Thanks out to Frank from Wonder Flavors for sending these out for this review. I’ve already tested a lot of them during the Beta tests, but there are some new, new, new ones (for me), on top of that. I’m looking forward to getting into these final versions.
Mixing now, stay tuned …
Testing Setup (as always):
Running these tests, on my SteamCrave RDTA v.1, with dual vertical kanthal, 24 ga. single wire coils, with fresh cotton and dry burned coils before every test. These flavors were steeped a bit past 1 week, and were all mixed/tested @ 3.5%, and in a 70v/30p/3mg carrier @ 65 watts.
Alaskan Berries (SC) (WF) 3.5% (9-2-23) – Ok people, let’s get these new Wonder Flavors test going !!! Now, I will admit, when I saw this name, wondering which Alaskan Berry/ies they meant, as there are more than a few. This flavor was very unique, and not easily identifiable, nor comparable which made it interesting to test. Overall, my BEST comparison would be a medley of a red currant, and red raspberry. That’s close, but still not 100% accurate, but you get the idea. At a few ticks below mid level sweet, and plenty strong at 3.5%, those two main profiles stuck in my head from beginning to end. There was a nice almost tart, maybe slightly fermented kicker on the finish that was a nice touch. At times, I thought I caught just a WHIFF of florals, but as soon as I did, they were gone, so we’ll chalk it up to “floral-free” overall. It presented as fairly “red” to my tastes, and hence my fruit comparisons. Because it was unique, and didn’t fully encompass either a currant or r. raspberry it could be used in an entire plethora of fruit mixes. It tasted very natural, and with only the very slight whiff of a floral randomly, would be the only nitpicking here. An interestingly new fruit flavor IMO, and good tasting. It’s great to start out a series, with a NEW flavor, that isn’t/wasn’t like any other. I’m going to leave this one high because of that, and with only the one slight nitpick, it felt solid at 9.0/10.
Black Currant Gummy Candy (SC) (WF) 3.5% (9-3-23) – I seem to have a currant problem, i.e. I can’t get ENOUGH good currants, so I was looking forward to this one. Out of the gate, I got a pretty good currant, and I didn’t get any of my typical “red” notes, but the currant-ed-ness was still there. It wasn’t overly sharp, and didn’t have much tart to it, and it def. leaned towards the “candy” side (duh). The paired candy notes, worked very well, and even while being above mid-level sweet, it wasn’t cloyingly sweet.
Now onto the “gummy”, hehe. I didn’t really get much gummy from this one, and it seemed much more slanted towards a hard/squishy candy, than a gummy. I think “gummy” notes/nuances are very hard to quantify, BUT, you know them, if you taste them. I just didn’t get the overhwelming sense of the gummy in this one. Maybe a hint, but that would be it. Because it was fairly heavily candied, the Black Currant tasted almost at a 50/50 mix of natural/artificial. If I had to change ONE thing, I would probably have UPPED the BC, just a bit. All in, a damned fine Black Currant “candy”, but it might leave some of your “gummy” needs waiting at the door. At 3.5% it was full, but not overpowering, and could be said to be just a touch relaxed, and I got no off-notes with this one. About my only nitpicks would be the somewhat lighter BC, and very light gummy-ness. The flavor was very good, and rating it was somewhat tricky, but it felt good at 7.5/10.
Bread (Ginger) (SC) (WF) 3.5% (9-3-23) – Coming off the Ginger Beer, I was curious to see what they did with the ginger in this one. The good news is, it was completely different in this flavor. Much more of a baked ginger, and with some great molasses thrown in for good measure. Riding underneath both of them, was a very realistic dark cookie. Not overly sweet, and actually quite a bit below mid-level at that. At 3.5% it felt like it was maybe 75% of the way there, and maybe a hint more would fix it. The dark cookie, paired with the molasses was quite impressive, and realistic, and almost “crunchy”. The ginger was placed well in between the molasses and cookie elements. There was/were some light spices in there as well, but I couldn’t fully identify them. Like the Ginger Beer, there was a little TH, and bite with this one, BUT, at far lower levels, and I had to fight the urge to pair it up with some creams, and maybe a dash of sweetener, BUT, staying focused here. All in, with no off-notes, and only just a slight “bite”, no real take-offs, or off-notes, and it continued to be impressive, and authentic throughout. A well played flavor. Leaving it high, at an authentic 9.1/10.
