Designer mineral profile water for brewing tea

 

In the old form of this same topic discussion people would speculate about how individual minerals in tea brewing water affect compound extraction and tea character, and then map their own preferences to specific versions of bottled water, or discuss using local spring water, often referencing colorful stories about secret sources.  Times have changed, and it's on to researching more ideal mineral profiles for water.  These are often presented as either one general recipe working out well enough for all teas or else identifying and tailoring mineral blend recipes for individual tastes, purposes, and tea types.  Fascinating stuff!

One generality isn't made clear in all that I'll summarize or discuss here:  per my understanding some minerals help support other compound extraction from tea, it's not that you are tasting those minerals directly in the water / brewed tea.  Maybe that comes into play, maybe more related to an input like silica than minerals like calcium and magnesium, but I haven't really ran across a complete account of these sorts of cause and effect sequences, what causes what, or rather how it works instead.

Let's start with that history first; it might be of interest to some, as it was to me.  Tea Chat was a main older discussion forum, and there are lots of threads on this topic, but here is a main one from 2011.  I think even back then people were clear on low levels of minerals potentially working out for some tea types, but in general with a moderate level of calcium and magnesium helping extract positive compounds better.  Then "hard water," versions with really high calcium content, or else just high total dissolved solids (TDS), total mineral content, wouldn't be regarded as favorably.  Lots of calcium can even cause a scum to form on the tea, partly a cosmetic issue in addition to an experiential problem.

I wrote about this subject based on trying out Volvic in comparison against my local filtered tap water in this post, the second of two.  There were a lot of related discussions about that topic around then in a Facebook group that I moderate, here.  For people mapping preferences to standard bottled types, or local water sources, then relying on trial and error and hearsay input, that review and discussion only ever went so far.

Tea Curious took a next step, when they developed an "open source" water mineral recipe for "ideal water" back in 2020, here, a page that also works as an introduction to lots of the related theme and factors.  Rie Taluli was involved in that development; maybe her name rings a bell, as one of those known tea people, someone I've enjoyed talking to online.  I can't judge any of these sorts of recipes or developments myself, so the theme here is about passing on a summary, not leading towards that level and type of evaluation.  

A second main development step gives us a lot more to go on, which is well-documented across lots of clear background, related to what Empirical Tea / Empirical Water (related sites) have been developing, and what the Tea Curious blog has been discussing.  It might sound like I'm trying to establish a chronology of development more than I really intend; to me it's just interesting taking note of these milestones along with main publicly available references.  Let's check into that, before the main discussion of what Empirical Tea / Water has developed, with limited comparison to the Tea Curious ideas.  The Empirical Tea site lists this for a history:

Hello. My name is Arby, and I’ve been drinking good tea since February 2018.

Over this (short) time, I’ve become more and more obsessed with the science of what consumers can do at home to bring the best out of their tea. This includes experimenting with tea storage, tinkering with custom water recipes, and more. I will be using this platform to provide updates on things I’ve learned and experienced in the realm of tea.

As of 2021, I have decided to dedicate my life to studying tea academically. As I continue to learn and improve as a researcher over the years, expect to see better-designed experiments.

As far as that online site history per the Wayback Machine scan that site might've been set up in October of 2020, or at least that's their first backup snapshot, so he was putting developed ideas out there even earlier (than that later date).  To me it doesn't matter so much that he's 5 years into exploring better tea, although I get it that some people might like to judge their own personal tea history with others in different ways.  In discussing the early development of the Truth Serum formula Arby said that he wasn't aware of the Tea Curious work at that time, but it probably wouldn't have made much difference either way.  

In a main reference, a Crimson Lotus podcast discussion,  Arby's friend and author of the Tea Secrets blog joined him.  Checking that blog timeline the earliest post on water review was in May of 2021, but for sure his exploration didn't start then, for how well developed that first listed post is.  Both of them have been at this awhile.  

This isn't really intended as a claim that they followed Tea Curious in timing, but maybe, or any sort of guess about the Empirical Water and Tea Secrets histories.  These are just dates this content identifies, which we can take as one form of implied online history.  I didn't try to identify if anyone else has been exploring and developing these themes over the past few years; if so my apologies to them for any potentially implied lack of credit, which was not intended.  These sources are simply enough to tell a bit of a related story, to cover a sampling of some core themes and ideas, with the limitation here that I won't be able to cover detailed findings.

Empirical Tea / Empirical Water research, presented findings, and public access recipes

People interested in following this up should start with that podcast blog intro and then spend a couple of hours browsing those three sites, but of course I'm still going to summarize parts of it.

