Misleadingly marketed fruit snacks are becoming something of a bête noire for the EatFoo bloggers. Back in August, Adam got burned by some not so Simpsony Simpsons fruit snacks. Then this weekend I fell victim to Maynard’s Wine Gums.
I came across the wine gums at the nifty British Goods Store in Clarendon. With pictures on the package showing port, sherry, champagne, burgundy, and claret gummies, I was looking forward to trying them out. I was taken aback when I went to the counter and the cashier told me they cost just over six dollars. I should have walked away then, but the combined pressure of not wanting to look cheap and the idea that such expensive gum candies must really, really taste like wine caused me to pay up.
I could not have been more wrong. The wine gums, while tasty, were nothing like wine. And the flavors weren’t even correlated with the names; “burgundy” was just as likely to be green as dark red. What gives?
It turns out that wine gums were never supposed to taste like wine. In fact, confectioner Charles Maynard was a teetotaler. They were named “wine gums” because eating them is “similar to the experience of savouring a fine wine.”
I guess if you grow up British you know these things. Me, I just feel like I spent way too much money on a pack of gummies. Damn you, Maynard’s!
[This post was originally published at EatFoo(d) on 9/19/06.]