Buttercream (Strawberry Banana) (SC) (WF) 3.5% (9-4-23) – Sometimes things work, and others … This one perplexed me during the Alpha testing, and continued to do so here. A ripe banana greeted you on the front end, and then a creamy/creamery carrier rode you through the middle, with MAYBE a smidge of Strawberry on the finish. The cream, to my tastes, didn’t really present as a butter cream, BUT, that is/was subjective. It came across as rather “hodge-podge-y” to me, and rather, lacked a clear focus. It was full at 3.5%, and there were no off-notes, and it stayed a few ticks below mid-level sweet. The ripened banana was actually pretty good, but when tempered with the cream, and very light strawberry, I just couldn’t 100% get behind it. Tasty, different, just presented in a confusing way to my tastes. I can’t see using it as a primary, but there could be a lot of good uses as a mixer for sure. In the end, I’m tallying this one up as a creamy, ripe banana, with a hint of Strawberry. Fairly placing this at a 6.5/10.
Buttercream (Peanut Butter) (SC) (WF) 3.5% (9-4-23) – Although I may not have been a huge fan of the “Buttercream” pairing in the previously reviewed BC SB, it just plain WORKED in this flavor. Yes, yes, and MORE yes. Now again, I can’t say for SURE that it presenter exactly as a buttercream, but it was almost perfect with the Peanut Butter profile(s). The PB was natural, crunchy, and just a hint of salty, which just pushed the flavor up into even higher levels of delcious-ness. What was very interesting, was it was not simply a “Creamy Peanut Butter”, but actually tasted like a natural crunchy PB, paired with a, or some creams, and I found that to be most interesting. Sweet, creamy, and slightly salty/crunchy. This one was one of my favs during the Alpha tests, and, it continued to be. Very nicely full at 3.5%, and ZERO off-notes that I could detect, and it sat a few ticks below mid-level sweet. Your perceptions might vary from mine, but in closing, it simply presented as a natural crunchy PB (with a hint of salty), and a smooth creamery element, perfectly paired. As opposed to the Alpha which seemed to have the PB lower in the mix, now it was almost even, maybe a smidge higher than the creamery(s), and at maybe a 55% PB, 45% Creamery ratio. Simply put, I cannot go lower than 9.75 for this one.
Feijoa (Fruit) (SC) (WF) 3.5% (9-4-23) – I can see why this one is also known as the PineppleGuava fruit. That’s about exactly what it tastes like. I would have to place it at about 70% guava, and 30% Pineapple. While the Guava was a pretty direct comparison, the Pineapple was much lighter in the mix, and was more of a “pretty close to”, rather than an exact match. At 3.5% it was still kind of a lighter flavor, but it was still good. It tasted very natural, and fresh, with about mid-level sweetness. No off-notes to be found, and about the only nit-pick would be “whispy-ness” of it. Lighter, but still present if that makes any sense. All in, it was a very natural tasting, clean mashup of a Guava, with some light fermentation, and a very light Pineapple. Cleanly placing this one high for it’s originality at 8.9/10.
Ginger Beer (SC) (WF) 3.5% (9-2-23) – This ones out to @big_vape who apparently has a Ginger Beer thing. :). Diving right into this one, which smelled pretty ginger beery in the bottle, and on the finger, and actually did continue that when testing. Kinda. First things first, this one had some TH to it, and a little “kick”. I think it MAY have been what Wonder Flavors used for their sparkle or effervescence, if I had to guess. It did have SOME fizz to it, but nowhere as pronounced as say Sobucky’s Cola. Still, it was present in this one, and did help to sell it as a beer in large part. It was below mid level sweet by a few ticks, BUT, it was sweeter than expected, and that, combined with the somewhat fizzy-ness, started it heading towards an almost Ginger Champaign. It was not a full on champaign, but it didn’t taste like a full on beer either, so if you pressed me, I’d go 65% beer, 35% champaign, WITH some nice Ginger. The ginger while present, was somewhat relaxed, but not so much that it got lost in the mix, as it held it’s own throughout. Beyond the TH and "kick"y-ness to this one, it was still a little relaxed at 3.5%, and might have benefited by an increase, BUT, the TH would increase as well. All in, a natural tasting Ginger beverage, with some fizzy-ness, modestly sweetened, and had both beer and (almost) champagne notes. The nitpicks would be the somewhat stronger than expected TH (throat hit), and somewhat relaxed presentation only, and marking it down JUST a bit for them, and it felt good at 8.6/10.