One main theme is development of a "Truth Serum" version of a water mineral recipe, described as including appropriate mineral content for extracting a lot from a tea for the purpose of evaluation.  Recipes for three different mineral blends are here, that one plus and older version and one more special purpose type, designed for a certain outcome.  

Would it be easy to grab the related equipment and buy the food-safe mineral components to make those recipes, adding that to either distilled or low mineral content reverse osmosis processed water?  Surely not.  This Tea Secrets post probably works as well as others related to basic context, what is involved, related to range of minerals and equipment.  This is a recipe there of an updated Truth Serum version, which will help support comparison of that to the Tea Curious recipe version in a next section.  

One starting point might be reading up on Tea Secrets blog posts reviewing different commercial water versions, with commentary and judgement about them, how well they perform in relation to brewing different tea types.  The next step, re-creating these blends, would be a bit more involved.  Empirical Tea sells a mix version they've created; that might work as an interim step, to judge if the next levels of review and effort are of interest or not.

Jumping around a bit between related themes, this Truth Serum version was intended for evaluation, as presented, and other mineral mixes could suit others better for specific tea type preparation.  Personal preference would define "better" in this case, a running theme across all tea experience.  Let's compare two tea brewing water mineral content recipes, which does circle back to that idea.

Before that one related clarification, there is an earlier and more recent Truth Serum versions listed on the related sites in these two places:

1. https://empiricaltea.com/water-recipe-truth-serum/

2. https://empiricalwater.com/products/truth-serum

Comparing the Tea Curious and Truth Serum versions

Better interpretation of these would definitely involve embracing a learning curve, including the Tea Secrets blog, Empirical Water content, and Tea Curious page.  To keep going one could review a listing of other tea writers' reviews and thoughts on their work and specific recipes, which would require a good bit of review time expenditure.

Let's keep this simple, and check out the listings of final mineral amounts, similar to those we definitely see on the back of bottled water versions, starting with the Tea Curious version:

Together, this leaves us with a water with (roughly) 7 PPM calcium, 2 PPM magnesium, 5 PPM sodium, 5 PPM potassium, 11 PPM chlorine, 10 PPM sulfate, and 14 PPM carbonates and bicarbonates: or around 58-59 PPM, right in our target range after the slight variation you'll get in even the most accurate home scales. 

By now you might be wondering why this water is so dang light, especially compared to the targets specified in the coffee industry, but this just seems to be what tea prefers: as a leaf rather than a fruit + roasted bean, it relies on slightly different mechanisms to get to the ideal brew...

Note that this single webpage cited contains background framing, description of the role of different minerals, how to go about creating the same final mix, and links to related sales offerings (you can buy a mix from them, or a form of food grade, soluble silica--best to let them describe what that's about).

The values do sound low, at least in relation to discussions I've seen about ideal ranges for calcium and magnesium content.  But then hearsay I remember from discussions from years ago is of essentially no value at all, even though a little on that is in one of those old blog posts.  Let's check a Truth Serum version (cited as an updated version in a Tea Secrets post in 2021):

These actually match more than one might expect, given the Truth Serum version is presented as including a mix designed to aggressively extract more compounds, part of the "experiencing the whole truth" of a tea version theme, versus the Tea Curious version being made for more general use.

That Tea Secrets Water Guide post unpacks how these affect outcome individually (in summary form; one gets the sense the depth of those interactions goes on and on), with a sample from that showing how it tends to read:

Hardness to Alkalinity Ratio – The ratio of hardness to alkalinity. The higher this value is, the more acidic/bright/vibrant the resulting tea is. The lower it is, the smoother/thicker/darker it is. What’s the optimum value? It depends! But probably above 0.8 and below 1.5.

Right, it's not easy to interpret without taking a few passes through it all to piece the parts together.  This is also why I would recommend starting with that podcast discussion version, to hear the backstory first, and some of these ideas explained, mixed in with a lot of other related discussion.

From here one might cross-compare this with lots of information on common bottled water sources, either mainstream often-recommended versions or else what Tea Secrets posts review, which seem to be two sets that don't overlap much.  In discussion of good alternatives in that podcast the brand suggestions didn't sound so familiar, but then I avoid drinking water from any kinds of bottles, for the obvious reason, it's just not necessary and it creates waste.  

Awhile back in those rudimentary water input review posts I compared local tap water (which had been tested for mineral content in a snapshot source I found, but which would surely vary a lot day to day) with Volvic; here is that label:

Note that parts per million is mg / liter; the metric system is just great.  What is the effect of all those bicarbonates going to be?  No idea, but this is where input from that Tea Secrets blog can pass on at least one well-informed person's opinion (the first and last table lines):

I'm still not sure after reading that, but with a good bit of experiential exposure I'm sure it would become clearer.

It's interesting how one might arrive at a too-hasty summary conclusion, contrasting a water version designed for essentially maximizing extraction (to an extent; it must not be that simple), and one designed as a broad-scope optimum.  It would be easy to think dialing up most mineral content would work better for maximum intensity, perhaps even better performance when tasting milder teas, and that lower mineral content may well be better when tea intensity is high to begin with, a very common theme in sheng pu'er experience.  Probably far more nuanced conclusions would follow from extensive experience, a mapping between those mineral input functions, a tea type and version's character, and personal preference, one that might never completely sort out. 

Comparing this to my own limited water version trial experience

Back in those two trial sessions that I wrote blog posts about, before all this was developed, two main points stood out, which could help place all this.  That evaluation and those findings are so rudimentary compared to this developed take that maybe I shouldn't go there, but why not?  It's relevant input, even if limited in scope and review input basis.  Summarized general conclusions:

1.  round by round aspect comparison results were at times just different, not clearly better or worse, since the set of aspects just varied slightly in a few different ways.

2.  in the second set of two version trials one water type seemed clearly superior in early rounds of tasting, related to overall experienced results, and not as positive as the other in the later rounds.

No need to read too much into that; it was a cursory account of very little actual experience.  But in none of the three trials cases did it summarize to "this water version was much better."  Citing an example of comments relating to #1 can clarify that:

[Alishan light rolled oolong review]

Volvic: pleasant; sweet, rich, soft, intense but not overly so. Floral range is slightly different, but the difference is so subtle it is hard to pin down.  The point here isn't to derive a flavor-list as much as specify differences anyway.

Tap water: more intense; it pops a little more. A touch more vegetal edge goes along with that, and more mineral. It comes across as creamier. These are definitely different, but again which is better would be a judgment call. The higher intensity is nice but a touch more vegetal range comes with that.

Then the next post, reviewing two different teas in two tastings (pretty good Wuyishan Rou Gui and Lao Man E sheng pu'er), based on the same water type comparison, draws the other conclusion cited:

It's crazy that two main shifts occurred in difference, varying a lot in early and later rounds.  Volvic brewed tea was clearly much better over the first two infusions, and clearly not as positive in the last, probably more even in the fourth, with tap water working just a little better in that round too.  I can't really unpack or explain that.  Somehow a shift in flavor and feel proportion across rounds favored the Volvic earlier on, and then the filtered tap water later (which probably contains a lot less mineral).

Note that a reference source testing local Bangkok water supply samples probably did point towards a general mineral distribution range my tap water might be in at any given time, with that backed off a bit by filtering it at home, but those test results were only a snapshot, so not accurate over time.

Of course I wouldn't expect that to be a universal generality, across all tea types, that this pattern would just keep repeating comparing these water versions.  It's tempting to guess that Volvic had a generally higher mineral content and extracted a lot more tea compounds earlier on, since some minerals support tea compounds extraction, then that these just weren't available for further extraction in later rounds, so tap water gave better results later on, but that may or may not be the case.  This is more just an account of what I experienced, versus a probable explanation of inputs and outputs.

I will probably follow up and try some designed-for-purpose water type in later trials, not to the extent others cited have, not in the form of years worth of experimentation.  But let's touch a little on how this relates to my philosophy on tea.

I'm not trying to optimize my tea experiences.  I don't measure dry weight of teas, although the wetted tea level in gaiwans always ends up where I expect it to.  After limited experimentation with clay pots--I only own three, probably not good versions of any type--I switched back to using gaiwans instead, which provide suitable results.  For using a thermos for brewing water limited heat loss over time would cause minor variation in brewing temperature, which I'm ok with.  I can't spend a lot pursuing the highest quality versions of teas, and I don't regret that, it's fine drinking what I get to.  I like basic, or probably above average quality and novelty of style teas, and prefer to keep the tea experiences simple.  

