet.
Quality of ingredients, choice of flavour
As is often the case with the best cooking, simpler recipes with quality ingredients tended to do best. Elaborate or fancy combinations fared less well, especially when the flavourings were not fresh or not from a good source. While it must be tempting to work with bottled flavours - whether 'natural' or synthetic - the results are unlikely to match those achieved by using the original foodstuff.
This is an area where chocolatiers tend to have there own secret tricks and recipes, but it’s not uncommon to spend days infusing a tea, to candy your own fruit or to spend time and effort sourcing the best ingredients, often from unlikely sources. The degree of care taken really does make a difference to the final result, and there’s no real shortcut or substitute for this. Use good flavouring ingredients, and a good chocolate product is likely to follow.
It’s also important to be aware of fashion and trends. Some flavours like chilli may still be new to some members of the public, but have actually been done to death by chocolatiers around the world. If you're entering a flavour that's been 'well used' you need to produce a really good example or add a new twist if you want to impress. It seems every chocolatier now has a salt caramel and a chilli or mint ganache in their repertoire, so entries like these are not going to win on novelty. Raspberry and framboise flavoured chocolates have recently become very popular, but are perhaps now going the same way.
It's good to innovate and experiment, but don't lose sight of the final result – novelty doesn't necessarily equal quality. A good approach might be to enter a mix of standards along with more adventurous flavours.
Another aspect to bear in mind is matching a particular chocolate to a given flavouring. Some chocolatier’s like to use one base chocolate for almost all their products, whereas others may use a whole range of blends and origin chocolate from one or more chocolate makers. This can give more chances for new and interesting flavour combinations, and some bean origins are probably under-used and worth of exploration. Consider the combinations carefully though, because a chocolate or bonbon made with an unusual chocolate won’t do better just because it uses that chocolate or mentions it in the name, the mark will still come down to the taste.
Over-sweetness in a filling, unless very well balanced, tends to work against a filled chocolate and is best avoided.
Chocolate is king
Since chocolatiers like Robert Linxe and Bernachon showed us the way by reviving the popularity of the ganache in France, chocolate has become one of the most important ingredients in a filling. Generally, fillings with more chocolate are marked more highly (after all, these are the chocolate awards), though there always are of course honourable exceptions, like salt caramels or nut pralines.
Preventing fillings from becoming overly sweet goes hand in hand with the use of good chocolate. In almost all cases, a good chocolate with good flavour notes won't need any extra sugar or other sweetening when making a ganache, even if the chocolate is a high percentage. Stick to a good couverture and your customers will soon come round to this.
The Academy understands that using good couverture means a jump in costs that can seem difficult to bear. This is made even harder by the endless chocolate brands out there using basic couverture but achieving a high margin through designer packaging and convincing marketing.
One of the aims of the Academy is to help consumers understand the difference between mass produced bulk chocolate and artisanal chocolate made with care by a bean to bar chocolate maker. The artisanal route is much more costly, but there can be a huge difference in flavour. As consumer knowledge grows, the Academy believes your customers will be more ready to pay a premium for freshly made, short shelf-life products made with care and without compromise. The chocolate world and consumer tastes are evolving, and if you want to be successful in the future it's important to move with times.
Getting good feedback
If you're starting out as a new chocolatier, it's great to have the support of family and friends and your first customers. There is a danger though that those close to you might not be the most objective of critics. This can be especially true if you've made the right choice to use a good couverture, so your chocolates already represent a step up from the level your tasters may be used too.
The perfect bonbon/praline/chocolate has probably not yet been invented, so try to be your own critic. It's best not to be defensive when others give their opinion, even if they are wrong! The judges found flaws even with some of the winning entries and the very best chocolatiers are always looking to improve and learn - there is always something new in chocolate.
Try to taste products from as wide a range of competitors as possible, especially those considered the best. You may not be able to match their standard - e.g. if your local market won't support top priced couverture - but there is always something to learn. Being a chocolatier is hard, time-consuming work, but operating in a bubble won't help you progress.
The Academy of Chocolate will always try to give you an informed and honest opinion, so don't be afraid to contact us and send in samples.
Most of all use your own sense of taste. It's your most important asset and sadly too often placed second in importance after marketing and design. The vast range of average products on the market - some of them from sincere companies - demonstrate that it's quite possible to convince yourself that an ordinary product is somehow 'the best'. As with any creative enterprise, being critical when you're very close to your own creations is not easy. Stepping back and making comparisons with your peers or competitors can seem difficult, but can be the best way to improve. And just to say it one more time, listen to what your taste buds are saying - is that bottled flavouring really as good as the real thing?
Preparing for the Awards
It obviously makes sense to present your best looking, most perfect products for the Awards – others will. Don't just take products from the shelf, make sure they are the best, in good condition and freshly made. Most importantly, try them – do they match up to your normal standards and expectations? In a perfect world the judges would be trying the same stock that an average, day to day, customer might receive, but it was noticeable from the many entries received which companies had really made an effort and which had not.
Finally, it will always help the judging process if forms and product are received in good time to meet the published deadlines. This helps us to correct or clarify any issues and make sure that your products have arrived.
Martin Christy
Academy of Chocolate