Grapefruit (SC) (WF) 3.5% (9-5-23) – Well guys (and gals) I gotta call’em like I see them. Errrrr TASTE them that is. I might have to re-name this one, “A HINT of Grapefruit”, because that’s all I got. Mixed it up at 3.5% just like all of the rest, and I was barely getting any GF. As you may have guessed it WAS a very light flavor, and after I get this series done I may come back and DOUBLE this one, but I suspect, it is what it is. A very light, yet natural tasting citrus with HINTS of GF. Honestly it felt like it was maybe 30% of the way there at best. It might be good for people who’s olfactory senses are offended by more robust GF’s. No off-notes, and a fair bit below mid-level sweet, and very little of the expected “tart-ness” that you would expect. Not a terrible flavor, but man, “Where’s the beef” ?? Very “whispy” would also be accurate. It tasted very natural, but I just needed a WHOLE lot more of it, for a passing grade. Going to leave this one fairly low, not because of any inaccurate notes, just a real lack OF the notes here. I’m going to be generous, and leave it squarely at a 4.0/10.
Grapefruit Gummy Candy (SC) (WF) 3.5% (9-5-23) – OK, could the addition of Gummy Candy SAVE the previously tested Grapefruit ?? Hehe, it appears NOT to be the case. Now, although I still wasn’t getting a lot of “gummy”, the additional “candy” elements did seem to wake up the slumbering GF just a bit. Not much, but a bit. The wispy thin GF was a little stronger and pronounced with this one, BUT, only up to a point. I did a test, and directly compared “testing” to “tasting” and it actually tasted (finger test) much better and somewhat stronger than testing, so it’s starting to seem like whatever compounds were used for the GF, just didn’t translate as well when atomized, as compared to just tasting it. Basically this review is identical to the previously tested GF, with slightly more GF, and some good sweetened candy elements thrown in. As far as how MUCH better, I can only go with a + 0.5 bump on this one, and again, generously leaving this one at a 4.5/10.
Honeyberry (SC) (WF) 3.5% (9-7-23) – Having never heard of or eaten a Honeyberry, I had to do a least a little prelim research. Now what was interesting, was I was getting an interesting profile, that I didn’t see mentioned anywhere. What was it ?? I was actually getting some nice HONEYSUCKLE from this one. Honeyberry, Honeysuckle, get it ?? OK, it was more than just that, but I was DEF. getting some honeysuckle in there. The other two main elements I got were very fresh, and light blueberries, and maybe some blackberries mixed in. Now I’m (pretty close to) the Blueberry and Blackberry, but it will get you in the ballpark. Despite not hearing anything about Honeysuckle, all the way till the third tester, I just kept getting it. This was a SUPER unique flavor, and a profile that I’ve never had before.
Now if you guys have been following me for years, you’ve heard me say, “No florals, medicinals, etc.” when describing flavors, as typically those are NOT good. With this flavor, I did actually get some LIGHT florals, which were NOT off-putting, or intrusive in any way, and actually just WORKED. Go figure, right ?? Because I really just kept getting the two main elements, i.e. Honeysuckle, and Blueberry, I couldn’t tell which was adding the florals, but it/they were light, and worked to just fully accent the entire flavor. All in, this was an interestingly fresh new flavor for me, and I liked it. At 3.5% it was full, and slightly light at the same time, if that makes sense, and beyond the aforementioned flavors (not the BAD florals), there were no off-notes. It was a few ticks below mid-level sweet, and (like sometimes happens), I completely blew through the 3 testers before I knew it. Coming from the Custard/Bakery/Cream Guy, I was surprised by how much I liked this one, and will be leaving it VERY high, at a 9.8/10.
Ice Cream (Dark Chocolate) (SC) (WF) 3.5% (9-8-23) – TWO things hit me RIGHT away, as soon as I loaded this into the first tester. The first was, the Chocolate here, was VERY good, and the second was the “Ice Cream” was rather missing. Diving in, the Chocolate did have some of the typical “darker” notes, BUT, it seemed more centered around a Medium Dark Milk Chocolate. At times, it almost reminded me of MF’s Dark Chocolate tempered with maybe a Bavarian Cream, and possibly another light creamery. This was because there were some dark choco notes in there, but it was like they were sprinkled on top of an otherwise delicious MC.
Moving onto the Ice Cream, I did get a very nice mouthfeel, and creamy/creamery element, which clearly worked to take the rough edges off of the Choco, remove any bitterness, and added to the richness of the flavor, but it just never really took hold of the Ice Cream full on. Now while most people’s sense of an “Ice Cream” will vary, I just didn’t really get it here. No off-notes, no dry-ness, or bitterness from the Chocolate, and NO Band Aids !!! You guys know what I’m referring to, hehe. At 3.5% it was spot on for strength, and was just at mid-level sweet, and it was a damned fine flavor. I think in summary, I would call it more of a medium dark milk chocolate, with some great sprinkles of dark chocolate, layered into a smooth creamery base. I rather struggled how to rate this, because it WAS listed AS an Ice Cream, and I will be marking it down in that regard, BUT, it was damned delicious, none the less. As a creamy Milk/Dark Chocolate blend I would have rated it VERY high, but with the fairly missing “Ice Cream”, I’ll have to leave it at a 8.9/10. Even though I’m rating this below a 9.0, I actually HIGHLY recommend picking this one up, as it was very good, just needed a little push in the Ice Cream department.
