The delicate way that the chocolate is wrapped in wispy embossed foil lends a touch of fineness to the experience, even before the bar sees the light of day.  The appearance of the 85% is similar -- almost identical -- to the 70% version.  It may be slightly darker brown, less rosy perhaps.  There might not be as much aroma; I recall the 70% filling the room, whereas the 85%, while enticing, does not seem to be quite as pungent.

The bar is firmer, the bite requires more effort.  Less waxy but more solid.  And the flavor is one of firm, confident seriousness.  This is a cocoa-lover's chocolate.  Comparing these two is like comparing two versions of extra dark espresso; is one stronger?  Has one more finesse than the other?  Or is the difference less in power than in style?  I'd say the latter is the case here.

Side by side, the 70% is sweeter, the 85% dryer; the 70% smoother while the 85% is more daring.  There is more flavor with the 70% ... or is that merely a function of its greater sweetness?  There is a creaminess to the 70% that is missing in the 85.  But the tannins on the finish of the 85% remind one of a stout Bordeaux; this is not entirely missing in the lower-cocoa version, but is masked by the sweetness.  The 85% allows those natural tannins to come to the fore.

Milk chocolate aficionados would warm to the 70% cocoa version more readily.  However, drinkers of strong, dark coffee; lovers of tannic, robust, dry reds; single malt fans of Laguvulin or Laphroaig; and/or smokers of full-bodied cigars might just prefer the 85%.  Honestly, I can't make up my mind which I like the best.  I may just have to sit here and keep sampling them, back and forth, until I make up my mind.  At any rate, in this world of inferior chocolate-like products, I would declare either of these inexpensive but fine chocolates to be an excellent experience, one which is certainly quite recommended.