Heini...Another Quest

[needaTEAcher]

Hmm, seems like you don't bother to click on links we post then?...How are you examining the clay? Are you using your hands? Your eyes? Are you looking at them through 30x magnifiers? ...Also, as I've already mentioned before, I think it is a red-herring to chase after different kinds of clay - they don't really make any meaningful difference in terms of the tea they brew, unless you're talking about high density zhuni, which behaves a little closer to porcelain. Otherwise, just use what pleases you and what seems to come out best for you. I think there isn't a lot more to say about pots than that.

MarshalN, it would appear that I have somehow offended you. Have I? If so, I apologize. Such was not my intention. Furthermore, I have, in fact, clicked on the links, and I responded to them earleir, noting my observation on pore size and asking for clarification. Your language before the link wasn't entirely clear to me (you mentioned pots with a red tint and then post your pot, and I wasn't sure if it was ment to be genuine or artificially colored-through a photo on a computer screen I couldn't really tell). I mean no disrespect; I just want to learn.

To answer your questions, when I examine pots I use my hands, my nose, sometimes a magnifying glass, hot water when possible, and of course I brew tea in it when I can. I prefer to either brew tea I know really well in it, or take it to one of my teachers, since I am very familier with how they brew, and their main stock of teas. I only buy nicer pots from someone I trust, or if someone who knows more than me comes along to help me navigate.

As per telling the difference between the pots by photos, for the most part, I try not to offer opinions are to quality or origin of clay when I can't physically examine it. I have read some amazing posts by people who can tell something is fake or real because of esoteric details (I just read an interesting post about a supposedly fake Jiang Rong[sp?!] teapot in which Tim displayed pretty solid knowledge of the artist and her trademark leaves). This kind of thing is rad, but I am not on that level..yet.

I do have a question about the Yixing clay in the middle of Europe. I thought it was illegal to take raw Yixing clay outside of China. I read that it is considered a national treasure, and so it must be used in China. Is this wrong? How on Earth did that clay make it to Europe? Why aren't people paying a fortune to have raw clay shipped to them all over the world?

Lastly, I understand your opinion on Yixing clay, and I firmly believe that everyone's opinion is, ultimately, valid (so long as they are based on experience and knowledge gained). But I, though I have less experience than you, have a different view, based on my own experiences. I have brewed a few of the same teas many, many times, with many different factors, and I have found that the type of clay, not to mention of course the many factors posted earlier pertaing to the brewing vessel (pot size, pot shape, wall thickness/evenness, quality of craftsmanship, age of clay, age of pot, etc...), not to mention the water, the way I feel before drinking, what tea I had prior, what kind of a mood the person making it is in, etc., influence the taste of the tea. I prefer some teas in Duanni, some teas in Zini, and, for some reason, I don't jive well with Hongni. I tend to get along well with Qingsuni too, and I do really enjoy a real Zhuni pot (older Zhuni...Modern Zhuni is nice too, but just not the same to me). But there is not a long of Heini or Lvni in Korea, so as I am learning a fair amout about the clays here, I haven't been able to learn much about these clays. Hence my "quests" across Asia and into the teachat room. Again, I am not trying to be rude or disrespectful here, nor am I trying to "win" anything, I am just vying for my seat at the table. I believe we are all due a certain level of respect, especially somewhere as awesome as Teachat, where we can come together and share our love of tea.

Toki: I will ask two of the three. The third is in Malaysia, and I won't see him until December. I try not to e-mail, because he is crazy busy. But I'll get back to you Sunday-ish on the clay/sand thing. I see both teachers tomorrow. Yaaaay for Saturday!

[wyardley]

I do have a question about the Yixing clay in the middle of Europe. I thought it was illegal to take raw Yixing clay outside of China. I read that it is considered a national treasure, and so it must be used in China. Is this wrong? How on Earth did that clay make it to Europe? Why aren't people paying a fortune to have raw clay shipped to them all over the world?

I don't know if there are rules about exporting it (I've never heard of them), but I think there are a few reasons that the style of material isn't exported much. I don't think there's any rule against removing the raw material from China - that seems absurd.

