![]() I know, what would a 34 year old do with a paper owl whistle or an olympic action card, but at least it’s something more than a “fact” you can just google on a Major League baseball team. My “prize” was a team fact about the Chicago White Sox. In a related note I’d like to point out those who haven’t had Cracker Jack in a while, that the prizes are lame and just a peice paper. ![]() We both liked each of these, but I continued eating the Cracker Jack and Ethan finished the Crunch ‘n Munch. Ethan liked this and I did at first but found the flavor so strong that it was a little overwhelming after a few handfuls. Another difference is that was popcorn was fluffier and the peanuts were “glued” onto the popcorn pieces with the coating. The taste was much different with it’s strong buttery flavor. Also, the caramel was considerably thicker. The first thing we noticed was the color, this was much lighter and a shade of yellow. I thought it was lot better than expected, we both gave this the thumbs up. There was an enjoyable contrast between the caramel and peanuts and it had an overall toasty quality. The popcorn was covered with a coating of medium/dark brown caramel that was kind of like shellac, but in a good way that provided a hard shell that crunched nicely against the fluffyness of the popcorn. ![]() Ethan helped me out with this evaluation. I don’t know why I never really got into the candy-coated popcorn thing, but this blog has got me to try things I don’t usually eat and I was looking forward to finding out why this concept has survived from the Victorian era. My only experience with either of these was Cracker Jack at a friend’s house once when I was a kid, but that was it. Cracker Jack was introduced in 1893 and Crunch ‘n Munch came out in the 1960’s. Both of these are caramel-coated popcorn with peanuts.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |