April 24, 2004
I did a not-so-blind-test comparion of these today. With some surprising results.
Ampamakia: Similar smell, but slightly more nut in 2004. 2004 is somewhat lighter brown, 2003 more reddish.
2004: Distinct walnut taste, some liquor, cherries. More punching red fruit acidic than 2003.
2003: Less nut, otherwise similar, but less cherry and generally not so punching taste.
2004: Very chocolaty taste, some cherry but otherwise little fruit, some liquorice in the aftertaste. Distinct walnut taste.
2003: More acidic than 2004, some red fruit, somewhat darker and with a hint of smoke, not nuts, just a hint of liquorice.
Verdict: 2004 wins hands down on both. Strange result, because the first time I tried the 2004s I thought exactly the opposite. Should mention, though, that the 2003 bars were 2 months overdue on consumption date, which may have deteriorated taste.
My name is Polarbear and I am a chocoholic…
August 1, 2006
January 28, 2005
I have quite the same opinion as you. The 2004 Ampamakia is better than the 2003. I have just tasted it again. And there is the new very strong aroma of nuts (I was surprised, but I discovered peanut aroma (I personally would call it peanut). I haven’t realised that before). From my point of view the 2004 is more balanced. You have very fruity aromas on the on hand and these nutty flavours on the other. So you do not have only nutty or fruity, the two complement one another. Really a great chocolate.
November 22, 2004
November 11, 2004
March 17, 2005