Ice Cream (Toffee) (SC) (WF) 3.5% (9-9-23) – When I had previously tested this one, it never really took hold for me, and after it’s release, it was kind of about the same. I continued to not really ever get a full on Toffee from it. There were HINTS of it in there, and unmistakably so, but really only on the perimeter. The ice cream as well, never really showed itself, and although there was SOME mouthfeel, and creamy-ness, it just didn’t present as an ice cream. Now the flavor WAS indeed tasty, but as far as having FULL ON Toffee or Ice Cream, I didn’t really get them. As far as off-notes, there was a slight sourness to the finish, but only slight. When smelling it, the “toffee” had some similarities to TPA’s Graham Cracker Clear. All in, this one while being fairly tasty, never fully worked for a Toffee or Ice Cream. I’m rating this slightly higher than my Alpha rating and leaving it at a 5.0/10. Fairly tasty, but I just didn’t feel like it worked…
Lemon Gummy Candy (SC) (WF) 3.5% (9-10-23) – Much like the other “gummy” candies here, I didn’t get much, if any “gummy” from this one, SO, perhaps I’m gummy blind, hehe. The Lemon in this one was pretty good, and it favored a more candied (duh) approach. It was similar to FE’s Lemon with some Lemonade thrown in for comparison. Candied, but still somewhat fresh tasting, and sweetness was about mid-level, and there were some nice tart and sour notes rolling around on the finish. I was getting a good “candy” effect, but just not the gummy part, and that could be my perception/tastes. No off-notes, but at times I almost felt like the “candy” might have been diluting the Lemon just a bit. I did fight the urge to add some FE Lemon or even some MF Lemon JUST to see if it could be spiked up. All in, a pretty good Lemon Candy flavor, just not real gummy for me. Placing it squarely at an 8.0/10.
Lime Gummy Candy (SC) (WF) 3.5% (9-12-23) – Testing this on the heels of the LGC, this one was very similar, but with a Lime. The lime was not overly natural but candied (DUH), and had some hints of zest to it. Now, again with the “gummy” for me, I just wasn’t really getting any, and it seemed like either it, or the candy notes, were reducing the Lime somewhat. When finger testing it was much stronger, and actually better, but when atomizing, or at least at my testing weight of 3.5% it was much weaker than expected. I don’t know if this candy/gummy profile is pushing or pulling against the primary flavor. Sweetness was at about mid-level, and of what I did get, it was a good candied lime, I just wish there was more of it. I didn’t get any off-notes, and that’s never a bad thing. I will wait to see if other reviewers find this, and the Lemon GC as relaxed. It was curious to compare finger testing, vs. atomized, with finger testing being pretty superior. All in, for my tastes, a good Candied Lime, but no gummy, and fairly relaxed. It tasted like it had less impact than the Lemon GC, so I’ll rate this one below it at a 7.0/10.
Mango Gummy Candy (SC) (WF) 3.5% (9-12-23) – This being the 5th gummy candy in this series, I was looking for the breakout flavor that really let me have some of the gummy. This one DID have MORE of the gummy-ness than I had gotten from the previous flavors, but only some, but that’s a start. The Mango centered around the mid-body notes, and didn’t have many punchy high notes. Sweetness was actually below mid-level, and it presented as “somewhat” candied. It was fairly full at 3.5%, and didn’t feel like it needed to be stronger. NOW, as far as the off-notes, I DID get one here. It was very much like some “hints of plastic”. Not a full ON plastic, but, it WAS there, throughout my tests. Once I tasted it, it was hard to UN-taste it. It was light enough that it wasn’t overpowering, or overbearing, BUT, it never left, and was somewhat distracting. Because of that, and the only somewhat candied candy-ness of this one, I will have to mark it down somewhat. I had considered a lower rating initially, but finally settled on a 5.0/10.
