#44 - Arnott's Tim Tam (chewy caramel)

If one were to view my collection of player's club cards (or whatever they're called) from the various casinos I've been to, one might come to the conclusion that I have a bit of a gambling problem. As usual, one would be mistaken. I do not gamble (with good reason: I once converted $10 of free play into a whopping $0.79 in winnings), but there is a perfectly logical reason for me to own said cards: I enjoy a good buffet (that makes more sense, now, doesn't it?), and casinos tend to have good buffets, complete with discounts for card-carrying members.

My lack of interest in gambling extends to horse races (in my younger days, I did dabble in it via my Commodore 64, which I'm sure is just as exciting as the real thing), so one might bet (if one has a gambling problem) that I could never in a million years guess the name of the horse that won the Kentucky Derby in 1958.

Yet again, one would be wrong (why does one even try?), and, yet again, there is a perfectly logical explanation (again involving my appetite): in 1958, Ross Arnott was a spectator at the "Most Exciting Two Minutes In Sports" (i.e., the Kentucky Derby, if you haven't figured that out) and decided to "borrow" (i.e., steal) the name of the winning horse for a newly designed cookie (which itself was inspired by Penguin biscuits).

Thus, Arnott's Tim Tam was born, a product that has through the years seen its fair share of variations, and today (wouldn't you know it?) I am tasked with reviewing the chewy caramel edition:

A cookie by any other name would taste as sweet.

In my humble opinion, this might just be the worst name origin I've come across (though it's hard to beat the Violet Crumble, which is another Australian creation; maybe Aussies just have trouble coming up with names). The product has nothing at all to do with horses (I hope), and the name (which is itself of uncertain origin) gives no indication as to what a Tim Tam is (if I were to guess, I'd suspect it referred to a Scotsman named Tim who really loved his cap). Perhaps Mr. Ross Arnott thought naming the cookie after the winning horse would bring the product success (which would hint at a superstitious nature; though Tim Tam never won the Triple Crown, so let's not set our sights so low), or perhaps he won a large chunk of change on the race (say, more than $0.79) and wanted to honor the horse responsible (which would hint at a possible gambling problem). Regardless, there is no good reason to name one's confections so haphazardly (even if today the name has become synonymous with the cookie rather than the horse).

Name aside, the packaging is really well done; it is clear Arnott's (or Pepperidge Farm; though Arnott's is an Australian company, Tim Tam has been distributed in the USA via Pepperidge Farm since 2008, and my package is decidedly American) has a world-class art team at their disposal. The swirling chocolate and caramel artwork as well as the breaking cookie graphic are exquisite, and the overall layout works. It definitely gives off a mass-market vibe, which is not necessarily a bad thing; really, the package design is every bit as successful as Tim Tam himself (I refer here to the horse, not my imaginary Scotsman friend). If I were pressed to point out flaws, I would suggest that the font for the name (though it might just be the name) seems slightly out of place, as does the parrot in the Arnott's logo (but that couldn't really be helped, could it?).

So a fine job thus far.

Well, they got it right to two decimal places...

The "best before" date can be found on the side of the package, and it happened to be Pi Day! Unfortunately, that means I missed the date (only by one day, actually, since, as usual, this review comes some time after my first tasting). To make matters worse, I didn't even eat any pie that day (oh, the tragedy of it all!). But my package of Tim Tam was given to me in an airtight bag, in which I had total confidence, so spoilage should not be an issue.

The top of the back of the package contains a brief retelling of Ross Arnott's "inspirational" day at the races. I'm not sure whether Arnott's is proud of their "creativity" or they're simply trying to explain to the consumer why their cookies have such a nonsensical name, but it takes up a significant portion of the back side, so they must've felt it was important one way or another.

At the bottom (partially obscured by the flap) is the nutrition facts panel (which also wraps around the edge some; if space were such an issue, maybe they should've cut short their origin story):

It's too much trouble to count the cookies, okay?

A quick scan of the data reveals that the Tim Tam has considerably more fat and sugar per gram than Tunnock's Real Milk Chocolate Caramel Wafer Biscuits, which I reviewed recently. I find that interesting, as both promise a chocolate-covered caramel cookie experience, and I loved Tunnock's offering; could Tim Tam's extra fat and sugar lead to a superior product? I suppose anything is possible, but forgive me if I'm a little skeptical.

Another item of note is that, while a serving is two cookies, the servings per container is a vague "About 4." So there are "about" eight cookies enclosed. I wouldn't think it would be so hard to verify whether or not a package holds more or less than (or exactly) eight cookies.

I guess we shall see.

To the side of the nutrition facts one can find the ingredients list:

How many times can you find the word "milk" in this list? (Answer: About 4)

Again, I can't help but compare the ingredients to those of Tunnock's caramel wafer biscuits, contrasting the similarities with the differences. For instance, caramel gets top billing in the Tunnock creation, while only making third place in Tim Tam. Based purely on the ingredients lists, I would bet (if I were a gambling man, that is) on Tunnock's wafer biscuit in a head-to-head battle. I also have a hunch that Tim Tam may be the cheaper of the two products to produce; however, it is a hunch with no merit whatsoever, so you might as well ignore it.

Okay, then. With the perfunctory outside investigation completed, it was time to tear into my package of Tim Tam and taste for myself the "irresistible chocolaty happiness in a cookie™."

Pictured: About 2 servings.

My initial impression was quite favorable; the aroma wafting from within was (as anticipated) not exactly luxurious, but it was sweet and appetizing (I felt I could really smell both the chocolate and caramel), which goes a long way.

The cookies come in a handy tray, neatly arranged so that one can count how many one has (it turns out "About 4" servings means nine cookies; I guess "4.5" was a bit too much for them to calculate), or (if one is a pessimist), how many one has already eaten.

I actually had expected more, as the spacing between cookies is greater than I'd imagined, but I suppose it should keep their appearance from being compromised in transit; I've already seen enough heartbreaking examples of candy mishaps to last a lifetime, so I am thankful to see Arnott's treating their own with such care.

Retrieving one of the cookies from the protective tray, I discovered their efforts were not in vain.

Say, that looks familiar...

My sample looked surprisingly like the illustration on the front of the package. It was surprising because too often the artist's rendition (even when a photograph) is an idealized fantasy of the actual product the consumer receives. It is refreshing to see a treat that bears a convincing resemblance to the example picture, so once again I take my hat off to Arnott's (figuratively speaking, of course; I am not wearing a hat at the moment).

But it doesn't matter if a sweet is the most beautiful thing I've ever seen (Tim Tam isn't, by the way, but it at least looks as it should) if its taste leaves me in despair.

So how does Arnott's Tim Tam fare in the real test?

Exceptionally well, I'm pleased to say! The chocolate, cookie, and caramel are brilliantly proportioned, and the distinct textures play together like a well-oiled orchestra (I think I've mixed up my simile there)! Frankly, I have nothing negative to say about it; it satisfied my taste buds with flying colors.

Therefore, Arnott's Tim Tam (chewy caramel) earns a top spot in my rating scale with a well-deserved 4 (or should I say "About 4"?). If I had to choose, I would give the edge to Tunnock's caramel wafer biscuits (as my Sweets Fiend Senses™ predicted), but make no mistake: Tim Tam is a true winner (and here I refer to both the horse and cookie)!

So if you have not yet had the pleasure of indulging in Tim Tam's chewy caramel adaptation, take a gamble and buy yourself a package.

Trust me, the odds are in your favor.

Fearing I've discovered a new addiction,
The Sweets Fiend

Chocolate-covered caramel-filled cookie? You can't lose!