Cadbury's make them and they cover them with chocolate

[venta]

Pretty much my favourite chocolate bar is a Double Decker. It's run a close second by a Marathon (which I still resolutely refuse to call a Snickers because, well, it's just silly. And "eating your snickers" sounds like some sort of shoddy euphemism. But I digress.)

So, Double Deckers and Marathons ?

Well, you can now buy a Double Decker with nuts in. Which tastes, not unsurprisingly, like a cross between the two.

<joyful munching noises>

Comments

[secretrebel.livejournal.com]

Didn't the Marathon recipe change when it became Snickers. I have a feeling it did, which is some justification for my bizarre insistance on calling it by the name on the packet.

[venta.livejournal.com]

What you tell me three times is true :)

I don't know about the recipe change. I don't remember it, but then I'm not sure I ever ate enough Marathons to be familiar enough to tell the difference.

[secretrebel.livejournal.com]

Eeek! I have no idea why my post got triple posted. Weird. I'm going to delete the other two now because it frightens me to see that many remarks by me.

I never really ate a lot of Marathons, it was only after the name change that I started eating them.

[bateleur.livejournal.com]

Didn't the Marathon recipe change when it became Snickers.

Nope.

Also, venta, you just be careful dissing modern chocolate bars (qv. comments on Boost above). It might be taken as implied criticism of Fuse bars - and that's fighting talk !

[venta.livejournal.com]

Er... Fuse ?

Y'see, these modern chocolate bars just don't have the punch of the old ones - they're not distinctive enough to be memorable :) I know I've eaten a Fuse in the past, but the best I can manage is that I think it was a bit like a Picnic (so kind of nobbly and nutty and raisiny). But I'm not at all sure.

Of course, if you want to educate me by buying me lots of chocolate, I'll try and cope :)

Out of interest, what used to be advertised as "slightly rippled with a flat underside" ? Was that Boost ?

[http://users.livejournal.com/_corpse_/]

It was indeed.

Ah, Vic 'n' Bob.

Or rather... ah, Bob. Am I alone in having found Bob a lot funnier than Vic?

[http://users.livejournal.com/_corpse_/]

And if you want to relive the moment... it's here, 10th from the bottom.

[jiggery-pokery.livejournal.com]

I would go so far as to say that Bob does far less of the "so far off the wall it's a complete miss" stuff and so has a better record of success, but I have a suspicion that neither Vic nor Bob would be paricularly funny on their own and need each other in order to be funny.

Great page of ads you link to below, by the way. My favourite is the Clark's Magic Shoes 1988 one, third on the page.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_corpse_/]

I guess there's a similarity there to Rik Mayall and Adrian Edmundson. I always found Adrian to be funnier, because he was less manically OTT than Rik.

You're probably right about them being less funny in isolation though.

[broadmeadow.livejournal.com]

Well, Vic did start up on his own. Bob joined him after seeing him at one of this shows. (So the story goes, anyway).