For reviews I won't eat any food with the teas, and try to set aside an hour or longer to just focus on the experience in order to describe it clearly.  For daily drinking I will eat a light breakfast with teas, without necessarily pairing optimum foods with versions.  I'll often have toast and tropical fruit as a breakfast (I live in Thailand), and I don't think that's necessarily ideal pairing for any tea types.  Related to ceremonial brewing forms I'm essentially Buddhist, not that I do much with most labels, but I don't see most of my tea experience as some sort of exercise in mindfulness, any more than the rest of my life.

So in conclusion I want to express much gratitude and respect to the creators of the ideas I've summarized, and maybe haven't really done justice to.  They've done fantastic work, genuinely researching and communicating findings openly.  I don't see how any tea enthusiast couldn't appreciate and relate to this work, even without it leading to their own water source exploration.  

I probably will follow up with further experiential review myself, I'm just in an unusual life phase just now, so maybe not for another couple of months, or this could be sidelined much longer.  In the end I'm most likely to drink filtered tap water, probably just in Honolulu instead of here (Bangkok), within another month, but it would still be interesting exploring this subject on a much deeper level.

Water testing, Alishan oolong using Volvic versus filtered local tap water

This is a follow-up to the prior water input testing, using Volvic and filtered tap water to brew both Rou Gui and sheng pu'er (a Lao Man E version, not the best choice, sorting out results past that bitterness).  In that testing Volvic brewed infusions were clearly better for both types in the first and second infusion, and not quite as positive as the filtered tap water versions in the 4th and 5th infusions.  I guessed about why in that post, but I'm really not certain.

It seemed better to try this using a mild tea version, something flavorful enough that results in that range would stand out, with feel and aftertaste aspects to evaluate, but with a generally mild tone making finer distinctions stand out better.  Alishan oolong should work better.  I had a couple of samples of what should be pretty good oolong left to try from Song Yi tea, the Taiwan based vendor source I'd reviewed a Brown Mountain (Bulang) sheng pu'er and Mannuo sheng from.

Those both were a lot better than I expected, and a good value for the quality level, so it seemed the two oolong samples they sent would probably be even more interesting, for actually being Taiwanese teas.  I just never got back to trying them.  Those reviews were in July and September of this year; it can work out like that, when lots of vendors send samples to try.

The earlier post on a water input testing outlines Volvic details, and as much as I know about the local municipal water.  I cited a lot of real-time testing (monitoring) results in that post, from over last weekend, but I'll skip that here.  Since it didn't list out mineral content as grams / liter amounts by type the half dozen factors they do monitor aren't really of as much interest.  Ph is always around 7 for that; it should be fine (although it is 7.25 right now at the station nearest to home).


I'm filtering this local water too, so whatever is in it is reduced, but I don't have measurements for anything but free chlorine and total chloride levels.  I'm more concerned with calcium, magnesium, and total dissolved solids measurements, which they don't provide.

the ph monitoring result just now

I did turn up a dated 2014 study of mineral content of water sources in Thailand, including Bangkok tap water, which may or may not pass on some idea of what was in that water:

There's really no guarantee that's at all relevant to what I'm using to make tea five years later, and again to repeat, whatever had been in that water was partly filtered back out.  The last water test review post included some real-time measurements (of free chlorine, chloride, and turbidity), just not including calcium, magnesium, and total dissolved solids values.

Background on the Song Yi Alishan oolong:

It would work to cite more input about the tea, even though I tend to see light Alishan as varying more by quality level than other factors, so basically it's something you judge for yourself once you try the tea:

Origin ：Tea-growing region with gravelly soil
            Camphor Tree Lake Stone Table, Alishan, Chiayi County

Altitude ：1,500 to 1,700m above sea level
Cultivar ：Qingxin (Green-Core) Oolong
Flavor ：Orchid aroma, Almond Peach scent
Fermentation ：30%
Roast ：Light


On their sales page 150 grams of this is selling for $45, so $15 per 50 gram amount.  In retrospect, after trying it, that sounds about right; the version quality is pretty good.  It would be a lot easier to find versions selling for in that range that weren't as good than it would be to find a better quality example selling at the same price, which would seem unlikely.

Versions can get better than this, emphasizing floral range just a little more, dropping back the limited vegetal range, bumping intensity or thickness a little, or that one characteristic mineral aspect, but this one seemed pretty far up the scale.  For sticking within a moderate price range this is good quality and type-typical, just what you'd hope it would be.

Review:

Volvic: flavor is nice; it includes that nice floral range that signifies Taiwanese high mountain oolongs. Mineral undertone is nice, pronounced.  This includes a little vegetal range that distinguishes the best light oolongs from quite good versions, or at least that's my take.


