Talk:Valrhona

Untitled

 * Valrhona is currently the only company in the world that produces vintage chocolate made from beans of a single year's harvest from a specific plantation.

I think that should be rephrased. There are other chocolate manufacturers who also produce chocolate from beans of a specific year (Leysieffer is an example); I don't know if they're using only beans from a specific plantation, but even if they don't, the above statement is misleading. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 21:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Considering that "from a specific plantation" is a pretty cental aspect (it's analogous to vintage wines) I don't see anything misleading about it. I know there are companies that claim to produce "vintage chocolate", but I've not seen any indication that they actually limit their cocoa to specific harvests. I've tried a lot of different chocolates by high-quality producers like Michel Cluizel and they do have brands that are from specific regions. And with Valrhona, it's not simply a sales ploy; there are clearly distinguishable differences between different harvests, and these are acknowledged by chocolate experts. For example, the '99 vintage is said to have been particularly flavorful and well-rounded. Even if you're not lucky enough to try a super-hrvests, the differences from one vintage to another are clearly recognizable even to amateurs like myself.
 * But why object if you're not even sure about it? If you can actually find and a company that produces the chocolate equivalent of wine vintages, I certainly won't object to revising the wording.
 * Peter Isotalo 21:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Aren't the single origin chocolates of Michel Cluizel similar products? --83.89.123.156 10:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Michel Cluizel's chocolate is as far as I know the equivalent of Valrhona's Caraïbe, Guanaja and Manjari. They're from specific regions rather than plantations and they're not vintage chocolates.
 * Peter Isotalo 16:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Although the chocolates of Steve DeVries and Amedei's Chuoa are not branded with years like those of Valrhona, they taste slightly different every year, and the beans are from specific plantations. Michel Cluizel's Hacienda 'Los Anconès' is also from a specific plantation. Criollobean (talk) 04:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here. Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories, but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns, please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of fact check tag
re: "Valrhona is currently the only company in the world that produces vintage chocolate made from beans of a single year's harvest from a specific plantation."

It is improper to remove the tag when the statement in question has not been cited. The statement may or may not be true, but frankly, considering the unquantifiable number of chocolate makers in the world, it would be very difficult to prove that there are no other companies doing this. On the other hand, if an independent source made that statement, we could attribute it to them. Dforest (talk) 04:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's appropriate to motivate fact tags before adding them.
 * I've been somewhat of a chocolate nerd for quite a while and as far as I know vintage chocolate was unheard of before Valrhona did it. It takes dedication and significant resources. There are a lot of chocolate makers in the world, but not that many that are up to the standards of Valrhona.
 * I've reworded the statement for now, but I really think it would be appropriate for those claiming that there are other brand of vintage chocolate to locate these. Considering how rare it appears to be, it shouldn't be that hard.
 * Peter Isotalo 06:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Inferior?
"Though considered one of the finest chocolate makers in the world, Valrhona is in roughly the same price range as inferior brands such as Godiva and Neuhaus." Who says thatthe other brands are inferior, it is quite subjective and biased

This seems to be a little bit subjective statement to make and not in keeping woth Wikipedia Franny-K (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Quality-wise Godiva and Neuhaus are both inferior to Valrhona. There's even a citation for that statement based on a representative of the Chocolate Society shop in London.
 * Peter Isotalo 20:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with what Peter Isotalo has said in this page. People who really understand chocolate differentiate between the quality between Valrhona, Michel Cluizel, Amedei, and brands like Godiva and Neuhaus, etc. It is not subjective and biased to state that. It would be if I said I preferred Michel Cluizel to Valrhona. The quality of the ingredients (the cocoa bean selection process, the kind of fat (pure cocoa fat or not, what kind of emulsifier, etc)and the manufacturing process (how the beans are roasted and the conching process, etc) used by the former former chocolatiers I mentioned are completely different from how Godiva and Neuhaus produce their chocolate. In fact, Godiva and Neuhaus are not even bean to bar makers like the former, they buy couverture from Callebaut and do the tempering to produce the chocolate products. There's nothing wrong saying how one brand is inferior to another. Once you've really tasted and studied all the chocolates out there, you'll understand. It's just like saying McCafe is inferior to Starbucks. These distinctions are similarly used by wine and coffee tasters. Of course, I think the current edit without the word "inferior" is better for use in a general article.Criollobean (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistency
1922 (founding year in text) vs 1924 (category, companies founded in 1924) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.79.35.151 (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"Inferior brands" is unacceptable, unless it's from a reliable source
That's pretty much all there is to say about that. Calling one brand "inferior" to another is pretty strong, and unless this claim can be sourced, I will rephrase it to something more neutral.

