Ok, just for everybody who has been looking into our post on Chantico, I have decided to do some more digging to get a consens on what people think about Chantico and some other interesting Chantico facts.

Here is a synopsis of my searches on Google and Feedster for Chantico and Chantico Reviews:

quaker_pride on LiveJournal liked it
teardrops05 on LiveJournal didn’t like it “it like melted chocolate bars…but worse”
iaian on LiveJournal liked it “Even though I love my chocolate, this stuff is way beyond my tolerance levels. I could not drink anymore than 1 of these in a month, maybe once every 4 months, but not once a month.”
Laura over at Limon was disappointed: “Like most things at Starbucks, the theory is good and the execution is least common denominator…Its a single-note chocolate, a boring flat chocolate, an ordinary mediocre chocolate. It makes the Chantico all sweet and all rich and no depth.”
Alex at LiveJournal thought it didn’t quite meet comparable products
shomershabbos at LiveJournal thought it tasted like motor oil. Funny post. “I had flashes to the Pepto Bismol advertisements that show the medicine coating your esophagus and stomach lining”
kkryguy liked it
The reviews on Starbucks Gossip are mixed – there are hundreds of comments from reviewers, customers, and baristas themselves.
Aldoblog had good input on how to change the recipe – “I’d love a darker, less sweet, more bitter, intense chocolate flavor”
Jason of Jason’s Notes thinks its a good thing
This one is funny – Madame Butterfly posts it as the “new Laxative”
CoffeeGeek.com has a few reviews – and as a side note to what they say, chili and chocolate do go well together.
There is even a Hot Chocolate blog commenting not so positively on Chantico

So, what’s the synopsis. Well, if you like really dark rich chocolate, you will probably like it. But, if you know the difference between good chocolate and bad chocolate, you probably won’t. My opinion, whether as a drink or a dessert, it sucks. It’s not like a chocolate bar (in my opinion) even if it is a dark version of hot chocolate – mine was not even that thick. Perhaps, as one person over at CoffeeGeek observed, I am on of those “chocolate purists making fun of Hershey’s like we make fun of instant coffee.”

My opinion, just buy some of your own high quality chocolate and make yourself something even better. It’s easy. Really. Here is how (vanilla bean optional).

Anyway, click through to more for tons more about Starbucks Chantico.

Here are some pics over on Flickr related to Chantico.

Where does the word Chantico come from?
According to The Gods of Aztec Mythology, Chantico is the ” Domestic Goddess of the Home and Domestic Hearth Fires.” Oddly enough, she “symbolises the combination of pleasure and pain,” a pretty close mirror of the experience people have been having with Starbucks Chantico!!

Why the small cup and the high price?
Well, traditionally, rich hot chocolates are served in demi sizes because they are thick and intense – usually a combination too intense for a larger cup. Additionally, they do not contain milk, the common denominator in a standard hot chocolate. For most of history, chocolate was a drink – the “bar” is a recent invention.

Disclaimer: We are not sure it is actually pure chocolate and cannot find confirmation on the Starbucks page that it is. When we went to get it, we saw a barista mixing powder with milk and then steaming it.

From Starbucks we know that Chantico has:
390 Calories
190 Fat Calories
21g Fat
10g Saturated Fat
40g Sugar

It is, in fact, one of their most fattening beverages, even if it is the smallest. Luckily they don’t add whip, which would make it THE MOST fattening beverage in their lineup.

The Chantico recipe, not from Starbucks, is claimed to be: cocoa butter, cocoa powder, sugar and steamed whole milk.

Side note: the bad taste is likely coming from the lack of cacoa, while the fat comes from all that cocoa butter.

Price: this 6-0z concoction will set you back between $2.65 and $2.95.

Baristas over at Starbucks say it is a pain to make.