Filtered Bangkok tap water: not all that different. There might be a trace more vegetal range, slightly less high note floral, and a little more perfume base. For those minor differences it's about the same. Trying a faster infusion might help to tease out minor differences. Thick feel and pleasant aftertaste is common to both.

Volvic left, filtered tap water right

Second infusion:

There is a slight brewed color difference; the tap water version is slightly darker.

Volvic: slightly improved; floral range hits even harder, perfume like base is even stronger. Vegetal range is still notable, a touch of green wood. Feel is thick, and mineral and floral both trail after as aftertaste.


Tap water: maybe slightly less high end note, slightly deeper perfume base, more mineral tone. Those last two differences I'd expect related to brewing the tea slightly longer, just probably not the first. That one almost odd, characteristic mineral taste is stronger, not completely unlike new car smell, a unique mineral range. It's flinty, as much as anything.

Making a "better" judgement is tough; they're just different. The Volvic version is better for being slightly sweeter with a touch more floral high note. The tap water version has a lot more mineral base and perfume depth, a less bright floral range closer to lavender. Vegetal range shifts in form a little in each, slightly stronger and just different in the tap water version.

Third infusion

I think the tap water may be brewing stronger, based on color and also taste and feel aspects, but I'm not sure why. Proportion, temperature, and timing are definitely all identical, or at least very close to it, so it's not one of those.  The proportion is too high; I'm not as accustomed to judging rolled oolong amounts these days, and used the smaller version of tasting gaiwans, but didn't bump down the amount (probably a 60-70 ml version, versus the 80-90 ml versions I use more frequently).


Volvic: pleasant; sweet, rich, soft, intense but not overly so. Floral range is slightly different, but the difference is so subtle it is hard to pin down.  The point here isn't to derive a flavor-list as much as specify differences anyway.


Tap water: more intense; it pops a little more. A touch more vegetal edge goes along with that, and more mineral. It comes across as creamier. These are definitely different, but again which is better would be a judgment call. The higher intensity is nice but a touch more vegetal range comes with that.

Fourth infusion:

More of the same, and I won't trail this tasting out to 8 or 9 rounds to see the whole cycle. It's interesting that the prior pattern of tasting two other teas didn't hold, that the Volvic didn't seem clearly more positive early on, and then the tap water better after the 4th infusion.

I thought I probably did like the Volvic version slightly better on this fourth infusion, that being a little lighter and sweeter worked out better, versus there being a bit more vegetal and mineral range in the tap water version.  But the tap water version was fuller in feel, and on the fifth infusion I thought it was more positive for that reason, with flavor differences secondary to that distinction in that round.

Potential next steps:

Not much to conclude; the two outcomes were different, but neither was really notably better.  The Volvic version was a bit lighter and sweeter, the tap water outcome richer in feel, heavier in mineral, and in some cases it had slightly more flavor intensity.  More than that flavor aspects just shifted slightly, in ways that was about as neutral as related to being positive or negative.

I suppose it's some comfort that it seems to not make much difference.  Using Volvic, cited as some people's favorite in online discussion (which of course others disagree with) didn't prepare notably better tea than filtered local tap water.  Oddly it was a lot more positive for the first two rounds of brewing the Rou Gui in the last post.  And it was probably slightly more positive early in the infusio cycle for the Lao Man E sheng as well, but for both that bitterness hit so hard "better" was about sorting past that in those two infusions.  This oolong never really matched that outcome, or the tap water version becoming notably better in later infusions.

I think people could have expected one or the other to be better, and based on that expectation and a positive interpretation could have judged that either one of these outcomes was clearly better.  It seems natural to say "depends on preference" instead, but it's not as if flavor was better for one and feel better for the other, as if an aspect category worked out better using one of the water sources.  Although these seemed relatively different prepared side-by-side I think for tasting them days apart prepared using the two water versions it would be hard to separate out that difference.  The basic character and aspects profile was the same.

I could keep going, trying other versions of water.  This didn't cover RO (reverse osmosis) water, a version stripped of almost all mineral content.  There are other types of water at home (my wife is into mineral water these days, for whatever reasons), and I could run this again prepared using a number of different versions.  It would be interesting checking out results using a water type that's very high in mineral content, with this Volvic seemingly on the moderate end of the scale, especially related to calcium and magnesium levels.  I'm not sure that I'll keep on with this for now though; it adds a good bit of messing around to tasting, and I have teas around to try that deserve more attention than this tasting format allows for.

