This tea version goes back to when that new friend visited from Germany, Ralph. He bought this China Tea Company / CNNP / Zhongcha 2006 8001 sheng pu'er tea cake at my favorite Chinatown shop, Jip Eu. Not only did he say that he liked it but another friend visiting from Germany backed that up (if I know you a little and like you then to me you're my friend, as I use the concept, a bit loosely). The curiosity got to me, and I also bought a cake. This is the third version of a similar cake I'll have bought, with more on that in the following.
 |
with Ralph and Jaba at that shop, and Kittichai, the owner |
The research on what it is could have went better. A few online sources mentioned the same version, but then you can find online references to tea cakes that are clearly not what they're labeled as, like that LBZ version I bought from a Chinatown shop here, or most of what's sold on Ebay. That wasn't even supposed to be LBZ, given the pricing, just a random tea that happened to be mislabeled as that. Next it becomes a concern not just if a cake is what labeling says that it is, but if that's even a reference to anything that it might actually be. I'm not going to dwell on all that, but the number system story helps cover what I mean.
8001 refers to specific information, if it follows the convention, which not all cake numbers do. The first two digits reference the year the tea recipe was developed, serving as a type number, the last a producer number, and the third a grading of leaves, more or less wholeness, but perhaps used in different ways. So this was--if that holds--a type developed in 1980, from the "1" producer, Zhongcha, CNNP, or China Tea (one of the names of which dropped out at some point, no longer applying, if I'm partly remembering right), with a leaf grade of 0, the highest possible level. Per input from that other friend, Jens, the third digit is also used to evaluate leaf quality in some instances, not just form / wholeness. The date is something else; this has 2006 stamped on the label.
Sounds reasonable, right? So why would I be uncertain that's it? That probably is what this tea is, what it looks to be. I just didn't turn up any familiar references, vendors like Yunnan Sourcing selling it, online discussion, and so on. Dodgy looking Chinese vendors selling seemingly identical cakes isn't conclusive. All the same the proof of the pudding is in the eating; it's real enough if it's pleasant to drink. And this would be aiming a bit low for a tea to fake, since it wouldn't have been costly at all back when it was made, and it's not as if this shop just purchased it, so it can't well have been a very recent recreated version.
There is a second concern, about image of this blog if I review or support a tea being something when in fact it's not that. I'm not losing any sleep over that; as far as I know I don't have all that much public image to be worried about. All this part is just framing what I'm thinking about the background. Obviously I'm still exploring aged sheng, kind of just starting, even though there have been at least a couple of dozen reviews in that general range here. It takes awhile to start on this particular subject.
I'm reviewing it alongside a 2007 red mark version from Yunnan Sourcing (reviewed here); that will help serve as a baseline. I remember that tea being a bit rough-edged, extra earthy, but pleasant if someone was ok with that theme.
This tasting was rushed , conducted in just over half an hour, limited in time due to a swim lesson occurring at 10 AM. I had woke up early enough to use a full hour for it, about as long as note taking for a half dozen rounds would take, but used a significant amount of that time making French toast. One has to keep priorities in order. It wasn't mostly for me but the French toast was quite pleasant; we had it with ham, spiced with cinnamon, nutmeg, clove, and cardamom, so a slightly non-standard version.
More sort of related background:
I'll cite a lot of that Yunnan Sourcing description of that first tea I tried with it here, not all that directly relevant to this different version, but it will describe half of what I'm tasting, the benchmark version:
8891 Red Mark is one of two 8891's released in 2007 by the China Tea Co (aka Zhong Cha/CNNP)...
...Most importantly this tea is incredibly good tasting and has a very unique flavor profile. It's been stored in Guangdong since 2007 in a dry-wet storage condition (wet stored but on the dry side of the wet storage spectrum). The raw material is from Nan Jian area of Yunnan which is technically part of Dali prefecture. I suspect the given the name "Da Li Cang Shan Xue Yin Yuan Cha" (Dali Town, Cang Mountain, Snow Mark Round Cake) and the font used that this was pressed for the CNNP company by the Nan Jian Tu Lin tea company. The material is fairly tippy, large leaf and obviously pure assamica. Not only that, but the raw material used is not from young plantation bushes as it's quite burly and large in scale.
Compression is medium, not too tight at all and the leaves easily separate in layers from the cake. The tea brews up an orange-red tea soup with a pungent aroma of flowers, mushrooms and earth. The taste is clean with no musty wet storage notes, but does have some some earthy notes. There is a kind of pronounced spice and cloves taste and aroma with a strong viscous sweetness throughout...
