New and Seasonal Products Week is flying by--now on Day 6. This one has been around for several years, but only available in the autumn.
I grabbed these from the Trader Joe's shelf, thinking they were pumpkin-flavored Joe Joe's, and didn't realize they weren't until I looked more closely at the package as I was about to take the photograph above. The only "pumpkin" thing about them is the design on the chocolate cookie. The orange color of the filling is from annatto. As far as I can tell, other than those two cosmetic changes, these are identical to regular Joe-Joe's. I compared the ingredients list side by side with the regular Joe-Joe's in the store, and they were identical, except for the annatto.
This presents me with a dilemma--a contradiction. Because before it dawned on me that these were probably identical, for all practical purposes, with regular Joe-Joe's, I found that I liked them a lot. As in, completely delicious. As in, even--may the Snack Gods not strike me with lightning for saying this--better than Oreos.
Why is this a problem? Because here's what I said about regular Joe-Joe's when first reviewing them:
These are not nearly as intensely sweet as Oreos, and thekind of chocolate and vanilla flavors are quite far afield from what Oreos have taught you to expect, though I lack the vocabulary to describe exactly how they differ. What I can tell you is that I had a strong initial dislike: "These aren't Oreos! WTF?"
However, after a while, I got used to the difference. When I stopped expecting Oreos, I found that I could accept these on their own terms, and even enjoy them. I don't think they're nearly as good; given a straight-up choice, I'd go with Nabisco every time. But if Oreos ceased to exist, I would buy a box of these once in a while and like them--though it would still be with a melancholy wish that they'd bring back the original.
Now I'm stuck with trying to figure out whether my taste has evolved as rapidly as it appears, or if there is, in fact, some substantive difference between these two products that I'm missing.
I may have to go back to the store and buy a package of each, and try them together. It's a tough job, but dammit, somebody has to do it. I did a quick search (which I should have done before), and found this on TJ's web site, which pretty much confirms that I'm going to find them tasting identical.
Will I buy it again?
Yes. I have to, you see?
Addendum
On my next trip to the store, they were all out of the Halloween Joe Joe's. But I brought home a box of regulars, and they do indeed seem to match my recent memory of the Halloween ones. If I can get a box of Halloween ones, I'll try to check them side by side.
Special note for fellow anal-retentive types
Are you an attentive enough reader to notice the typographical inconsistency in the name of this product? There is no hyphen between "Joe" and "Joe's." (I'm setting aside for now the problematic question of the function of that apostrophe in all of the product names discussed here.) Regular Joe-Joe's have a hyphen. Pumpkin Joe-Joe's have a hyphen. Gluten-free Joe-Joe's have a hyphen. Candy Cane Joe-Joe's have a hyphen. WHY IS THERE NO HYPHEN IN HALLOWEEN JOE JOE'S?
Different font. Can't use a hyphen with this font; that would look silly! (not really, but that's as good a guess as any)
ReplyDeleteClearly the very slight change in wafer/creme ratio makes all the difference as to superior flavor. That and the annatto. And the cuteness.
Have you ever tasted a hyphen? I don't recommend it. Imagine a peanut butter and onion sandwich dipped in squid ink. That's what a hyphen tastes like. Obviously, eliminating the hyphen is what makes these cookies better than the other Joe-Joes.
ReplyDelete