For one thing, from what I've heard from potters, it can't be easily worked using the methods that most potters anywhere else use. Zisha isn't exactly "clay" per se, and I think it's much harder and drier than the materials a lot of ceramicists work with. The demand also probably isn't that great, and the cost of transporting and / or shipping it to customers through the mail (in the case of a mail order business) the material is high (since it's heavy). There are some similar local stonewares which are probably more commonly used.

http://www.chineseclayart.com/ChineseClayArt/ does sell some materials, though I don't think they are the highest grade. They are a way to get a basic sense of how working with this material is. I tried at a workshop once, and it was hard... like, really hard (but then, I don't really have any ceramics experience). I know the owner has also brought back higher grade raw material and built things with it in the US.

[MarshalN]

As per telling the difference between the pots by photos, for the most part, I try not to offer opinions are to quality or origin of clay when I can't physically examine it. I have read some amazing posts by people who can tell something is fake or real because of esoteric details (I just read an interesting post about a supposedly fake Jiang Rong[sp?!] teapot in which Tim displayed pretty solid knowledge of the artist and her trademark leaves). This kind of thing is rad, but I am not on that level..yet.

I do have a question about the Yixing clay in the middle of Europe. I thought it was illegal to take raw Yixing clay outside of China. I read that it is considered a national treasure, and so it must be used in China. Is this wrong? How on Earth did that clay make it to Europe? Why aren't people paying a fortune to have raw clay shipped to them all over the world?

You're evading the question here though. My point was, when put together, the two pots (one made in Europe, one in China) will look, feel, and probably brew vastly differently, and even just from a casual glance at the pictures you can at least tell that they appear very different. Yet, they are made from the same clay. So when you ask "what is heini" or "what is lvni" do you mean the raw clay, or the finished product? There are a lot of factors that will affect how the clay comes out, so the proper answer is probably "it depends". Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to you. The same can be said of whoever told you yixing clay is a national treasure - that person is not only lying to you, s/he is also trying to sell you stuff. You can probably strike that person off the "people I trust" list now.

Lastly, I understand your opinion on Yixing clay, and I firmly believe that everyone's opinion is, ultimately, valid (so long as they are based on experience and knowledge gained). But I, though I have less experience than you, have a different view, based on my own experiences. I have brewed a few of the same teas many, many times, with many different factors, and I have found that the type of clay, not to mention of course the many factors posted earlier pertaing to the brewing vessel (pot size, pot shape, wall thickness/evenness, quality of craftsmanship, age of clay, age of pot, etc...), not to mention the water, the way I feel before drinking, what tea I had prior, what kind of a mood the person making it is in, etc., influence the taste of the tea

So how do you know it's the clay that's doing the trick, and not one of the other million factors that are involved? What was the scientific method you used to isolate this one variable among all the other variables so you know for certain that the clay is doing the trick?

[needaTEAcher]

I avoided the question for the reasons I stated: I am not enough of an expert to evaluate clay or pots from photos only. I might have an opinion in really obvious cases, but I would be sure to say that it was only my opinion. Besides, the craftsmanship is different, the photos in the Europe have raw and test cones, plus the teapots, and the Chinese clay that you posted is just the pots. So to compare, online, through a computer, I would have to say...I have no clue! Put the pots in my hand, give me some hot water, and I will do my best, but it will still just be my humble opinion.

I read that bit about it being a national treasure in an article translated from Chinese about the history of Yixing clay. It was linked to either teachat or teadrunk. I don't remember. No one selling me anything, and when I asked my teachers here they said they didn't know, because they had never tried to get raw clay. BTW, thanks for the good info wyardley.