It's great that Scott tells you so much about what you are buying, beyond the tea just being what it's supposed to be.
I really rush the flavor break-down here so I don't get far with interpreting the spice notes, or pinning down earthiness level or type, and skip over doing much with describing feel. I reviewed that tea initially here, in April, and used it as a benchmark against a similarly aged tea brick I bought in a market in Shenzhen (China) in June, but I won't go too far with cross-comparing the different impressions. I mention at the end it's not exactly as I remember it, even though I've tried it again a few times between June and now. The purpose here is for comparison, more than for determining if it's transitioning.
I briefly mention how this compares with another CNNP / Zhong Cha / China Tea company version I've tried again in the last couple of weeks or so, another 2006 version I bought in Chinatown at Sen Xing Fa last year, reviewed here. That review doesn't say how much I bought that for; if I'm remembering right a bit under 2000 baht / $60, but then that tea is slightly flawed related to storage mustiness (or so it seems to me). It cleans up in character after the first 4 rounds or so but it's not really as pleasant as this tea through the first 5 rounds, based on these initial tasting notes and my memory of it.
I mentioned the apparently identical listings of it that turned up online weren't promising related to offering background or clear descriptions, but didn't add that Ralph also reviewed the tea in his tea blog (the Daily Tealegraph). He also lists three Chinese vendor references relating to this tea; anyone interested in checking on that can click through to those.
Review:
 |
2007 8891 left, 2006 8001 right |
 |
8891 left, 8001 right (in all following pictures) |
2007 8891, red mark: first infusion is too light to do much with, but it should start to tell something about storage conditions. This tastes really clean, light in flavor, a sign it wasn't stored overly wet, or even moderately wet-stored, I'd imagine. To some extent I'm speculating here, in claiming that storage flavor would stand out immediately, pushing past experience into the range of guessing a little. Flavor that does come across is pleasant, towards tobacco (not matching everyone's preference, surely, but pleasant as aged sheng tasting like tobacco goes). Within a round or two that will probably shift some.
2006 8001: completely different; pronounced mushroom and mustiness comes across immediately. That's not a terrible sign; per past experience that might well clean up a lot over the first two rounds. Other flavor is along the lines of old barn smell, versus tobacco in the other. Of course it's not nearly as clean in effect as the other version but to me this is still very promising. It has intensity and depth, and with some degree of transition it could be quite nice.
Second infusion:
2007 8891: much improved, probably not completely ramped up yet but getting there. Sweetness increased, in a toffee-like range. Tobacco gives way to other flavor complexity, warm mineral base, rich dark wood tone, hinting a little towards aromatic root spice. It's nice, just a little light still.
2006 8001: cleaning up but not there yet. Mustiness fades; it's no longer in the range of mushroom (as much, at least) but there's definitely an aged character to it, like stored items in an old garage or barn. It's still promising, a bit clean for being that musty, with a lot of depth and complexity. I expect it will be a good bit cleaner next round, and then more where it's going to be the one after.
Third infusion:
2007 8891: this could've been brewed slightly longer than the 8 or so seconds I gave it. Flavor level is appropriate and pleasant but it would be fine a little stronger. Earthy range is evolving, but since time is tight I won't put effort into unpacking that. It's clean enough, and pleasant.
2006 8001: this version is around optimum for intensity level, brewing slightly faster, or else just more intense flavored tea. It has cleaned up a lot; probably one more round to go for that process to complete, but the character balance is fine now. If I had an extra half hour for this review (taking notes) it would be interesting to do a more detailed comparison of flavor, adding more about feel differences and aftertaste, but I'm running out of time, off to that swimming class. Mustiness is still on an even level with the other flavors, even though I could enjoy it like this; we'll see if that keeps tipping next round. I'll give these over 10 seconds to try them a little stronger.
Fourth infusion:
2007 8891: more of the same, clean and pleasant, more into light toffee and root spice range now. Earthiness is present but not necessarily woody or like tobacco, just adding some depth, along with warm mineral. I think this might have improved since I've first tried it, cleaned up a bit.
2006 8001: much better; this did just tip over to tasting less musty and more into warm mineral, earth, and spice range. It's similar to that other CNNP / China Tea / Zhong cha sheng cake I bought--at least that seems to be that--that needs 3 or 4 infusions to really settle off that initial musty range, but then brews another 10 or so positive infusions. We'll see about that part, in the case of this version. Complexity is quite good; that might include a bit of dried fruit, along the line of date, or maybe jujube, Chinese date.