Meringue (SC) (WF) 3.5% (9-15-23) – Many meringue-ers are unaware there are basically three main types of meringue. I’ve always had a hard time trying to tell what type flavor house are trying to replicate. This one presented as a very good meringue, and I was NO closer to determining the exact style as always. Almost rich, with some good mouthfeel, but not “creamy” at the same time. Full, and rich would be the best descriptors. It did accurately portray the egg-white nuances, and the sugar, and it was about mid-level sweet. At 3.5% it was just about perfect strength wise, and I wasn’t left wanting to increase it at all. What it did seem to be missing was, or were some of the darker “torched” notes. Wait, TORCHED ?? !!! Hehe, YES, torched. FA’s Meringue has some of them, and it is not really a burnt note, but more of a slightly darker nuance. Even without that/them, it was a great meringue, and could easily be used in any application requiring one. No off-notes, and nothing really to nitpick. At times I could have sworn I was getting hints of an almost light vanilla, but it was very light, and could have been just my perception. All in, a good meringue, that was rich, and full at 3.5%, and it felt good, to leave it at a 9.0/10.
Mojito (SC) (WF) 3.5% (9-16-23) – As a heavy Mojito drinker, I love to test flavors claiming to be Mojitos, and see how they fared. This one got it in the ballpark, and maybe a bit more. This tasted a bit different than the last time I tested it, and I actually got some light Rum in this one, and that was bonus. Nicely sweet, and just below mid-level, and there were some nice Lime notes rolling around in there, but I almost got hints of Lemon. Now for any of you who DO mix up fresh Mojitos, it’s ALL about the Lime, and Mint. While the Lemon (unidentified citrus) notes were fairly light, they WERE in there, and honestly, I felt like it pulled it a little towards a Rum and Sprite. Not entirely, BUT, there was some of that going on. It did have a very slight sparkle, which I assumed was an attempt at a slight fizzy-ness, so there was a tiny bit of that as well. The Mint was maybe a 50/50 split of Natural/Candied, so it wasn’t the full “Fresh Mint” ride, but it got the job done. Now perhaps my critiques were over the top, perhaps not, and it’s hard NOT to, when you grow fresh Mint in the backyard just FOR Mojitos !!! I do. All in, it WAS a Mojito, just maybe not 100% like I make them, and it felt like (to my tastes), it was about 85% of the way there, and I’ll leave it at an 8.5/10.
Mousse (Mango) (SC) (WF) 3.5% (9-16-23) – While not eating much mousse, except for maybe a chocolate one from time to time, I had NO CLUE what this one would hold in store. As the flavor was breaking in, on the first tester, I was almost SURE, this was an unholy pairing, and NOT a good idea. As it broke in however, it did start to settle into a rather unique flavor profile. Now I don’t think I ever really got a “mousse”, but there was def. some creamy/creamery elements going on and it did seem (oddly enough) to pair with the Mango. The mango was very similar to the one in the Mango Gummy Candy, along with the same light off-note. Because of the pairing with a creamy element, much/most of the bright upper notes of the Mango were subdued, and it centered most around the mid-body notes. The creamy/creamery did seem to dilute the mango somewhat, as it wasn’t as present as it might have been solo’d. At 3.5% it was fairly strong overall, and sweetness was just at mid-level. The (almost) plasticky off-note that I got from the MGC was back again, and still fairly light, and there was an almost dry-ness to the finish. The off-note could probably easily be hidden, but be advised, it was still here. A “Creamy Mango” isn’t exactly what it presented as, BUT, it is close enough for comparison sake. Although I liked it a lot more after it fully broke in, I was still not a HUGE fan of the pairing, and the slight off-notes would need to be tamed/tempered before I could really like it. Putting it a little higher than the Mango Gummy Candy, at a 6.95/10.
Orange Gummy Candy (SC) (WF) 3.5% (9-17-23) – If you’re in a hurry, this flavor tastes exactly like this. If you’re NOT in a hurry, read on. This one presented literally almost exactly as an orange slice candy, with even SOME, of the sugar granules on the outside. It leaned almost entirely towards an artificial orange, with some of the “Tang” mixed in. It was very good at 3.5%, and like almost all of the other “gummy” candy flavors here, I didn’t get much gummy. Now, with that said, when I think of “gummy” I’m thinking of Haribo Gummy Bears, which have the gelatinous gummy-ness to them. This one while NOT a hard candy, DID favor the aforementioned Orange Slice Candy. Now if that equals a “gummy” to you, then you ARE in luck with this one. Sweetness was just above mid-level, and no overt off-notes, except for maybe a slight “twinge” of sharpness on the finish, but it was minor. All in, an almost PERFECT Orange Slice Candy, that while def. a candy, didn’t push the gummy envelope for me. It was soo authentically close to the Orange Slices, I will have to rate it much higher than the previously tested gummy candies, and leave it at a 9.1/10.