I don't, ultimately, know anything, really, except perhaps that I exist, and even that is a bit of a logical jump... But maybe this is not what you mean? The short answer is that I have done a lot of tests trying to even as many variables as possible. Early on I had trouble telling differences, but as I have learned more about the teas I brew and the clays, I have begun to see and taste differences in how the teas perform. Not so terribly scientific, but an approximation. My favorite test was a 100ml porcelin gaiwan (which was a different shape and thickness, obviously), and two 100ml pots, one zini, one hongni/hongqingzuni (there has been some confusion on how the clay is categorized in Korea vs other places, and I am still not sure on that pot). I found through a bunch of different puerhs (and even a few oolongs-I am sorry everyone for breaching sacred law!!!! ) that I tended to like like the gaiwan, but I liked the porcelin more, and in general I liked the hongni less. I know some folks that swear by hongni, but it just doesn't do it for me (there is one exception-it was a master teapot selling for $20k or $30k and it made great tea). But I have also done countless other little tests, and I have had many interesting results. Mostly I have learned that I can't even begin to approach any of it unless I am feeling centered and empty, otherwise to many other physical and mental factors intrude. In any case, maybe it is all placebo, but maybe not. Who is qualified to say what another has experienced?

[MarshalN]

Who is qualified to say what another has experienced?

Since you believe in absolute relativity in experiences, it doesn't sound like there's much need for discussion as all your answers are already within you. May you have good fortune on your tea journey.

[needaTEAcher]

Who is qualified to say what another has experienced?

Since you believe in absolute relativity in experiences, it doesn't sound like there's much need for discussion as all your answers are already within you. May you have good fortune on your tea journey.

LMAO Cute rhetoric, but misses the point of what I have been trying to say. But no worries. Eventually I will learn the language to better express my personal "way of tea". Good luck on yours!

Back to the main event, y'all: it looks like MarshalN and I got sidetracked into abstract experiential theory, but the original post is something more concrete. Shall we loop it back?

So, silliness aside, I am looking for anyone with any experience with black clay and the idea that the original black clay is extinct, so any modern black clay is colored by manganese. Has anyone else found this, maybe in a Chinese text somewhere, or anything contrary to it? Thoughts?

BTW, a friend kindly chastised me for posting a bad photo. When I can, I will try to take a better photo. My memory of the single pot is that is it lighter, almost grey (but still black). The twins are pretty blackish.

Thanks, as always teachatters.

[MarshalN]

LMAO Cute rhetoric, but misses the point of what I have been trying to say. But no worries. Eventually I will learn the language to better express my personal "way of tea". Good luck on yours!

Excuse me, it's not rhetoric. What, exactly, is the original point you were making? You basically said that all opinions are valid, and that they are all shaped by personal experiences. Since your experiences and mine are obviously going to be different, ergo my opinions are not going to be the same as yours either. Whatever anyone tells you with regard to anything is going to be based on his/her experiences, which is not going to be congruent with yours, therefore not applicable in your case, by your logic. You never answered my question about whether you're asking about raw materials, or the finished product, which will change the answers given to you depending on what you're looking for. You also avoided giving any sort of response on the pictures of two pots that are clearly and substantially different. Since you maintain that all opinions are valid, if you'd at least have the decency to not dismiss my opinions as "silliness" with "LMAO" to boot, I'd greatly appreciate it, thank you.

[MarshalN]

In case my points were not obvious, I have distilled them into the following

All I'm trying to do is to point out that clays can be manipulated to look a certain way by the potter. Therefore, using colour as the primary means of categorizing clays, if we're talking about finished product, is very misguided and can easily lead to the wrong conclusions. Two pots made with the same clay can perform very differently, which is why I keep saying that clay type is not that important and it's a fool's game trying to nail down clay types (and acquire specific ones).

[Tead Off]

In case my points were not obvious, I have distilled them into the following

All I'm trying to do is to point out that clays can be manipulated to look a certain way by the potter. Therefore, using colour as the primary means of categorizing clays, if we're talking about finished product, is very misguided and can easily lead to the wrong conclusions. Two pots made with the same clay can perform very differently, which is why I keep saying that clay type is not that important and it's a fool's game trying to nail down clay types (and acquire specific ones).

