Seems like there must have been somebody out there grumbling and whining on the interzones about there being too thick a layer of dark chocolate on Trader Joe's Dark Chocolate Almonds or something to that effect. I'm not sure why else Trader Joe's would offer this very specific product. Although I've protested and complained about various Trader Joe's discontinuations, lack of locations, and parking lot situations time and time again and they pretty well ignore me consistently.
"Pay no mind to that arrogant blogger boy and the eight US states that don't have a single Trader Joe's location...but let's be sure to give Karen her dark chocolate almonds that are somewhere in between totally coated and not coated at all."
Never mind this is at least the fifth type of chocolate covered almond we've reviewed on this blog. I won't even link to the others directly. If you're curious you can type "chocolate almond" into the Search This Blog bar.
Anyhoo, we've got a resealable bag here, which I appreciate since I won't be eating the entire thing in one sitting. It's a 10 oz package for five bucks, which is honestly kinda cheap for nuts in 2023. And it's pretty much what you'd expect after reading the description on the bag: almonds with a bit of dark chocolate and faint saltiness.
I'd prefer more chocolate to be honest. Or milk chocolate. Or cookie butter. But hey, they're only going for "just a little sweet" here. Mission accomplished, I guess. I hope all those folks looking for not-plain-almonds but also not-super-duper-chocolate-coated-almonds are happy. Me? Meh. They're not bad, but I'm generally only in the mood for regular almonds or almonds coated with a normal amount of chocolate. Three stars from this guy for Trader Joe's Slightly Coated Dark Chocolate Almonds. Four from the beautiful wifey.
Bottom line: 7 out of 10.
Wait. Didn't we just look at these things like two weeks ago? It's like deja vu all over again. Ah, no. Those were Maple Pancake Puffs. These are Maple Pancake Snaps.
Same basic flavor in a different format. At first glance, the nutrition information looks comparable to the puffs, but if you look a little longer, you'll notice these cookies have more saturated fat, cholesterol, sodium, and added sugars. So I'd say they're definitely a tad more indulgent in case you're watching your figure or concerned about your health or something silly like that.
But are they worth it? Well...that's just going to come down to individual preference. I think I liked the puffs better, honestly. Conversely, I don't dislike these cookies. They have the same mapley, buttery flavor as their predecessor. There's also a touch of cinnamon this time around, which is nice.
The cookies are slightly oily to the touch, but they're mostly just crunchy and crumbly, not unlike a typical ginger snap, texture-wise. They don't come neatly in rows, wrapped in cellophane as some other Trader Joe's cookies do, but rather these come all jumbled up in a big, non-resealable plastic sack as shown in the picture above.
$3.99 for about 54 bite-sized cookies. These treats are unique and tasty enough that they'll find their fans and devotees. I just don't think that's us. The box says a serving size is about six cookies. Each time I've reached for them, I've tired of the taste and texture after only two or three—in stark contrast to the puffs version.
While not hating on them, Sonia is equally unimpressed with Trader Joe's Maple Pancake Snaps as she was with the puffs. Three out of five stars from her. I'll have to downgrade my score by a star or so, since I think the original snack was better, more unique, and more impressive overall. Three and a half out of five stars from me.
Bottom line: 6.5 out of 10.
