Summertime Ice Cream Treat: Magnum Ice Cream Bars
May 30th, 2011 | by ScrapsIt’s Memorial Day weekend and the unofficial beginning of summer–what better time to break out the ice cream makers, scoops, dishes and toppings.
But wait, maybe you’re pressed for time or just not into complicated frozen desserts. So you head to the ice cream section of your local grocery store and maybe, just maybe, you see something different that catches your eye.
Magnum ice cream bars have recently hit the American market and the premium perks don’t end at the snazzy packaging. These bars feature vanilla bean or chocolate ice creams dipped in rich Belgian chocolate. Some (like the Magnum Almond) come studded with nuts while others (Magnum Double Chocolate and Magnum Double Caramel) feature sauces in between the ice cream and chocolate.
But how do they taste?
I was offered a coupon for a free box of Magnum ice cream bars and went, first, for the Double Chocolate–how can you go wrong with more chocolate?
What we have here, folks, is chocolate ice cream with a thin coating of chocolate on it, a layer of chocolate syrup/sauce and the outer layer of Belgian milk chocolate. Being a bookkeeper I can tell you that that’s 4 chocolates, not 2, but I guess Quadruple Chocolate doesn’t roll off the tongue the way Double Chocolate does, so we’ll let that slide.
At first bite I was loving the chocolate upon chocolate flavors but, as Todd pointed out (yes, I shared), it was almost chocolate overload the further you got into it. I also found out that my co-tester is not a big fan of chocolate ice cream (3.5 years together and there’s still new things to learn!), but even so he liked them okay.
With that in mind, though, I picked up two more flavors on this week’s shopping trip: Magnum Classic and Magnum Double Caramel.
In the Classic variety, the Belgian chocolate really gets a chance to shine compared to the vanilla bean ice cream–which was pretty tasty itself–and tastes really luxurious. I’ve had richer ice creams before, but they were usually small batch chef-made varieties, so take what you will from that.
The Double Caramel, however, left us a little wanting. The caramel was lost in the shuffle of chocolate and vanilla bean and what you did get it of it was sharp and unpleasant instead of rich and creamy. Of the three versions we’ve tried I think we’ll be sticking to the Classic.
Aside from the ice cream bars themselves, packaging can either add to or take away from the experience. (Prime example? Apple products–hello pretty!) In this case Magnum does a great job at enhancing their product. Working for a printing company for 15+ years I tend to notice finishing details and know there’s a reason for most boxes having square corners: they’re natural, easy and cheap. Rounded edges require die cutting and specialty folding set-ups–that’s a step many manufacturers aren’t going to take.
The bars, themselves, are wrapped in printed gold foil sleeves; another step up from the waxed paper in most ice cream bars. Usually I find gold packaging tacky, but Magnum hits a nice balance between garish and classy. Even the sticks are branded and are a little different from your average popsicle-stick.
At 3.28 for a package of three they’re not that expensive ($1.09ish per bar) but they’re not the value that some other brands offer. It’s nice for a treat or to satisfy a craving, but I don’t think it’s destined to become a freezer staple for our home.
~~~oOo~~~
As part of the Foodbuzz Tastemaker Program, I received a coupon for one box of Magnum ice cream bars. All opinions and observations are my own.
Have you heard? Those lovely chocolatiers, Ghirardelli, have come out with a new line: LUXE.
In clean, white packaging (these bags are paper instead of the traditional foiled-printed plastic) the banner touts what should be a reassuring label, “All Natural,” but what it really makes me wonder is–what wasn’t natural about the regular Ghirardelli we’ve been eating all these years?
In CVS, the other day, I happened upon a display that featured bags of both the LUXE line as well as a variety of classic squares. Unfortunately, of the unfilled variety they only had a dark chocolate (which showed no additives different than the LUXE line’s soy lecithin, a common emulsifier) and the rest were filled with various goos (tasty goos, as goos go, and I don’t make a habit of turning them down when offered). This made direct comparison of milk chocolate to milk chocolate impossible. The filled chocolates (caramel was the one I examined) did show corn syrup and other ingredients that some consider unnatural, but that’s just as likely to be from the filling as the chocolate (separating the components out would have helped).
Another unfortunate fact is that I’ve been unable to find a shred of nutritional data on Ghirardelli’s website, or even a complete ingredient list for each of their products–the individual packages give a mailing address to send off for the information.
So, what’s a girl to do? Luckily I had to go grocery shopping last night so I scouted every Ghirardelli package I could find, searching for the nasty un-naturals. Um, I don’t get it: I looked at dark chocolate squares, milk morsels, semi-sweet morsels and on down the line. The white chocolate baking chips did contain palm kernel oil, for what it’s worth, and the Vanilla Dream squares did have an extra preservative for the vanilla itself. Curious.
