
http://yunnansourcing.com/en/rawpu-erh/ ... -cake.html
I agree with all your points. ^^ The aged oolong/heterodox puer parallel has come to me as well. I actually have an older autumn CYH that behaves like that. It was stored exceptionally dry (not just sealed) and I keep it this way. Interesting results.xiaobai wrote:Thanks Puyuan for the additional info on the material/recipe. I must clarify that my impressions are about the 2014 red mark. I've got samples for 2015 material, but have not yet found the time to try them.puyuan wrote:[
The red mark is a blend of a variety of very low-yield forest regions with small canopies of old trees. Yes, all broadly in Yiwu. I was told the recipe (which I don't think I can disclose) for 2015 is more or less the same as 2014, but the proportions aren't.
Your description surprises me. I'm still a month away from tasting this tea, but knowing what the materials are, and having tasted a couple of similar SHT teas that preceded it, I'd expect a very thick tea.
Different methods... Might be the roasting time and oxidation of the fresh leaves. The processing of these Yiwu forest teas tends to be dodgy because of operational logistics in such places, but I know SHT employs a bunch of people to more or less take care of that. The 13 Chawang bing that's available on the West is very pristine compared to the usual tea from these areas.
Conversely, I've had more than one Jingmai that was processed in a greener fashion. I think deliberately.
Also, XZH employs a lovely technique of picking leaves 1-4 instead of 1-3, which gives their tea a different quality...
P.s. Taking in only the differences in terroir/varietals, these teas are supposed to be hugely different anyway.
As to Jin Damo, I have tried both their 2014 and 2015 productions.
I agree that the Jingmai material used for the JD is different from the Yiwu material in the XZH. I gather that Jingmai gushu is predominantly of the Siniensis varietal, whereas Yiwu is probably Assamica or a different varietal (please, correct me if I am wrong).
But putting aside the terroir and varietal differences, I believe there is some difference in the processing and the mindset of the people who make these products. One (XZH) seems to me similar to a green tea as fas as the required steeping parameters are concerned. On the other hand, the JD requires a steeping technique which is more akin to those of Oolongs.
I am not sure if the JD should be called a Pulong though. There is a lot of negativeness in that qualification. I have drunk aged (from early 2000s) versions of JD and they tasted great: Quite smooth, sweet, and calming.
In any case, even if the processing would put JD into the Pulong category, one should remember that there are plenty of examples of Oolongs that have aged pretty amazingly. I have some high mountain (Lishan) Oolong, which is rather green (not roasted or even re-roasted), which has been around for 15 years and still tastes great.
Thanks Puyuan for the additional info on the material/recipe. I must clarify that my impressions are about the 2014 red mark. I've got samples for 2015 material, but have not yet found the time to try them.puyuan wrote:[
The red mark is a blend of a variety of very low-yield forest regions with small canopies of old trees. Yes, all broadly in Yiwu. I was told the recipe (which I don't think I can disclose) for 2015 is more or less the same as 2014, but the proportions aren't.
Your description surprises me. I'm still a month away from tasting this tea, but knowing what the materials are, and having tasted a couple of similar SHT teas that preceded it, I'd expect a very thick tea.
Different methods... Might be the roasting time and oxidation of the fresh leaves. The processing of these Yiwu forest teas tends to be dodgy because of operational logistics in such places, but I know SHT employs a bunch of people to more or less take care of that. The 13 Chawang bing that's available on the West is very pristine compared to the usual tea from these areas.
Conversely, I've had more than one Jingmai that was processed in a greener fashion. I think deliberately.
Also, XZH employs a lovely technique of picking leaves 1-4 instead of 1-3, which gives their tea a different quality...
P.s. Taking in only the differences in terroir/varietals, these teas are supposed to be hugely different anyway.
xiaobai wrote:Last week I've spent some time steeping and studying two Shengs made by Taiwanese Companies, namely Golden Dharma (aka Jin Damo) and Sanhetang's Red label (from 2014 and 2015).
And the thing that astonishes me most is how different steeping parameters one has to employ to really enjoy them.
Already familiar with JIn Damo, which contains a great deal of Jingmai old arbor material with rather large leaves, I find this tea quite sweet, smooth, fragrant, and easy to drink (which for me means that I can drink it in large amounts and my stomach will not badly resent from it).
However, brewing it to full enjoyment typically requires using piping hot water, a yixing pot, and rather long steeping times of the order of minutes.
On the other hand, Sanhetang's red label seems tolerate much less high temperature, and therefore it rather calls for a gaiwan or a shibo.
I am not sure, but my guess it is Yiwu material (need to do some research on this... does somebody know?). The leaves are rather small, with high concentration of buds and a grassy smell. The soup is light and in later steepings it may taste bit thin. However, a very nice sweet aftertaste progressively builds up in the mouth which can be felt for hours and in between meals.
Overall, IMO, a fairly calming/warming Sheng, which is not something I have come across in most young Sheng available nowadays.
However, the vastly different methods required by these two Shengs leaves me wondering whether they can be indeed thought as the same tea type.
I think you are right. This reminds me of the '93 7542 Nada used to sell. It still has great balance.shah82 wrote:That doesn't sound like wet. That sounds like normal traditional HK storage that's well done.
Yeah, far as I'm concerned wet-wet storage aged 7542, 8653, or 8582 isn't really worth money that those things cost.
I wonder if length of humidity doesn't have much to do with how good wet storage is? A HK cake that has had its smacking around and then dry stored might be a lot better than a home stored cake that's been soaking up moisture in a very humid climate for years.
I got a sample so maybe the conditions it has been in rendered more of a smokiness? I am going to let it air outside the bag for longer next time I have it. Will think about the camphor next time.BW85 wrote:Your cake must have been in slightly different storage placement than mine. I get no campfire, only lots of camphor. Delicious and coolingZacherywolf7 wrote:
Today I am drinking the infamous 2005 naka. There is a lot of campfire aroma. The taste is campfire and the liquid is very smooth and nice in the mouth. The edges of the tongue salivate after the swallow and there is great throat feeling in the early steeps. There is some sweet plum aftertaste. The qi is indeed very very calming and my face even buzzed! In the end though I feel like the campfire aspect (it never goes away either) is a big issue and ruins a full enjoyment of this tea.
Shah82 wrote:Your camphor is his campfire. I thought it was nice. Some people really don't like any smoke.
Your cake must have been in slightly different storage placement than mine. I get no campfire, only lots of camphor. Delicious and coolingZacherywolf7 wrote:
Today I am drinking the infamous 2005 naka. There is a lot of campfire aroma. The taste is campfire and the liquid is very smooth and nice in the mouth. The edges of the tongue salivate after the swallow and there is great throat feeling in the early steeps. There is some sweet plum aftertaste. The qi is indeed very very calming and my face even buzzed! In the end though I feel like the campfire aspect (it never goes away either) is a big issue and ruins a full enjoyment of this tea.