Home > Food & Drink > Food >

Reviews for Cadbury Double Decker


Double Decked -  Cadbury Double Decker Food
Cadbury Double Decker 

Newest Review: ... crispy and chewy elements of this chocolate bar and it is one of the things that makes Double Decker stand out from the competition. Whil... more

More Cadbury in Food     

Double Decked (Cadbury Double Decker)

adambrown400

Member Name: adambrown400

Product:

Cadbury Double Decker

Date: 17/10/09 (38 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Chocolate

Disadvantages: Too big

The other day on a visit to my local shop I was strolling past the chocolate section when I spied a bar I hadn't eaten in a long while. The Double Decker used to be a favourite of mine, especially when you are really really hungry due to its enormous girth (excuse the description!).

Double Deckers are a mixture of quite hard nougat and cereal filling - I expect something like Rice Crispies. The whole bar is coated in a layer of Cadbury's chocolate for good measure. The bar comes wrapped in a distinctive purple and orange wrapper and has stayed the same since it was first released in the UK back in 1976.

The bar weighs almost 60 g, and typically contains 11.3 g of fat, 41 g of carbohydrates, 2.6 g of protein and 1155 kJ (275 kcal) of energy.

So what is it like to eat? Well, I was pretty disappointed with the experience really. It was quite a struggle to take a bite from the bar because of the consistency of the nougat and cereal. It was far too hard and started to cause my mouth serious internal oral damage! I think in the future I would rather buy a softer and more pansier chocoloate like the Flake or the Ripple!

The taste is good and very filling, but the overall consistency of the bar let it down. It might be up your street, but it wasn't for me.

Summary: Average

Last members to rate this review:
(30 members total)

Stephoohla%2Fsuehome%2FLadyS%2FRenza_e%2Fclairedooyoo%2Fjbsabbath%2F

View all 30 member ratings

Overall rating: Very useful

Nominate for a Crown:

See all newly Crowned Reviews

Last comments:
suehome

- 22/10/09

Not for my delicate teeth then thanks.....Sue
catsholiday

- 19/10/09

Oral and calorific damage I'd say !
JJJJ

- 18/10/09

Oral damage? hehe :)

Top