But how does the new line taste?

As part of the Foodbuzz Tastemaker Program, I received a sample of each of the LUXE Classic Milk, Almond and Hazelnut chocolates. Todd and I gave them a thorough tasting the other night and this is what we thought:
| Todd | Jenn | |
| Milk | -Smooth -Kind of different flavor compared to Hershey or Dove |
-Creamy -Rich -Definitely different, but that’s to be expected |
| Hazelnut | -Nutty flavor -Chocolate itself tastes different -Nuts dominate (not necessarily a good thing) |
-Very nutty -Like a crunchy Nutella -Chocolate really sticks to your teeth, doesn’t dissolve as quickly |
| Almond | (Todd’s allergic to almonds so Jenn got this one all to herself) | -Almond flavor is present (of course) but not overpowering -Nuts seem to be more finely chopped than the hazelnuts were -Flavors blend so well! |
I’m not sure Todd would choose this version of Ghirardelli over the styles we’re used to but I absolutely loved the Almond flavor, enough to buy a bag at the store. At approximately $0.53 a piece, it’s an indulgence worthy of the name, but perhaps that’s as it should be.
Back to that whole ‘All Natural’ thing for a moment. If (as far as I can find) the current Ghirardelli chocolates are not all that un-natural, what’s the point of this new line? Is it lacking those fillings that require all the preservatives and syrups and so forth? Is there a difference in the chocolate itself? Maybe, there could be a formulation change but if ‘All Natural’ is what they’re selling, this sounds like an advertising gimmic and not a new, innovative product line.
What still concerns me is the lack of nutritional data and ingredient lists on the website. Sure, I found most of what I needed in the store but only because I was already planning on going–and it was hardly their entire product line. I shouldn’t have to send away for this data or do more than a few mouse-clicks on their site to find the information I required to fully evaluate this product.
As far as I can see, they have nothing to hide but the omission makes me suspicious. I would encourage (as much as one, lone blogger can) a company with as rich a history as Ghirardelli has, to consider updating their site to tell the consumer exactly what she needs to know.
You want your customers to think how great your product is, right? Not wondering what you’re not telling them.
~~~oOo~~~
As stated, I was provided 3 pieces of chocolate to sample and review. The opinions expressed in this post are entirely my own except where expressly noted (seriously, do you think they would pay me to say what I just did?).
Related Posts ¬
| Feb 3, 2009 | Random Appetites: the Food of Love |
| Jul 26, 2010 | Almost Meatless Experiment |
| Jun 21, 2010 | Shortcake… or is it? |
| Aug 23, 2010 | E-Mealz: a Menu Service Alternative |
I’ve often recommended the Menu Mailer by Saving Dinner to folks who have trouble answering the ‘What’s for dinner’ question from week to week. It’s convenient, inexpensive, offers of variety of menu options and takes the weight off your shoulders.
But it’s not the only option.
(And, yes, I still sometimes kick myself for not being more entrepreneurial-minded back in ’98 when I started doing this myself every week for my husband and I.)
From a blog ad I saw several weeks ago I pointed my browser to e-mealz.com (don’t forget the hyphen or the z), just out of curiosity. What I found was a site that touted money-saving, healthy menus for a mere $5 a month. They even match their menus to specific stores! Taking advantage of the weekly advertised specials without actually having the comb the flyers yourself? Nice!
Sadly, I found that you can’t just try the service for a single month–at least not without paying for 2 more. That was a little disappointing (I like to give things a trial before I commit, don’t you?) but I went ahead and signed up for a 3-month subscription. And all those store/menu-style options? Yeah, you have to pick one to subscribe to. No hopping between menus if you feel like shopping the best option each week.
As much as it pains us some days, Wal-Mart is the most cost-effective store local to us (though we frequently stop by Publix for specialty items) so we opted for the Low-Carb Wal-Mart meal plan for 4-6. The recipes (7 per week) cover 2 pages and are written sparingly. Side dishes are also included. The shopping list is also presented as a grid, with staples broken out so that it’s easy to mark out those you probably already have on hand but also can remember to pick up if you’re running low. It’s broken out by sections and has a column for checking items off.
What wasn’t so hot? Meal 3 of our first week was a Toasted Pecan and Strawberry Salad. Sounds great! Guess what wasn’t on the shopping list: strawberries. Oops. Kind of a big oversight (which we, thankfully, caught before leaving for the store). Also it’s great that they recommend so many side salads–5 out of the 7 days on our first week–but when you look closer you see they’ve specified the store-brand bagged iceberg lettuce. Why bother? Iceberg has very low nutritional value–it’s barely even green! We substituted some romaine hearts and a package of spring mix and spent a little more for a more satisfying end result. (Future weeks proved this to be somewhat of an aberration–though a recommended side dish of Pork Rinds seems quite out of place.)
