For those of you who might have read my article last week providing an in-depth look at what’s hiding behind all the chocolate coating of the Whitman’s Sampler, I have to confess something about that particular article: I can hardly stand to look at it right now. This isn’t because of anything particularly wrong with the article itself (at least not that I know of, I haven’t bothered to go back and proofread it again after posting,) but as I would find out a few hours after I finished it, I was in the process of coming down with the stomach flu while I was finishing it up and writing the part about all the specific candies. In order to make sure I knew what I was talking about I had to sample a couple of pieces again, and without going into too much detail, I’ll just say that some of those pieces decided to come back for a special encore presentation around 3am that night, along with most of that evening’s dinner. It is clear that the candy itself had nothing to do with me getting sick (the Galloping Crud has been going around the family, and it was obviously my turn to get it,) it’s just a case of bad timing. Nonetheless, right now I’d have to say that chocolates have fallen a number of spots down my list of my favorite things, at least for the time being.
That said, if you still plan to be getting your current or prospective sweetheart and/or Valentine chocolates for Valentine’s Day, I would strongly recommend that you stick to something reasonable, and avoid overdoing it. For example, the items below might be considered overdoing it:
To be honest, you’ll probably be hard pressed to even find a heart-shaped box of chocolates that big at most places (I only found one store in town that even carries these sizes,) but in the event that you find yourself tempted to show your affection in quantity rather than quality, here are a few things to keep in mind:
- The nutritional information on the Russell Stover chocolate assortment contained in these boxes indicates that a serving of two pieces contains 150 calories, six grams of fat, four grams of saturated fat and 21 grams of carbohydrates. I didn’t look at the number of servings in the 40-ounce box, but the giant 52-ounce box contains 43 servings, for a total of 6,450 calories. In the interest of not scaring people off, I’ll leave the other numbers to the reader to figure out if they are so inclined.
- These chocolates have a “best before” date of May 1st on them. If you believe that your Valentine is going to be able to finish off 52-ounces of assorted chocolates before then, go right ahead. Of course, there’s also the need to find somewhere to store that giant heart-shaped box while it’s in the process of being consumed (the box is practically big enough to take up a whole coffee table by itself.)
- At $29.99 for the 40-ounce box and $39.99 for the 52-ounce behemoth, you might be paying too much for the quantity of chocolate on offer. As you can see above, there are a couple of different 16-ounce assortments on sale for $6.99 apiece, a price that could yield a full 64 ounces of chocolate for $27.96. (your mileage, of course, may vary.) This way you’ll not only have more chocolate for less money in more manageable packaging, but you’ll also have backups just in case your Valentine doesn’t work out.
So when you’re shopping for your Valentine’s Day gifts this year, be sure to think carefully and weigh all the pros and cons before you make the kind of commitment necessary to bring your Sweetheart a 52-ounce box of chocolates. After all, the last thing you want is for a box of Valentine’s Day chocolates to last longer than the relationship does, right?
For more not-so-great Valentine’s Day gift ideas, watch for my second annual Valentine’s Day Kitsch Roundup post coming later this week, chock full of great new ways to ensure you’ll be spending your Valentine’s Night sleeping on the couch.