I think it's quite clear what you are saying. But to narrow it down even further, if one wants to talk about clay type, one must be sure that the clay that is talked about is the same clay and not a variable of that clay, i.e., mixed with anything else. If it is the same clay, processed in the same way, fired in the same way, at the same temp, maybe it is then possible to compare how a tea behaves in this type of clay compared to another clay using the same parameters as above. Theoretically, it should be possible to compare different clays and how they react to different teas. Unfortunately, the variables are too great for this to be a tried and true method. But, IF, it was possible, we would still have to deal with the relative experience of each tea drinker and what they bring to the table, subjectively. So, all that is going on here is a little intellectual game which people choose to participate in or not. Truth is quite another matter.

[MarshalN]

I think it's quite clear what you are saying. But to narrow it down even further, if one wants to talk about clay type, one must be sure that the clay that is talked about is the same clay and not a variable of that clay, i.e., mixed with anything else. If it is the same clay, processed in the same way, fired in the same way, at the same temp, maybe it is then possible to compare how a tea behaves in this type of clay compared to another clay using the same parameters as above. Theoretically, it should be possible to compare different clays and how they react to different teas. Unfortunately, the variables are too great for this to be a tried and true method. But, IF, it was possible, we would still have to deal with the relative experience of each tea drinker and what they bring to the table, subjectively. So, all that is going on here is a little intellectual game which people choose to participate in or not. Truth is quite another matter.

Agreed. There are too many things going on, and too difficult to tell what's what. Different clays may also require different firing temps, etc, so in and of itself the absolute comparison is impossible.

[needaTEAcher]

My attempts to disarm and move on failed. By "cute rhetoric" I meant the application of one aspect of what I said to another (applying my thoughts on the whole relative experience thing to the extent that I shouldn't ever seek outside council since everyone's experiences are different-which is to miss what I have said entirely and to twist the words around to the polar opposite of the original intention), but that is not important. Ultimately, everything is rhetoric, depending on your definition, since all communication is inherentry choosing words with the intention of getting thoughts from one head to another (depending on how you define rhetoric; I use the original definition, loosely translates as the "study of the use of any available means of persuasion"-in this case we are attempting to persuade each other and any readers that we are correct/valid/have opinions worth considering). But now I am slipping into semantics, which is, again, waaaay off topic.

I wrote "silliness" because I thought you were speaking tongue-in-cheek there. Sorry to have misread! I kind of think this whole thing has spiraled into a silly place. I did not mean to demean you or your opinions, but rather to insist that my opinions deserve their own space as well, and to make light of it all in an attempt to move past it.

As per the clay question, you are right, and I didn't answer. I kept getting side-tracked. I think what I am looking for is clay that is of the loosely defined "heini" category before firing, since I have read that zini can be fired to look black. I have not said much about the photos because I am not sure what point you are trying to make, but I can't tell much from photos (this IS my answer here), and I generally try not to float ideas that I don't understand well enough to defend. Any comment on those two links would be such, so I abstain from posting any opinion.

In case my points were not obvious, I have distilled them into the following

All I'm trying to do is to point out that clays can be manipulated to look a certain way by the potter. Therefore, using colour as the primary means of categorizing clays, if we're talking about finished product, is very misguided and can easily lead to the wrong conclusions. Two pots made with the same clay can perform very differently, which is why I keep saying that clay type is not that important and it's a fool's game trying to nail down clay types (and acquire specific ones).

This kind of understanding is exactly what I am trying to get a better handle on, though I, again, firmly disagree that trying to learn about and understand the categorizations is a "fool's game." Many fine people, with much experience, would, I believe, agree with me. So let's agree to disagree there, ya? Besides, can't we disagree on the last line and still engage in reasonable dialogue on all the material just before it? If this conversation continues, can we get back onto the track that I initially posted, which is to see if anyone can better articulate what makes the clay, often called "heini", look black? Has is always been manganese, or is that recent? This would, then not include zini clay fired to look black (or any other such tomfoolery).

Thanks.

