75% is pretty standard in Europe. I've tried a couple of 99% cocoa chocolates too, but these are really for the hardcore lovers (gets glued to the teeth and other taste issues).

>gets glued to your teeth

Because you're not supposed to chew it (I believe that's even written in the "tasting tips" on the Lindt packaging at least). Bite off small bits and let them melt in your mouth. It's kind of like a dark and very tasty coffee, if that sounds good to you, give it a try.

Now if only I could find it in the supermarkets around here... (as is common in France)

Thanks for the tip, had my mouth completely glued first time I took a big chunk of 100%

I recommend trying Lindt chocolate bars. It is a good, entry-level (sort of cheap) chocolate brand that is pretty wildly available.

Try the 70% and then work your way up to 90%. They make a 99% as well, but it is harder to find.

I think my next crazy taste test will be straight cocoa nibs whole.

You can buy them fairly readily. They're good in yogurt.

crush toasted cocoa nibs with some agave nectar and they are great on spreads.

So take the sugar out of chocolate, then add it back on top?

I don’t know how you came to this conclusion, but Lindt is not an entry-level (whatever that means) chocolate brand in my book.

What would you suggest is better?

Lindt is entry-level because it is cheap. I actually prefer Lindt to many higher-end brands. There are certainly better chocolate bars, but the price difference is often hard to justify.

Yeah they are king of the 90% price point and seem to use it as an anchor for uniform pricing on their whole bar range in Switzerland.

I think that gives the perception and benefits of being high end to the high volume but lower blends, but means the over 90s seem a bit too poor. But I'm not really sure how the botique 95% blends are and I'm glad lindt's aren't up to the challenge. It is hard enough to travel with a 90% addiction.

Ugh. I hate Lindt. It's like eating a battery.

Look for an Endangered Species Panther bar. They're in almost every grocery store around here (I can only assume they're popular), 88% cacao, and much less bitter/harsh.

> They're in almost every grocery store around here (I can only assume they're popular), 88% cacao, and much less bitter/harsh.

Evidently you're in Utah, USA.

It's good to mention actual location, rather than 'around here', for people that don't know where you are.

McDonalds are pretty much everywhere - that means they're popular, by definition, however most discerning consumers wouldn't consider them a high quality product.

Some tomatoes are considered acidic, but in practice most tomato varieties have the same acidity - just varying levels of sugars, which makes them taste more / less acidic. Is the 'much less bitter' quality of this bar you're referring to a result of a higher ratio of sugars?

> Evidently you're in Utah, USA.

> It's good to mention actual location, rather than 'around here', for people that don't know where you are.

Why? What difference would that have made? Either the bars exist where the parent lives or they don't. My location has nothing to do with that. I only mention that they're common in my area as a "maybe they're common enough to also be found where you are" data point.

> McDonalds are pretty much everywhere - that means they're popular, by definition, however most discerning consumers wouldn't consider them a high quality product.

What's your point? Are you saying that the Endangered Species bars are low quality because they happen to be popular(-ish) in my area?

> Is the 'much less bitter' quality of this bar you're referring to a result of a higher ratio of sugars?

Possibly. I don't really know enough about the respective bars to really speak to that. I wonder, though, if it's not something in the manufacturing process since all Lindt (even the "sweet" bars) have the same sour/acidic flavor to me.

> Why? What difference would that have made?

It makes it easier for other people to determine the likelihood / difficulty of them finding this recommendation of yours.

The hyperbolic passion conveyed by 'hate' and 'taste like car battery' to describe a luxury item you are not compelled to consume meant I wasn't about to put much effort into looking anyway.

However, I've just now tried to locate a 'black panther bar' and have discovered it would cost me US$50+ in order to obtain.

Presumably because I'm not 'around here'.

> What's your point?

That popularity does not imply, let alone guarantee, quality.

> Possibly. I don't really know enough about the respective bars to really speak to that.

Could you perhaps review the nutritional information on one of your packets?

Reviewing their website, Endangered Species Natural Dark Chocolate (72% Cocoa) is about 27% sugar.

The Black Panther variety (88% Cocoa) is 11% sugar.

In the plain dark chocolate market there doesn't seem to be much variety - or indeed much room for variety - of ingredients:

Black Panther: BITTERSWEET CHOCOLATE (CHOCOLATE LIQUOR, CANE SUGAR, COCOA BUTTER, SOY LECITHIN, VANILLA).

Lindt does not seem to include soy lecithin in their comparably dark (90% Cocoa) chocolate. (Of course they may use it but not mention it -- this seems unlikely as around here (Australia) we're fairly strict on nutrition and ingredient advisories on processed foods.)

So, it might be informative for you to work out if soy lecithin's presence is the key.

I don't have a particularly acute sense of taste, and haven't eaten chocolate for a couple of decades, but some casual googling on the subject turns up some quite passionate tomes in both directions (no difference, lots of difference). Impossible to summarise, so I'll let you do your own research & taste tests if you're so inspired.

So much condescension for an opinion. What exactly have you apointed yourself to teach me?

The original parent asked for an opinion, and I gave it. Perhaps hyperbolic, but also concise in its description.

It would not be “informative” for me to research anything, since I already know about the soy lecithin angle and didn’t think it was worth mentioning.

What makes each bar taste differently wasn’t part of the discussion until you brought it up, and you obviously have answers to that question, so there’s no need to belabor it.

> It would not be “informative” for me to research anything, since I already know about the soy lecithin angle and didn’t think it was worth mentioning.

Whereas I would suggest it's precisely the kind of interesting insight that you should have shared, given its potential importance to the discussion, and the fact the word lecithin doesn't appear anywhere in TFA or HN comments (at the time).

Anyhoo, ultimately I did manage to learn something interesting from your 'where I'm standing right now there's shops nearby that sell chocolate that I like' contribution. So that's good.

Aside -- can hyperbole be concise? Brief, certainly. Concise to me suggests accuracy.

70%, 85% and even higher are available at the regular grocery store (Publix here in the Southeast). Lindt is one of the available brands.

The first 100% cocoa bar I've had that was actually pretty good was: Montezuma Absolute Dark Chocolate Black from the UK. I found it once at my Trader Joe's and sadly haven't seen it since. Seriously tempted to order a supply from abroad despite the high shipping cost.

For a short while, we had some of those bars on sale at our local Trader Joe’s grocery store in Brooklyn, New York. They were pretty good.

I have a friend that runs a coffee shop, where he also makes chocolate. The 100% chocolate he made was really, really good.

My wife has a square or two of Ghirardelli 86% dark chocolate each day - one square being about 60 calories. I can't imagine eating over a dozen per day!

Most large grocery stores carry dark chocolates of anywhere from 60% to 100% dark chocolate. It's not hard to find 100% in my experience.

82% can be found in common drug stores; at least in SF Bay Area and Portland area.

Trader Joe's has a 72% bar that is really good.