Pastry Cream (SC )(WF) 3.5% (3-22-23) – This one presented as a fairly neutral creamery, with some nicely defined mouthfeel. . Not sure if the attempt was for a Mascarpone Cream or not, but there were some clear BA notes that persisted throughout. I didn’t get the clear sense of a Pastry Cream, but it was much more than a simple dairy or cream. There was some light undertones that resembled a pastry filling, but they were undertones only. It was fairly full at 3.5%, yet still somewhat light. It was sweetened, and tasted a little below mid-level. The BA did thicken it up a bit, and also added a slight sourness on the finish. Your BA sensitivity (or lack thereof) may decide whether or not this one is for you or not. All in, a fairly generic, mostly neutral cream, with some good mouthfeel with a slight sourness on the finish. It felt fairly placed at 6.5/10.
Peach (Juicy) (SC) (WF) 3.5% (9-18-23) – As I always mention, I try to NOT read other flavor reviews before reviewing them, to avoid any “contamination” of my own review(s). I have some VERY interesting thoughts on this one, and did check others thoughts on it, JUST to see if anyone else got, what I was getting. Interestingly enough, no one did, or had. Pressing on with my seemingly unique thoughts on this one. When loading the first tester, I was immediately greeted with what I can only describe as a fairly “cactus” like dominant note. After that, I did get some good yellow peach behind that, and at times, slight hints of an almost Fuji Apple. Yeah, that’s why I checked around, as no one else got that from this flavor. It never presented as a full on, juicy yellow peach to my tastes, and the peach notes I did get, while good, played almost second fiddle to the cactus note(s). It was quite a bit different than say TPA’s Juicy Peach, which I use regularly. It wasn’t that it was a bad flavor, but I’ve got a rather “hate/hate” relationship with cactus, and despite it adding “juicy-ness” to mixes, I cannot use it, so keep that in mind with this review.
It felt like a 6.5/10 on the strength scale, and it felt like it could be stronger, and that was at my 3.5% testing weight. Sweetness was a few ticks below mid-level, and no off-notes, BUT, for the cactus. It did have a fairly juicy overall profile, but I wouldn’t call it mouth wateringly so. I didn’t really get much if any skin, and that was probably (again), due to the cactus note. All in, I couldn’t see using it to pull the main Peach freight, but def. could see it in mixes. With my disdain for cactus-es out in the open, I would have to leave this one at a 6.0/10.
Pecan Pie (SC )(WF) 3.5% (9-21-23) – Having tested the WF Pecan, this one was very similar to it, but tempered by a sweetened, almost thick, pie filling like main note. I didn’t get much butter from this one, and that was great, as it was NOT a Butter Pecan flavor. The crust was much lighter in the mix, and would need some boosting to make this a full on “pie”. The Pecan notes were actually very good, accurate, and had just enough earthy tones to keep it realistic. Throughout the 3 testers, this one proved to be really centered around the deliciously sticky rich filling of the pie, WITH Pecans mixed in. The stand along Pecan was earthier, but with this one, it was much lower to the “filling”. At 3.5% it was very good, convincing, and almost thick, and with no off-notes. About my only nit-pick would be the very light (if at all) crust, but that could easily be fixed. This one tastes improved from the Alpha tests somehow, and was just a great Pecan Pie Filling. All it needed was some crust. Pushing this one up higher to 9.0/10.
Persimmon (SC) (WF) 3.5% (9-22-23) – I have never eaten a Persimmon, so (as always), had to research it a bit to give you a more comparative review. From what I found, this one appears to be spot on. This one presented as an ALMOST Apricot, tempered in Honey. Now it wasn’t EXACTLY like an Apricot, but it was damned close to a lighter version of one. The Honey part, just seemed a bit MORE accurate, as I couldn’t think of a closer comparison. If any of you have indeed tried honey flavors in the past, and have blown up, hehe, fear not, there’s none of that here. It was very natural tasting, AND, with no off-notes or florals.
It was just almost strong enough at 3.5%, but felt like it could use a SMIGE more, but only a smidge. This is/was a fairly unique flavor, and I could see a LOT of uses for this, in a lot of mixes. There was just a hint of tart in the beginning, but the honey-like elements smoothly rolled from the middle to the finish. I can’t think of any of my flavors that are exactly like this, and I have a LOT of flavors, so you may want to pick this one up and experiment with it. Very tasty, and will rate this “Honey Apricot”-ish flavor very high @ a 9.5/10.
