My Wing Hop Fung has two offerings of "Red Label Puerh", one batch says 1990 and is $90/beeng (on sale) and the other says 1950 and is $888/beeng (on sale). They do not offer samples.
I am curious to try a high quality older puerh (speaking here of the 1990 beeng) but don't want to spend that kind of money if I don't have a reasonable likelihood of getting the real deal.
This is the beeng labelled 1990; this is the display of their fancier puerhs and this is a slightly larger version of the beengs labelled as 1950.
The labels appear identical on both beengs on display--green center 'tea' character in the middle of the red labels. The english on them says, "YUNNAN CHI TSE BEENG CHA" and "CHINA NATIONAL NATIVE PRODUCE & ANIMAL BY-PRODUCTS IMPORT & EXPORT CORPORATION" "YUNNAN TEA BRANCH".
The 1990's beengs are packaged with wooden gift boxes, but I think I see a stack of paper wrapped beengs higher up on the shelf that may be the same things. The 1950s beengs are next to a bamboo & wire wrapped tong of what appear to be similar cakes.
Do these look like the real deal?
Aug 8th, '10, 18:00
Posts: 5896
Joined: Jan 10th, '10, 16:04
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:
debunix
Aug 8th, '10, 18:30
Posts: 5896
Joined: Jan 10th, '10, 16:04
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:
debunix
Re: Red label: worth it or not?
An excellent point. I've enjoyed a loose puerh that was supposed to be from 1992, but did not much enjoy a much more expensive loose puerh from WHF that was supposed to be of similar age. Being loose, however, I was able to get just a small sample to try.brose wrote:It could be real but still not taste good to you
Aug 8th, '10, 18:39
Vendor Member
Posts: 1990
Joined: Apr 4th, '06, 15:07
Location: NYC
Contact:
TIM
Re: Red label: worth it or not?
That 1950's Red Label could not be real. Currently there are less then 3000 cakes circulating the market or in private hands. And the market auction price starting around US $20k per cake.debunix wrote:An excellent point. I've enjoyed a loose puerh that was supposed to be from 1992, but did not much enjoy a much more expensive loose puerh from WHF that was supposed to be of similar age. Being loose, however, I was able to get just a small sample to try.brose wrote:It could be real but still not taste good to you
3530 -- 早期红印圆茶 RMB 130,000-150,000 Sold @ RMB 145,600
Last edited by TIM on Aug 8th, '10, 19:00, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Red label: worth it or not?
In general, I would say that $90 for a 1990 CNNP bing would be a very good deal....
... however, that statement also hinges on how the tea has been stored for the last 20 years.
Do they allow visual inspection at all? (this would include open-wrapper) A visual and sniff test would reveal enough to make a much better estimate of the value.
The only other way I'd buy it w/o sampling is if I were buying from a dealer whose opinion I intimately trusted.
... however, that statement also hinges on how the tea has been stored for the last 20 years.
Do they allow visual inspection at all? (this would include open-wrapper) A visual and sniff test would reveal enough to make a much better estimate of the value.
The only other way I'd buy it w/o sampling is if I were buying from a dealer whose opinion I intimately trusted.
Aug 8th, '10, 20:46
Posts: 1633
Joined: Feb 15th, '08, 10:15
Location: Pennsylvania
Re: Red label: worth it or not?
I'd put down big bucks for both being fake, the 1950's however being guaranteed fake. No tasting? huh wonder why..? I doubt you can even find a 1990 vintage of anything for $90.
Aug 8th, '10, 20:56
Posts: 5896
Joined: Jan 10th, '10, 16:04
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:
debunix
Re: Red label: worth it or not?
The $90 was a sale price from $130 or so.
And they did have samples available from a number of their other puerhs, but none from these.
I'll watch and wait for another opportunity when I can get better info and sample first.
And they did have samples available from a number of their other puerhs, but none from these.
I'll watch and wait for another opportunity when I can get better info and sample first.