Fifth infusion:
2007 8891: nice, just a bit light as flavors go. It's positive, what is there, and feel has a bit of thickness to it, but it's subdued. Warm earth and mineral give it great complexity, it's more the front end that's a bit light. It's not how I remember this; I thought it was earthier [and in going back to glance through a first review that description seems to say that].
2006 8001: this tastes a bit like jujube, dried Chinese date. It might keep evolving; that main flavor might be a phase it's going through. Warm mineral is strong beyond that.
Conclusions:
It's more or less what I'd hoped it would be. I often end up saying an aged sheng version will probably be great when it just has a few more years to finish aging, and this is ready now. The first two infusions are slightly musty, and that's still evident in the third, but beyond that the taste is relatively clean, balanced, and quite complex.
It's comparable to the other CNNP version in character, seemingly just relatively different, probably partly tied to storage background. It seems more fermented, further along in aging, but at the same time a bit more intense than the 8891, just not as clean in aspect range. But then that other version did seem to improve related to earthiness mellowing out, and maybe some mustiness could fade from this.
It's interesting comparing this to Ralph's impression, from his blog review (an excerpt):
Out comes a dark orange liquid, which reminds of leather, honey, sweet-sour exotic stone fruits, sugary notes, a warm and comfortable tobacco aroma (not to be confused with a colder smokey flavor which I personally dislike) and a typical aged sourbittersweet aroma.
The brewed leaves have a leathery brown color, you can really see the 13 year dry warehouse aging process as this is a very post fermented tea already.
The brew is strong and thick, the steeping times can be kept short for 7-10 seconds. The aroma is wonderful, the honey sweetness in this one is outstanding and it should be a perfect product for further aging...
It seemed fine to me, a lot like that. Where I left off the notes it was closer to a dried Chinese date than stone fruit but that flavor range was transitioning a good bit per round. The tobacco distinction he makes is nice; there is a dry, light, flintier range smoke aspect common in some sheng that I also don't care for (although some people do), and this did include a warmer, sweeter, closer to pipe tobacco earthiness instead of that.
I tried both teas another half dozen rounds after the swim class. The 8891 was still positive but fading, and this 8001 version picked up more mushroom again, maybe somehow related to lengthening infusion times a little, which can shift character, emphasizing some aspects over others. It was really positive except for that one flavor aspect (dried wild mushroom, to be more precise, close enough to shitake). The sweetness, depth of flavors, supporting mineral balance and light earth tones, complex fruit range, thickness of feel--all that was fine. I don't necessarily expect that mushroom is going to drop out over aging for any reason, but I suppose stranger things have happened.
I hadn't mentioned cost, did I? It sold for 2000 baht, $60, for a 400 gram cake. I just checked the Yunnan Sourcing 2007 8891 (which I bought about 6 months ago) and it lists for $67 for a 500 gram cake; not so different. Character is quite different, probably related to aging conditions as much as to the teas not being the same thing. The leaves in this 8001 version are much more whole than the 8891, although it seems odd that both would be at the far ends of that scale (the 0 and 9, the third digits), odd related to appearance in both cases.
It raised the question, which do I like better? They're kind of just different. Not in completely different ballparks for character, but not really similar. For being more intense and complex this 8001 is better, even though I didn't love that one mushroom aspect. For being more subtle, a bit cleaner, and not including any rougher earthy aspects in the first three rounds, or towards the end, the 8891 is better. Feel was fine for both, maybe with the 8891 thinning more later on. It would really require a slower, more complete tasting session through a dozen rounds to pin down more differences. I think the other Zhong cha / CNNP cake I'd mentioned might have been more positive in later rounds than both, maybe with this 8001 only clearly the best of the three for 2 or 3 infusions in the middle.
It will be interesting to see what I make of it over more tastings. And nice to have over a kilogram of similar teas to mess around with, drink over a long time, check on aging transitions, and give away samples of. It's nice having aged sheng that works as a daily drinker, as something to have 10 quick infusions of with a breakfast, stacking (mixing) some rounds during brewing to speed that along, without worrying about fully appreciating the nuances of the tea. Shu works for that too, for rushing brewing as an easy to drink tea, but it's nice having a range of types on hand, to pick whichever sounds best that morning.
 |
with her best friend at the swimming class (from that set of kids) |
 |
adding some silliness to a warm-up walk |
No comments:
Post a Comment