I can't find the 'International Herald Tribune' article that's listed as a reference for some other statements, unfortunately. But, in fact, I seriously doubt the International Herald Tribune/New York Times would actually go as far as calling any chocolate brand "inferior" to another. It would just seem like pretty bad style.

- Minvogt (talk) 07:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I updated the reference with a link to the Internet Archive and specified the date of publiciation. The wording is from a manager of the Chocolate Society Shop in London interviewed in the article. Technically it's not the Herald Tribune saying this, but the wording is "inferior", and the article writer offers no protest (if anything, look at the title of the article). I don't really see anything problematic about this, though. In my experience Godiva and Neuhaus are mid-level quality chocolates that can't really compete with brands like Valrhona or Michel Cluizel. And I think it's rather relevant in this context to point out that Godiva relies heavily marketing and high prices, but don't actually make high-quality products. In fact, I'd say that Godiva is not that much better compared even with a lot of average-priced European chocolates.
 * Is the problem here merely a matter of wording, or do you mean that any comments that claim that certain products are of higher quality than others not neutral?
 * Peter Isotalo 08:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for finding the archived article. After reading it, I will admit that it looks like a grey area to me. But let me try to explain what I see as the problem exactly:
 * (1) There is a good reason why the NYT didn't write "inferior" outside the quote, I think. It would mean that they claim that this is the case, while in reality they just quote someone. You can call that kind of style somewhat cowardly, hiding behind someones opinion, but it's pretty much standard in journalism. You don't express highly subjective claims yourself, but rather quote someone. And I guess you would agree that taste is actually a highly subjective matter. I don't think it's possible to 'prove' that some food tastes or is better than another kind.
 * (2) Take the WP article on Linux. Imagine it would contain a link to MS Windows, with the claim that it's an "inferior OS". Some people might think Windows is in fact inferior (and I might even be one of them :P), but a statement like this still wouldn't show in the article, I'm quite sure. Maybe as a quote, something in the style of "Computer Science professor X believes that Windows is inferior...".
 * But anyway, like I said, I think it's a grey area. And I only really object to the very strong wording, and to the fact that two brands are pointed out as inferior, without proof that they /are/ in fact inferior. So I would feel more comfortable with a more neutral phrasing, or by changing the claim to something that makes it clear that it's a quote (the latter might look a bit weird).
 * How about this: "Though considered one of the highest quality chocolates in the world, Valrhona is in roughly the same price range as less exclusive brands."
 * - Minvogt (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Inacceptable is not a word. Should be "unacceptable." Criollobean (talk) 04:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Article sounds like an ad
The article needs to be rewritten from a neutral POV. "VALRHONA IN FEW WORDS...", "A quest for excellence.", "A passion for exceptional taste", etc this is an ad, not a wikipedia article. I'm ok with the 1st paragraph, but the rest of it is not neutral.12.17.199.1 (talk) 13:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC) The account Valrhona2011 keeps messing up the article. I have reverted it. Smartperson (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed w/Smarty. The text's purity is as a promotion, not a description - much less history, of which the company has a lot over the decades.  It's one of those companies whose in-depth coverage would help illuminate the entire industry's directional movement, particularly in recent years. Jetpower (talk) 01:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)