Powdered Donut (SC) (WF) 3.5% (9-26-23) – I spent some extra time with this one, to better try and figure it out before posting this. I have had very few good donuts, and a lot of terrible donuts. This one, thankfully was one of the good ones. It does seem however, that many people have different takes on what a “donut” should or does taste like. For my American friends, this wass NOT a Krispy Kreme donut, but actually more like the small Hostess powdered donuts. The donut body was more of the slightly denser yellow cake-ish type, than the lighter deep fried type. The powered sugar aspect(s) kind of came and went, and didn’t always present for me consistently, so I would call that a lighter note. The cakey bakery note(s) were convincingly done, and although I didn’t get any spice or cinnamon, there was ALMOST (but not quite) an undertone of it. At 3.5% it was very full, and I didn’t feel the need to increase it. Sweetness was about mid-level, and good for this type of flavor. There were some “fried” notes going on, but they weren’t intrusive, or “greasy”, but still there. I didn’t get any off-notes, BUT, I did get somewhat of an almost “powdered milk” undertone that actually seemed to work with the overall profile, so I didn’t mark down for that. All in, a pretty impressive lightly fried donut, that was centered around a denser yellow cake interior with very light powdered sugar notes. It felt very good at a 9.3/10.
Pudding (Milk Chocolate) (SC) (WF) 3.5% (9-29-23) – I remembered my reaction to this one during the Alpha tests, and guess what, they IMPROVED it. NOW (unlike before), I was getting ONE clear profile, and that profile was Jello Chocolate Pudding !!! It’s NOT that it exuded raw pudding, BUT, it was unmistakenly, exactly that. The chocolate profile wasn’t exactly what I would call a Milk Chocolate, but it wasn’t a light or dark, so maybe that was more implied than not. Sweetness was actually below mid-level, which was surprising, but it actually didn’t feel like it needed any more. No off-notes, and it was just a smidge below where I would have liked it to be at 3.5%. No rubber bands, or band aids, so the chocolate notes were very well done.
It was simply put, about as close to a Jello Choco Pudding. It was almost as if it tasted like a mix of both the dry (in the box) pudding mix, AND, one that had been mixed/heated with milk (finished), and I would put it at a ratio of 25% dry, 75% finished if that makes sense. Smelling it, the chocolate had this delicious darker coffee undertone, and testing it, it was still there, just somewhat lower in the undertones. If you want a chocolate pudding, that tastes just about as close as I have ever tasted, then you WILL love this one. I suffered (LOL) through 3 testers trying to find faults with this one, and I came up short. I even compared my Alpha notes, which did not seem to apply to this, the finished version. All in, it was just below perfect to my tastes, and it felt solid at 9.9/10.
Raspberry Gummy Candy (SC) (WF) 3.5% (9-30-23) – While never fully getting what I would call a “gummy” from these gummy flavors, this one seemed to have more than the rest, but just by a bit. The star of THIS show was the Raspberry. It did not present as a darker purple RB, but much more of a candied Red Raspberry. I think what made the RB soo much better in this one WAS the pairing with the “candy” elements, errrr “gummy” elements. The Raspberry was somewhat unique, and reminded me of a candied red raspberry, with some hints of INW Raspberry Malina, and maybe a touch of RF’s Yummbery. Yeah, hehe, that’s as close as I can get, and it was good. NOW, the RB felt like it was somewhat diluted (as in the case of another gummy candy flavor) by the gummy candy elements. It tasted like it was about 75% of the way there, and I don’t think increasing the flavor percentage would make it pop any more due to the (along for the ride) gummy candy-ness
With that said, it was still fairly strong and present, and I couldn’t detect any florals (like Raspberries LOVE to do), or off-notes. The gummy candy was present, but instead of being gummy (for my tastes), it just seemed to “candy up” the RB, and it DID work. VERY good RB profile overall, but just not as strong as it needed to be to fully POP, and the gummy-ness was questionable. The RB did have a nice little tarty kick on the finish, and that helped pull it from being completely candied, and added some natural-ness to it. All in, and very good RB flavor, with good candy notes. About the only take-offs (like before) would be for the lightness of the “gummy”, and for a slightly diluted RB overall profile. It was too good to take-off too heavily for the minor aforementioned nit-picks, and it felt good at a punchy 9.1/10.
Redcurrant Gummy Candy (SC) (WF) 3.5% (10-2-23) – This one didn’t change much at all from the Alpha tests, and proved to be my not most favorite of the Gummy Candies. There were some aspects of Redcurrants in there, but I still continued to get an almost Pomegranate undertone throughout, while lower in the mix, was always there. I also got a sort of “funkyness” from it, again, while lower in the mix, stuck around for the entire show. Surprisingly the “gummy” was a little MORE present than in most of the other gummy candy flavors, so that was a plus. At 3.5% it was full, but still felt like it could use some MO Redcurrant to be honest. Sweetness was a few ticks below mid-level, and there was a nice tart pinch on the finish, that I really enjoyed, and kept it somewhat interesting. Not terrible, but it would also probably not be the main RC note in your mixes. About the only overt off-note would be the slight funky-ness previously mentioned. My opinion on the Alpha was about the same, and I decided to better hone in my rating on this one, and am going to place it squarely at a 6.5/10. Not terrible, not great, but somewhere in between.
