I’d be interested to know - in my experience, good malts can vary so much in so many aspects, I’m not sure I’d know how to pair a malt with a chocolate, and given good malts start north of 100$ a bottle and go way way further north than that, it would be a limited experiment for me. I’d probably opt for pairing a nice chocolate with a shot or two of espresso and leave the malt stand on its own, but I’m still curious 
2 Likes
It may be the choice of chocolate is equally important.
Or per another Mark who has a more discerning local bottle’o and much fatter wallet.
Our local supplier of beer, wine, whiskey etc is noted for the limited choice of product. Product priced to please with the most average of cask, canned and sometimes bottled choices. Chocolate options are limited to the local IGA, the Puma servo or the Chemist if I you have special needs.
I’m not sure if I should volunteer. I find chocolate addictive. Just a thought if we are talking about chocolate there may be more than one way to make the most of the product. On the same line I’ve been told some imaginatively choose to use their wine for cooking. 
P.S.
Agree a good double shot of coffee is certainly a great option.
Perhaps not last thing at night?
My go to is definitely chocolate coated coffee beans or ginger. 
4 Likes
Try SCION (Rutherglen) After Dark. It pairs with dark chocolate and works from Old Gold Original through Lindt and everything in-between and better, and the list of fruits and nuts in the link, plus aged cheese for much less than a good single malt. The cellar door offers chocolate and cheese fragments with the tasting. Every vintage is a bit different; I prefer the 2018 over the 2017. After Dark is ‘a nothing’ without an accompaniment that brings it live.
4 Likes
I have just read the Dark Chocolate article in the current CHOICE and got quite excited to see Lindt no sugar dark chocolate listed with 1g sugar per 100. Headed for the Lindt site to confirm it on the nutrition panel and found that this is a misrepresentation of the real situation. There may be 1g of actual sugar but there are 45g of carbohydrate per 100g. So this chocolate is nearly 50% carbohydrate and it is a bad carbohydrate at that. This amount of maltitol, a sugar alcohol, has the same effect on the body as 22g of sugar. So thumbs down to Lindt.
In what way is maltitol bad?
"Maltitol is the most common type of sugar alcohol used in “sugar-free” candy, desserts, and low-carb products because it’s considerably less expensive than erythritol, xylitol, and other sugar alcohols.
Maltitol is not a good choice for people on low-carb diets. About 50% of this sweetener is absorbed in the small intestine, which can raise blood sugar and insulin levels, especially in those with diabetes or prediabetes.
It also provides about three-quarters as many calories as sugar, which is considerably more than most low-carb sweeteners.
In addition, the roughly 50% that’s not absorbed is fermented in the colon. Studies have shown that maltitol may cause significant digestive distress (gas, bloating, diarrhea, etc.), especially when consumed in large amounts. (not just studies I have experienced this)
Sweetness: About 80% of the sweetness of table sugar."
Explanation from DIetdoctor.com, but there are many other sources saying the same thing.
I agree with all that but I don’t see how that makes maltitol a “bad” carbohydrate. There are many carbohydrates that put your blood sugar up quicker and further, that have as many or more calories and many that cause gas.
I think it is a little sneaky of the maker to use “sugar free” in this case but they are technically correct and there are many products sweetened with various sugar alcohols including maltitol which are used in the same way as a non-sugar sweetener (xylitol, sorbitol, mannitol etc) and have very similar outcomes.
It looks to me that people who need to be very careful about their blood sugar or carb intake need to look further than the sugar free label because their health depends on much more than the amount of sugar they eat.
1 Like
I guess I really meant it is a bad sugar substitute rather than a bad carbohydrate. If they had used erythritol, stevia, or monkfruit then there would not be an issue.
Their nutrition label is also a little off according to Australian standards. The normal entry for Carbohydrates would not normally have included the Maltitol, it would have been on a separate line on the nutrition panel.
The National Library of Australia acquires Banjo Paterson’s 120 year old tin of Cadbury chocolates.
They must have been as tough as the chocolate blocks we used to get in the 10 man ration packs in the CMF (Army Reserve) over 50 years ago.
The bars had 15 squares, so 1.5 squares per person, but it was almost impossible to cut the squares in half with our bayonets.
1 Like
Jim’s White chocolate truffles. I don’t even know if Jims still has them (its a shop in Hamilton NSW) but they beat out every other kind of choc I ever had. needless to say, its been years. I don’t dare set foot in the place.
What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger? Back then, they didn’t have ‘use-by’ dates, so things lasted forever … that’s how it works doesn’t it ?
2 Likes
An article regarding claimed health benefits of chocolate.
https://coach.nine.com.au/diet/health-benefits-of-chocolate/542eef08-f91a-4e53-809d-9396cc0e90a3
Whilst at our local Coles this week, I noticed that some grub had partially unwrapped one of those large foill covered chocolate Easter Bunnies and ripped a large piece out of it.
Unbelievable.
At Costco they have a really large Egg for sale. Currently $50 off the cost of $199.50 at $149.50 for 6 kg of Chocolate. Won’t be buying it regardless of possible positive health effects, the cost alone would be unhealthy to an extreme for me if I returned home with it.
2 Likes
