REVIEW: Peeps Mystery Flavors (2017)

/ / Reviews / 11 Comments

I remember stumbling upon last year’s Peeps Mystery Flavors and I was very much caught off guard.

Not one, not two, but three new flavors that I get to try and guess?! COUNT ME IN. I fell in love with the buttered popcorn one and so this makes me very excited to see what Peeps has in store this year. What would be the new buttered popcorn for me?

There are again three flavors to guess and while the packaging has stayed similar the Peeps are now speckled with bright color flakes. This adds a whole another layer of complexity as it ties the colors directly to the peeps giving you another reference point to lead you to the correct flavor or just throw you off completely.

First up is my favorite, Mystery Flavor #1 of 3.

On first whiff, there is a predominately maple kind of scent like straight maple syrup, perhaps even a hint of caramel as well. Biting into the Peeps, I love how the sugar and flakes on the outside mix together with the squishy marshmallow inside.

However, the flavor doesn’t get any stronger, which is disappointing. I still taste maple but then also think these could be coffee too, but definitely with some creaminess. I really enjoyed these but am completely stumped by the flavor. They could be waffles or pancakes or cappuccino or latte but what I keep coming back to is maple syrup.

Next up is my least favorite, Mystery Flavor #2 of 3.

After opening it I got a serious blast of fruitiness, but not sure which one yet. Eating the Peeps, made me think instantly of orange. These had a lot of flavor and were sweet, but also tart. There may be another flavor in there but these tasted exactly like those orange fruit slice candies. It can’t be THAT simple, though, can it? Maybe these are blood orange or something. Plain old orange would be a serious missed opportunity.

Finally, Mystery Flavor #3 of 3.

Smelling these I got fruitiness again but distinctly a lemon-lime scent. Eating them, yep, lemon-lime was coming in very strong with sour notes, too. However, the flakes are yellow and green, which seems way too easy, unless that was on purpose to trick us? Brand mashups are all the rage recently, so maybe these are in fact sour Sprite flavored. Let’s go with that!

(Nutrition Facts – 5 chicks – 140 calories, 0 calories from fat, 0 grams of fat, 0 grams of saturated fat, 0 grams of trans fat, 15 milligrams of sodium, 34 grams of carbohydrates, 32 grams of sugar, and 1 gram of protein..)

Purchased Price: $3.19 each
Size: 3 oz./10 chicks
Purchased at: eBay
Rating: 7 out of 10 (#1 of 3)
Rating: 5 out of 10 (#2 of 3)
Rating: 6 out of 10 (#3 of 3)
Pros: The fun that mystery flavors bring. Colored flakes upping the confusion factor. Sugary outsides and marshmallow insides joining together in perfect harmony.
Cons: Two-thirds of the flavors seem to be fruit based. Not finding my buttered popcorn successor. The agony that will take place until the flavors are officially revealed.

REVIEW: Maltesers

/ / Reviews / 19 Comments

If you live in England or some other countries, you might be asking yourself, “Why is The Impulsive Buy reviewing Maltesers?” Presumably you’re asking yourself this question with an accent that those of us who live in the United States find utterly charming.

Well, my far-off friends, us Americans have just been gifted with the arrival of Maltesers, having had to settle for Whoppers to soothe our chocolate and malt-craving sweet tooth during movie viewings. Unless you’d prefer Raisinets, in which case, go sit in another aisle.

It’s impossible to eat these Maltesers without comparing them to Whoppers, so I just went ahead and did that.

First off, Maltesers, a name that gets weirder every time I type it, are made by the Mars Co. I was surprised to find “Made in Great Britain” on the package. Mars isn’t making them in the US, they’re just importing them here now. Whoppers are produced by Hershey’s, the great rival to Mars.

As you can see, Whoppers are smaller and have a matte finish, while Maltesers are quite a bit larger and have a shiny, waxy finish to them.

While Maltesers are bigger on the outside, they are decidedly less dense than Whoppers on the inside. Having been a Whopper consumer all my life, eating a mouthful for the purposes of comparison was a familiar sensation – weak chocolate flavor and a texture that briefly feels like it’s going to break your teeth before the inside breaks apart, gumming up but giving you that strong malt flavor.

Despite both being chocolate-covered malted milk treats, Maltesers are basically the opposite. I popped a few in my mouth and there was little resistance when I chomped down – these candies are just as light and airy as they look. And, like their texture, the malt flavor is also light and airy.

The inside dissolves quickly, leaving you with more of a chocolate taste than anything. But, because this is chocolate made in Great Britain, the quality of it is much higher than that of Whoppers.

So, now you’ve got two malted milk chocolate candy options. Which one you choose is really up to you. I loved the light inner texture of Maltesers and the quality of the chocolate, but they were pretty light on the malt flavor, due to the filling dissolving so quickly. But it’s that airiness that makes them so poppable.