Red Velvet Cake (SC) (WF) 3.5% (10-6-23) – I knew this one was a keeper as soon as I tested it. VERY accurate Red Velvet Cake, with delicious almost cocoa notes, tempered by a velvety smooth (sorry) cake profile. I have gotten more than my fair share of “baby powder” notes from more than a few RVC’s, but NOT HERE. Clean, accurate and just almost rich, with no off-notes. The cake element(s) were so accurate that at times I thought I was getting hints of baking soda !!! Needless to say that cake profile was just about as close as you could make it, short of a mixing bowl. I typically use Vanilla when I make the actual cake, and I didn’t get a lot of that in here, as (you guessed it), the Cake and Cocoa notes were the stars here. At 3.5% it didn’t leave me wanting, BUT, I wouldn’t have argued with a smidge more so the % will be up to you guys to decide. Sweetness was actually just below mid-level, and I did blow through all 3 testers before I knew it, and I hadn’t written a single word LOL. All in, a VERY good, and accurate Red Velvet Cake with super delicious cocoa and cake notes. NOT a chocolate cake, but squarely a RVC. I’m moving this one up a tick from my original Alpha rating, to a 9.85/10.
Strawberry (Sparkling) (SC) (WF) 3.5% (10-7-23) – 2nd to LAST one on deck people. Normally something in the smell or finger test sets the tone for me with flavors, but this one, it might just have been the COLOR. Post steeped this one had a somewhat lighter pinkish, almost amber color which was interesting being a Strawberry flavor. Normally they are clear, so WHAT exactly WAS in this flavor ?? Well, I can make it easy for you, it tasted like a juicy red strawberry, mixed with a light, sweet champagne, with a touch of marshmallow. Yes, I know what that sounds like, hehe. Now, I have to clarify the previous profiles. The champagne was my best, closest comparison, but without any dry-ness, wine-ish notes, but with some “sparkle” in it. The marshmallow was more about some of the mouthfeel I got from this one, and a hint of the taste, as opposed to a full on marshmallow assault. There weren’t any “sharp” edges on this one, and had a slight smoothness to it, hence my thoughts of MM. The strawberry, while reduced somewhat due to the other profiles, tasted mostly red, juicy, and with hints of white/green SB thrown in. 3 testers later, I couldn’t find any off-notes, and overall, it was full at 3.5%, BUT, the SB was not as pronounced as I would have liked.
This is where YOUR personal preferences will come into play. The ratios. The SB did NOT taste like it was dominant here, so that may decide for you where to rate this flavor. A completely guessed ratio would be 40% Red Strawberry, 50% light, sweet champagne, and 10% marshmallow. Wow, this one was tough to describe for you guys, but there you have it. It indeed DID “sparkle”, and did so in a very unique fashion. Overall, my only complaint would be the somewhat recessed SB, so I finally decided on an 8.0/10. Dropping in some SB on top would easily resolve it for my tastes.
Sugar Cane (SC) (WF) 3.5% (10-7-23) – Finishing up this series I started about a month ago, with this, the Sugar Cane. I really liked this one during the Alpha tests, and that continued here as well. This presented as a fairly rich, almost buttery (without any butter notes) sugar cane. It had an almost “thickness” to it that really added to the realism. There were some darker sweetened notes, BUT, not of the molasses type, just darker sweet notes. At 3.5% it was damned good, rich, and full, and didn’t leave you wanting. Sweetness was just at about mid-level, but it wasn’t cloying OR annoying (hehe). Despite not being overly complex, it was still a very enjoying flavor to test.
I couldn’t get past the (repeating) buttery richness of it SANS the butter, and I’m not sure how Frank and his crew over at Wonder Flavors did it. No off-notes to be found EXCEPT (gotcha), I got a very distinct undertone from beginning to end, and I’m going to ask @Lynda_Marie to chime in on this and see if she got it as well. I think one (or more) of the compounds used in this flavor are/were also used in more than a few DONUT flavors. I knew it the moment I tasted it. I’m NOT going to qualify it as an “off-note” because it seemed to help push the “darker” envelope, and it just worked. All in, this one was a great, darker, sugary, almost buttery rich flavor, that kept you coming back for more. I’m pushing this up a tick from my Alpha rating and dropping it at a solid 9.3/10.
