The main thing that weirds people out about Chick-O-Stick is the name. It seems the inclusion of "chick" in there, coupled with the image of a chicken that appears on the original packaging, makes people assume the candy is some sort of unholy chicken mash-up, similar to Chickin in a Biskit.
Of course, there is no chicken in Chick-O-Stick, which is actually a flaky mixture of peanuts, corn syrup, sugar, and coconut. So why the name? Even Atkinson, the Texas-based company that produces the candy, isn't sure. Its website states that "the real answer [to the origin of the name] has probably been lost in our corporate history," then speculates that the toasted coconut on the outside made the candy resemble fried chicken. Um....sure!
Of course, there is no chicken in Chick-O-Stick, which is actually a flaky mixture of peanuts, corn syrup, sugar, and coconut. So why the name? Even Atkinson, the Texas-based company that produces the candy, isn't sure. Its website states that "the real answer [to the origin of the name] has probably been lost in our corporate history," then speculates that the toasted coconut on the outside made the candy resemble fried chicken. Um....sure!
The "stick" part of the name is accurate, though. The candy comes as a
long, bright orange tube, approximately the width of a cigar. The most obvious
comparisons in taste and texture would be to Butterfinger and Zagnut bars. Interestingly enough, Butterfingers were the first of these three treats to hit
the world in 1923, followed by Zagnut in 1930. Chick-O-Stick didn't make an
appearance until the late 1930s.
Ignoring the chocolate coating of the Butterfinger, the innards are similar to the Chick-O-Stick in that you're working with crisp layers of flaky, peanuty candy. With the Chick-O-Stick, you can actually see the ribbons of peanut butter that run throughout the stick:
The Butterfinger is the more delicate of the two, with a more refined, buttery flavor. The Chick-O-Stick is denser and, especially as it ages, has a tendency to become stick-in-your-molars chewy after the first couple of chomps. But barring any major texture problems with an aged bar, the flavor is lovely: a combination of peanut and light coconut with a hint of salt to balance out the sweet.
We like the old-fashioned feel of this chocolate-less bar and are partial to peanut butter variations, so the Chick-O-Stick is a-okay in our book.
Would we eat the whole thing? Done and done.
Would we purchase again? Of course.
Rating: 4 out of 5
Ignoring the chocolate coating of the Butterfinger, the innards are similar to the Chick-O-Stick in that you're working with crisp layers of flaky, peanuty candy. With the Chick-O-Stick, you can actually see the ribbons of peanut butter that run throughout the stick:
The Butterfinger is the more delicate of the two, with a more refined, buttery flavor. The Chick-O-Stick is denser and, especially as it ages, has a tendency to become stick-in-your-molars chewy after the first couple of chomps. But barring any major texture problems with an aged bar, the flavor is lovely: a combination of peanut and light coconut with a hint of salt to balance out the sweet.
We like the old-fashioned feel of this chocolate-less bar and are partial to peanut butter variations, so the Chick-O-Stick is a-okay in our book.
Would we eat the whole thing? Done and done.
Would we purchase again? Of course.
Rating: 4 out of 5