But the recipes were tasty! We were especially pleased with the Hot Taco Salad which ground turkey in a chili-like layer with lots of toppings. And the salad recommendations (once you ditch the iceberg) were inventive–Greek-style one day, Mexican another, with a couple of dinner salads thrown in. We certainly didn’t lack for taste or variety.
How does it compare to the Menu Mailer? MM offers 6 recipes a week, e-mealz 7. Both include side dish recommendations and itemized shopping lists. Both also provide for a variety of primary proteins and seem to use 1 slow-cooker recipe a week. Menu Mailer allows you access to all 3 of their menu types each week, available as downloadable pdf files that you can save for later, a bit of an advantage over the locked-in e-mealz but MM wasn’t always all-access, either.
Menu Mailer administers it’s subscriptions through Big Tent–numerous hoops and clicks required to get to your weekly menu download. I understand that it probably makes things easier on the admins to do it this way but it was a change I was not happy to see happen. E-mealz–either due to a smaller size or just preference–still takes a single click from their homepage to the Members Area when there’s a link to this week’s and last week’s menus. The simplicity is nice.
Sure, the simplicity of their recipes may get to us after a while and we may not renew past our first 3 months, but it’s a nice change of pace for now.
Have you ever tried a menu service? Which one(s) and what did you think?
Related Posts ¬
| Jul 26, 2010 | Almost Meatless Experiment |
| Oct 20, 2010 | New Ghirardelli LUXE Milk Chocolate |
Agnolotti with Garlic-Spinach Sauce
August 11th, 2010 | by Scraps
Agnolotti with Garlic-Spinach Sauce
Fresh pasta is a treat. And while I do enjoy getting elbow deep in the semolina from time to time, it’s not convenient for your average weeknight dinner. The happy medium? Fresh pasta in the refrigerated section of your local grocery store.
We recently had the opportunity (read as: coupon for a free package) to try Buitoni’s Riserva Quattro Formaggi Agnolotti. Translated, that’s a 4-cheese stuffed pasta that look like half-round raviolis.
Having just had beef the night before, we paired it with chicken but didn’t relish looking at two beige-colored items on the same plate. Time to get creative.
First, I made a sauce of pomegranate liqueur, tequila, mustard and other savory ingredients and applied it to both sides of the rice flour-dredged chicken breasts as they cooked. Meanwhile (and as the pasta cooked–remember fresh pasta doesn’t take nearly as long to cook as dry) I melted butter as a base to a garlic and spinach sauce. Everything was ready at just the right time and dinner was delicious.
The Quattro Formagi Agnolotti are very tender (another hallmark of fresh pasta in general) with a creamy filling that pairs well with a simple oil or butter-based sauce. The addition of spinach definitely brightened up the plate a bit but, with the cheese filling, was almost like an inside-out creamed spinach (or would that be outside-in?).
According to the label, each 9-ounce package serves 2; that’s 6 agnolotti a piece. At 360 calories per serving, the addition of a nice sauce and a salad and this could be a dinner portion and not just a side dish. As an accompaniment, you might be able to get three smaller servings out, but there’s not really enough in each agnolotti for 4 servings in a single package.
Recipes:
Garlic-Spinach Sauce
1/2 c Butter, melted
1.5 T minced garlic
1.5 c cooked Spinach
1 T Salt
Fresh-ground Pepper, to tasteMelt butter in a small saucepan and saute garlic until golden brown. Add cooked spinach, salt and pepper and toss with cooked pasta.
Pomegranate-Mustard Chicken
2 T Spicy Brown Mustard
2 T Pomegranate Liqueur
1/2 T Agave Nectar
3/4 T Tequila
1/2 t Lime Juice
4 4-oz Chicken Breasts
3/4 c Rice Flour
Salt & Pepper
2 T Olive OilCombine mustard through lime juice in a small bowl, stirring to combine. Adjust flavors as needed. (Pomegranate juice can be substituted for the pomegranate liqueur and the tequila skipped if you’d prefer to not use alcohol.) Dredge chicken in rice flour seasoned with salt and pepper and brown on both sides in the hot oil. Spoon or brush the pomegranate-mustard mixture over each side of the chicken and continue to cook until it reaches an internal temperature of 165 degrees Fahrenheit.
[Disclaimer: I was provided with a free coupon for this item. All opinions and observations of this product are mine alone.]
Related Posts ¬
| Jul 7, 2010 | Restaurant Review: Sabor Latino |
| Aug 2, 2010 | More (or Less) Meatless |
| Mar 14, 2011 | Once More for the French Chicken |
| Mar 7, 2011 | It All Started With Some Asparagus |
| Mar 3, 2009 | Random Appetites: Pasta-rific |






