I need to say a few things about CROISSANTS

Straight up classic croissant at Proof Bakery is hard to beat, and the Za’atar Crème Fraiche croissant at Proof is the next best thing from Ma’s hands and oven.

And speaking of Asian kitchen elves, the Kimchi Spam croissant from Sugarbloom Bakery is awesome because Sharon is the best thing from Taiwan since the export of beef rolls.

And that favorite nutty croissant - the Almond one? I give you the almond creation at Little Flower Candy.


I’ve had those at Cafe Demitasse in Little Tokyo, and I totally agree.

I have a croissant from Chaumont every time I go to Beverly Hills and it is always a true pleasure. Easily my favorite I’ve had in America, and the Pain Chocolats are often nearly as wonderful. Never been to Proof but heard great things, and as I adore almond croissants but find the one at Chaumont just ok, I’ll have to check out Little Flower Candy some time, maybe before a noon kickoff at the Rose Bowl.

1 Like

Just had it again this morning. Working in Santa Monica near the Promenade has its many downsides, but the main positive is being next to Demitasse and feasting on Sugarbloom treats.

1 Like

I think I’ve had croissants twice at Proof? I thought Chaumont was better.

1 Like

Just went to Proof 2 months ago. Still the best croissant in SoCal (heck all of California I dare say).

My “Best croissant in the world”, though? It’s in Japan.

(initiate triangulation sequence…).

How many miles from Tokyo Station?

Let’s do this “Modern Bafuku”-style :slight_smile: It’s a 25 minute combined walk/transit from Nihonbashi (the old school “Center” of all Japan), to the west-southwest.

Thing about Proof bakery’s croissant is that it can be really great if fresh but if you don’t time it right, it’s just average. I don’t know if this concept applies to all croissants but never encountered this problem in Paris.

1 Like


Lou stock rising.

1 Like


A little confused by the post as it seems the conclusion was that they both aren’t very good?

Chaumont stock dropping. Lou stock rising. Buy more Lou.

1 Like

That Chaumont croissant looks like a Pillsbury crescent roll, which are delicious, but they are not croissants.

1 Like

Ah ok I have not heard of this Lou place but if I’m ever in burbank I’ll check it out. Still need to get to colossus bread which apparently has great croissants.

Disclaimer: I haven’t had a Chaumont croissant in ~2 yrs or so.

Did the person originating that reddit thread look at their own photos? Even without reading the captions, I knew which one (exterior shot) was the Chaumont one and which was not. And, also w/o reading the text, I knew that there was only one of those croissants that might be worth eating.

There is nothing “underbaked” about the Chaumont croissant in that photo. The other one looks like a “commodity” croissant that you can get anywhere, and it looks like it would be really bready-y and chewy (and not in a good way).

Regarding the interior shots… First, I think the 3rd shot shows 2 halves of the same (non-Chaumont) croissant. I actually don’t necessarily find the interior of croissants appearance that useful in predicting how they will “shatter” when eaten. And, even w/ that disclaimer, the top one still looks way better to me: you can clear see the flakiness and laminations on the top surface, and the interior still has clear, rolled layers. The bottom one is a web-y mess that might be very pretty but is unlikely to wonderfully flaky. It’s also significantly deflated compared to the Chaumont one.

And then the poster surmises that maybe Chaumont gets good reviews b/c people are usually eating the croissant as part of a sandwich? Where the heck are they getting that from? I didn’t even know Chaumont had croissant sandwiches since, if memory serves me correctly, THERE ARE NO PRE-MADE SANDWICHES IN THE DISPLAY CASE. You can still tell a sh*tty croissant from a good one, even in sandwich form (assuming it hasn’t been sitting out and gotten soggy).

Never had Lou’s, so I have no comment on that.

Maybe the Chaumont bake was just off that one day, if it didn’t taste good, but it certainly still looks spectacular to me (and way better than the other one).

(Edit: just realized that the reddit poster perhaps actually meant to show both halves the same croissant? So I withdraw the “deflated” comment – b/c maybe it looks deflated b/c of the angle – but still stand by the rest of my comments about the interior)

1 Like

I couldn’t see the OPs whole post but reading the response comments it seems like a lot of the responders were kinda noobs or like yelp level posters.

1 Like

Yeah this is definitely how Chaumont always looks and it always tastes great so whatever.

1 Like

It’s very apparently that Proof’s croissant has a vastly superior honeycomb structure and that Chaumont’s is under-baked in the center and probably quite doughy. In terms of flakiness, it’s heavily dependent on how long the croissants have been out of the oven.

Chaumont’s - under-baked spots



What is superior about a honeycombed structure in a laminated dough? It looks pretty. That’s about it, IMHO.

Again, it’s entirely possible that the Chaumont bake (or proving) was off that day, if there are underbaked pockets. But the horrific exterior appearance of the non-Chaumont croissant makes it a total no-go for me.