Considering most people can barely leave chocolate untouched for a week, it's amazing that one set of chocolates has been around for over a century. This box of chocolates pictured above hails from St. Andrews, Scotland, and was made especially to commemorate the coronation day of King Edward VII on June 26, 1902. Although the king died just eight years later, the chocolates survived β 106 years, to be exact.
Martha Greig, the original recipient of the confections, passed down the chocolates to her daughter, who later gave it to her daughter, Freida McIntosh. McIntosh has turned the chocolate, along with its collectible box, in to the St. Andrews Preservation Trust. It is considered a contender for the title of world's oldest chocolate.
I'm amazed that someone had the willpower to preserve the chocolate's historical significance, rather than succumbing to immediate temptation. Do you consider this an amazing artifact, or do you think it ought to be headed for the wastebasket?
Carvela
It looks like there are St. Andrews crosses on some of them. I think its worth preserving because it's tied to a specific event. If someone unearthed a box of Whitman's 100 years from now, I don't think it would have the same value.
1there are probably a lot of "petrified" wedding mints and things like that in dumpsters
2I myself have no will power to keep chocolate for more than a couple of days... they always end up in my tummy. However, the historical significance of these chocolates should definitely be treasured!
3June 26! That's my birthday! haha.
I think it is pretty cool, really.
4pretty strong willed to have preserved those chocolates from that day. normally they would have gone straight to my stomach
good job on seeing the historical importance.
wouldn't try to eat them now though. old chocolate is just bleh. and yes i have tried it. lol.
5that's very interesting!
6There are other contenders?!?
7I can appreciate the historical significance.
8Those look so gross! Chocolate is a weird thing to pass down, isn't it?
9A box of chocolate is definitely a strange thing to pass down, but good on them for not eating it! It's definitely something worth keeping, now that it's been around for so long. It's not like your going to eat them *now*, are you? And like @verily said, it seems to be more meaningful, since it's tied to a specific event. It's a good thing they're going to a preservation society!
http://foodieandfork.wordpress.com
10if these were my chocolates, they would have been gone by June 27th.
it's weird, but kind of interesting--but only b/c of the historical significance.
11Wow, and I thought the year-old Christmas chocolates that my mother in law brought out last year were nasty. These are kind of cool though...it's pretty amazing that they lasted all this time. I'm guessing that after the first 6 or 7 months or so, they became pretty unappetizing.
12I think since it has the paperwork, in the original can, the original old ass chocolate's in place, and it's 106 years old...made to commemorate King Edward VII coronation, then ok, I guess it could be considered as an artifact.
I mean it was made for an important reason 106 years ago. It wasn't made just for everyday eating as a snack at home on that specific day.
13mmmm...tasty! Now who wouldn't want a bite of that?
14on the one hand, wow, that's amazing.
On the other - what a waste of perfectly good chocolate!
15Nicely spotted Verily!
And I'll be honest, that picture is pretty gross.
16They look less like chocolate and something gross. That said, I think it may be worth some value and interest as an artifact.
17Goodness me! This is amazing, totally amazing.
18I think it makes sense to keep them because they're tied to an historical occasion, but honestly, they look like petrified dog poo.
19Post New Comment
Please share your opinion with our community, but make sure it is on topic and follows our Community Rules. We moderate comments and prohibit personal attacks, threats, spam, lewd images, or the promotion of your personal website.