When it comes down to it, Maltesers is simply a higher-quality product than Whoppers. It’s got good chocolate and a great texture, although it is light on the malt flavor. But, despite the name, the package doesn’t really play up the maltiness of the candy – it calls them “chocolatey candies” and their trademark is “playful crunch, chocolately delight.” So if that was the goal, Maltesers has delivered hands-down. I blew threw this single-serve bag in an alarmingly short amount of time. They’re dangerously good.

I’ll leave you with a fun fact from Wikipedia: “In the 1930s, advertisements claimed that the Maltesers honeycomb centre is seven times less fattening than ordinary chocolate centres; this led marketers to claim it was beneficial for weight loss.”

Cocaine used to be advertised for weight loss, too! I’d argue it had better results, though. (Just kidding, kids – don’t do drugs!)

(Nutrition Facts – 1 pack – 190 calories, 80 calories from fat, 9 grams of fat, 6 grams of saturated fat, 0 grams of trans fat, 5 milligrams of cholesterol, 65 milligrams of sodium, 23 grams of carbohydrates, 0 gram of fiber, 19 grams of sugar, 3 grams of protein, 8% calcium, 4% iron..)

Purchased Price: $1.49
Size: 1.30 oz. package
Purchased at: Safeway
Rating: 9 out of 10
Pros: Excellent chocolate quality. Light and airy filling. Doesn’t gum up in your mouth. Cocaine (Just kidding, again!)
Cons: Lacking the malted milk flavor of Whoppers. Silly 1930s weight loss campaigns. I’m no longer sure I’m spelling Maltesers right anymore.

QUICK REVIEW: Pure Leaf Tea House Collection Organic Green Tea with a Hint of Fuji Apple & Ginger

/ / Reviews / 3 Comments

Pure Leaf’s Tea House Collection Organic Green Tea with a Hint of Fuji Apple & Ginger has an aroma that makes me think the ginger is going to burn and a name that’s so long it makes me parched.

But thankfully the ginger was mild enough that it didn’t burn and I could take a sip of the tea that made my mouth dry after saying its name.

The ginger flavor is front and center with every sip. The apple gets lost with the ginger, but it does seem to give the tea a sweetness. Perhaps the apple is there to tone down the ginger, which itself isn’t potent flavor wise. All I could think of while gulping it down after every time I said Pure Leaf’s Tea House Collection Organic Green Tea with a Hint of Fuji Apple & Ginger was how it just tastes like a sweetened ginger green tea.

I’m disappointed the apple doesn’t stand out, but it’s still a tasty and refreshing tea. Although, maybe after saying its full name, any liquid would be refreshing to my mouth.

Purchased Price: $2.59
Size: 14 fl oz.
Purchased at: 7-Eleven
Rating: 6 out of 10
Nutrition Facts: 90 calories, 0 grams of fat, 10 milligrams of sodium, 20 grams of carbohydrates, 20 grams of sugar, and 0 grams of protein.

REVIEW: Butterfinger Peanut Butter Crisp Bar

/ / Reviews

If Bart Simpson were still slanging Butterfingers today, he’d most definitely say, “Nobody better lay a finger on my Butterfinger…Peanut Butter Crisp Bar!”

C’mon, you didn’t expect a Butterfinger review without a mention of Bart Simpson, right?!

But Nestle has moved on from Bart Simpson to Backstreet Boys covers with the Peanut Butter Crisp Bar.

Speaking of throwbacks like BSB, the latest version of this Butterfinger innovation is apparently a relaunch with “even more dose of Butterfinger” – whatever that means. However, they’ve added crunchy toffee pieces with the wafer layers and Butterfinger crème.

I think it’s interesting they’re now highlighting peanut butter on-pack because all Butterfingers have peanut butter in the first place. They now also tout that there are no artificial flavors or colors and that added colors are from natural sources. Well then, I don’t want to know what was in my Crisp Bar back in the day.

I bought the Fun Size pack because I was greedy and raiding the Easter chocolate section. I also thought Fun Size would be a good way to portion control. But, I ate three Fun Size Crisp Bars in record time, so I really should have just purchased one 2-ounce package because it comes with three pieces anyway. Ugh.

Visually, my borderline-OCD-self appreciated the perfect machine-laid layers of the wafer and crème. You can see the toffee only sits on the top, so as expected, it doesn’t really translate like it does when eating a non-Crisp Bar. Overall, there’s less crunchety (aka no toffee bits stuck in your teeth) than a regular Butterfinger but there’s still a satisfying crispiness as you can hear loud and clear in the BSB cover video.

It tastes really similar to the Butterfinger Peanut Butter Cups – maintaining that trademark Butterfinger taste but with a smoother finish. The last flavor is the creamy, sweet chocolate coating. But I think it’s less sweet because of the wafer addition and the lack of crystalized toffee sugar-bomb bits. I personally don’t like my chocolate leaving a sickly sweet back-of-throat aftertaste, so I was totally into the chocolate on the bar!