[needaTEAcher]

I think it's quite clear what you are saying. But to narrow it down even further, if one wants to talk about clay type, one must be sure that the clay that is talked about is the same clay and not a variable of that clay, i.e., mixed with anything else. If it is the same clay, processed in the same way, fired in the same way, at the same temp, maybe it is then possible to compare how a tea behaves in this type of clay compared to another clay using the same parameters as above. Theoretically, it should be possible to compare different clays and how they react to different teas. Unfortunately, the variables are too great for this to be a tried and true method. But, IF, it was possible, we would still have to deal with the relative experience of each tea drinker and what they bring to the table, subjectively. So, all that is going on here is a little intellectual game which people choose to participate in or not. Truth is quite another matter.

Agreed. There are too many things going on, and too difficult to tell what's what. Different clays may also require different firing temps, etc, so in and of itself the absolute comparison is impossible.

While I agree with all of the points listed individually, I draw a different conclusion. I think the missing foil here is is bredth of experience. If we taste a few specific teas over a range of teapots, I think that any overriding trends will be illuminating. In my experience, zini has a HUGE range, but duanni pots tend to act similarly, with hongni somewhere in between the two.

Besides, it is fun to try and learn about it all!

Maybe we should open this conversation up to a new topic, only on whether or not types of clay influence flavor enough to be noted?

[Tead Off]

I think it's quite clear what you are saying. But to narrow it down even further, if one wants to talk about clay type, one must be sure that the clay that is talked about is the same clay and not a variable of that clay, i.e., mixed with anything else. If it is the same clay, processed in the same way, fired in the same way, at the same temp, maybe it is then possible to compare how a tea behaves in this type of clay compared to another clay using the same parameters as above. Theoretically, it should be possible to compare different clays and how they react to different teas. Unfortunately, the variables are too great for this to be a tried and true method. But, IF, it was possible, we would still have to deal with the relative experience of each tea drinker and what they bring to the table, subjectively. So, all that is going on here is a little intellectual game which people choose to participate in or not. Truth is quite another matter.

Agreed. There are too many things going on, and too difficult to tell what's what. Different clays may also require different firing temps, etc, so in and of itself the absolute comparison is impossible.

While I agree with all of the points listed individually, I draw a different conclusion. I think the missing foil here is is bredth of experience. If we taste a few specific teas over a range of teapots, I think that any overriding trends will be illuminating. In my experience, zini has a HUGE range, but duanni pots tend to act similarly, with hongni somewhere in between the two.

Besides, it is fun to try and learn about it all!

Maybe we should open this conversation up to a new topic, only on whether or not types of clay influence flavor enough to be noted?

I understand what you are trying to say and as I pointed out, one can still engage in a discussion about all of this. But, if you want to conclude that experience is more important in discussing these matters (you're statement) then Marshalln's far outweighs yours and he is saying as well as I am, that the mud gets muddier. You have to start with basic materials and there lies the difficulty. Because you are narrowing down this study of clay to Yixing, the history of the clays as well as all the variables have to be taken into account. There is so much folklore to sift through before you get to any factual information. The best of the best still guess. This is not a science or a scientific method that we are engaging in. Even if it was, the subject is always going to influence the object. It is a 'law', not an opinion. This is not to dissuade dialogue or investigation. Just to put it into perspective.

[needaTEAcher]

Ultimately, I agree Tead. That is a lot of why I have been posting questions, and saying things like, "in the loosely defined category" or whatever caveats seem to display that I understand that each batch of each clay from each mine is, ultimately, unique. It reminds me of the very human insistence on breaking down living organisms into "species", though we get a bit muddy when differentiating between close species or, even harder, drawing temporal lines between what something was and what it is now.

Being summoned. Have to run, will think and type more later!

[odarwin]

errr... ummm... can i butt in guys?

since we are talking about hei ni... mind giving your opinions on this pot that i got a few years back in hong kong... sold as cultural revolution pot... 120ml hei ni, single hole filter... so is this the real thing? forgot what year more or less... 70s, 80s, 90s?

when i got this, there was a zi ni that was brownish in color, similar size, a little bit better craftsmanship than this (tighter lid, better looking pour) but with a ball filter. shop lady said black was better cause of the clay... so comments?