I didn’t expect to, but I really enjoyed these. I even thought to myself – if I was a kid at trick-or-treating age, I’d love to have a jack-o-lantern full of these. Wrong time of year, I know, but that’s how much I enjoyed them.

My only request though: I’d love for Nestle to make a 2 lb Butterfinger Peanut Butter Crisp Bar so I can indulge in my sweet-tooth-Butterfinger dreams. Who’s with me?!

(Nutrition Facts – 2 bars – 200 calories, 100 calories from fat, 11 grams of fat, 9 grams of saturated fat, 0 grams of trans fat, 0 milligrams of cholesterol, 125 milligrams of sodium, 23 grams of carbohydrates, less than 1 gram of dietary fiber, 17 grams of sugar, and 2 grams of protein.)

Purchased Price: $4.00
Size: 11 oz. Fun Size bag
Purchased at: Kroger
Rating: 9 out of 10
Pros: Perfect machine-laid layers of wafer and Butterfinger crème. Less crunchety but still satisfying. Less sweet than regular Butterfingers.
Cons: Where’s Bart Simpson at? Toffee doesn’t really translate.

REVIEW: Limited Edition Strawberry Nut M&M’s

/ / Reviews / 9 Comments

One of 2016’s biggest snack breakthroughs was the expansion of the Peanut M&M’s line. America voted between three new flavors, with Coffee Nut coming away the victor.

Coffee Nut got my vote, but really enjoyed Honey Nut, and even found Chili Nut to be a decent and novel idea. Coffee Nut has now become a candy rack mainstay, and it looks like Mars isn’t stopping there. Say hello to Strawberry Nut M&M’s.

I found it at my local Rite Aid. I was in there with intentions of buying a greeting card, which is the most tedious shopping experience known to man, so finding a new Peanut M&M’s flavor was a very pleasant surprise.

The store sold only a “Share Size” bag, which reminded me of my crippling loneliness. Hello darkness, my old friend.

I asked the first woman I saw if she would like to split the bag with me and she proceeded to mace me.

Once the sting wore off, I tore the glossy paper bag open and met a waft of that familiar stale, almost peppery chocolate scent you always get from M&M’s. This time, however, there was a nice underlying strawberry smell.

I’m always fascinated by the color selection when a new M&M’s flavor comes out. With Strawberry Nut you get red for the outside of the strawberry, pink for the inside, and green for the stem. Way to sneak in there, Green. I’m not sure anyone would have felt bad if the stem and leaf of the strawberry weren’t represented in color form, but who knows, people complain about everything these days – present company included. On to the taste!

I’m torn of what I thought of the strawberry flavor here. On one hand, it wasn’t very powerful, so while tossing back a few at a time, it started to taste like I was eating normal Peanut M&M’s. On the other hand, if they did go overboard with the strawberry, it would have been way too sweet and artificial tasting. I guess I’ll never know. I found the strawberry to be quite subtle. It was noticeable, but don’t expect too much.

I did some surgery on a piece with my teeth to isolate the chocolate because I thought the shell and peanut were masking the strawberry flavor, but even that wasn’t all that strawberry-ey(?).

Still, the flavor was nice. That’s the best I can tell ya. If these were in the running last year, I would have ranked them 3rd, just ahead of Chili Nut. I probably wanted more strawberry, but I love Peanut M&M’s, so it’s hard to complain when something tastes like slightly different Peanut M&M’s.

So, while these weren’t a grand slam, I commend the fine people at Mars. I appreciate them branching out the peanut line, as Peanut M&M’s are FAR superior than regular ones. Instead of giving us twenty regular M&M’s flavors a year, keep pushing this peanut line.

It’s also great to see Mars dive more and more into the fruit world. I know they made Cherry M&M’s, so here’s hoping Cherry Nut isn’t too far off. As a lover of those chocolate oranges, I’d be all for an Orange Nut. (don’t say “go nuts,” don’t say “go nuts.”) Go Bananas!

Oh, Banana Nut!

(Nutrition Facts – 1/2 pack (46 g) – 240 calories, 110 calories from fat, 13 grams of fat, 5 grams of saturated fat, 0 grams of trans fat, 5 milligrams of cholesterol, 25 milligrams of sodium, 28 grams of carbohydrates, 2 grams of dietary fiber, 24 grams of sugar, and 5 grams of protein.)

Purchased Price: $1.99
Size: 3.27 oz. bag
Purchased at: Rite Aid
Rating: 7 out of 10
Pros: The more Peanut M&M’s the better. Strawberry isn’t crazy powerful, but it’s there. M&M fruit flavors. A potential sign of more flavors to come? Gimmie Banana Nut!
Cons: I probably would have picked these third in the new flavor contest. No one to share your Share Size bag with. Limited Edition. Greeting cards are awful. Macing is no laughing matter.

Scroll to Top