Water type experiments, with Wuyi Origins Rou Gui and KTM Lao Man E sheng

This is all a bit much.  I've been meaning to test the effect of using different water versions on tea for awhile, it was just always too much messing around to get to it.  Now that I finally did results were interesting, but one part related to sample type selection could have went better.

In retrospect it was odd using teas I hadn't reviewed before, and teas of this quality level for this purpose.  Cindy's Wuyi Origin Rou Gui versions are about as good as that type ever gets, and the fruitier version is a strong contender for my favorite tea among all types and versions.  I guess the reasoning was that using good tea is going to tell more of the story related to what input the water has, versus using teas that are of medium quality, and trying to extrapolate results to likely outcome if the teas had been better.  It was also about just using interesting versions that I had around.

The same concern and atypical theme applies for the King Tea Mall Lao Man E sample; this is a gushu version from a respected, in demand origin area.  It's questionable judgement, shifting focus off the tea onto the effect water mineral content variation has on preparing it.  One might argue that both can be covered at the same time, but per the actual experience a lot gets lost.

About water type / input testing in general, it had always seemed next to impossible to identify what a really good or ideal source of water would be.  Really doing that process justice would involve trying lots of water types, and then probably folding in how that varies across at least a few different tea types.  Online discussions of water mineral levels as an input have been interesting, and standard patterns of opinions do emerge, but nothing that works well as starting point guidance. 

Avoiding high levels of calcium is generally advocated, for example, but my own interpretation of what would be low, medium, and high based on sampling lots of hearsay may or may not be remotely reliable.  I mentioned some advice passed on by Peter Jones in covering some theory in this post, which was really about trying a Myanmar Kokang shu version:

We are still several months away from any conclusions. But basically you want your alkalinity to be 1/2 your total hardness, a pH in the 7s, and a balance of 2/1 of Ca to Mg. The other positive ion mineral salts also play a role in extraction...

The form I finally arrived on--definitely not a final word on a practical, functional approach--was to try two completely different teas using Volvic water (which gets mentioned as some people's personal favorite), compared to the filtered local Bangkok tap water I use at home.  It was a stretch but I picked two relatively random, opposite type teas I happened to have on hand, a Rou Gui and a sheng pu'er.  It turned out to be not the best selection because I didn't factor in the high level of bitterness in the sheng version (a Lao Man E); kind of an obvious mistake to make, in retrospect.  Trying an already familiar, milder version would've made a lot more sense.

I can't describe what the local water is like in relation to lots of other sources, but of course I have tried the same teas prepared using it and also other spring water, RO water, and whatever is being used in other places.  My friend Sasha had a favorite spring water he used, for example, and some of those teas I had tried at home, a number of versions tasted there many times.  A vendor at an expo had been using RO water, and I re-tasted the same teas I tried with them again at home within a couple of days, and I try teas in shops sometimes.  To really isolate differences trying the tea prepared together is all but essential; the point here is that how differences in water source work out in general, and how the local water compares, isn't completely unfamiliar.

Bangkok municipal water had been truly awful, years back.  It varied so much even the color and smell could be off.  We used bottled spring water for years, or at least local water sold as such, which really could be different things.  As of a few years ago we switched over to using a multi-stage filtration system, and the water seems fine.  Per online hearsay the tap water here is based on rainwater sources instead of natural spring origin, so it's low in mineral content, which makes sense given that it rains a lot and we're not exactly near a mountainous or even hilly area.  Per other hearsay local distribution systems are a main problem for water quality, the pipes from there to houses, not so much what the processing centers put out, or even use of old pipes in your house.  It probably helps to live right beside one of the main Royal palaces in Bangkok as we do; infrastructure seems pretty stable and well maintained.

One might expect the water quality and mineral contents to vary based on lots of local factors, and I'm not certain that it doesn't.  I've included a number of captures from the local Bangkok real-time water quality monitoring system, from when I tried these teas, but of course those don't include a measurement of contents broken out by mineral grams / liter at any given time.

It would make the most sense to run this type of comparison multiple times, evaluating tea types one at a time.  I didn't do that, I tried two types together.  That I still don't consider a mistake; I've been training to do comparisons that make sense, or else those that don't instead, for about three years now.  I've tried hundreds of teas over uncountable combined tasting sessions.  It's familiar ground.  If someone without that odd tasting habit wanted to get the clearest results I'd definitely recommend using the more intuitive approach, trying the teas one at a time, perhaps using 3 or 4 types of water to add review complexity.  Selecting mild, well-known versions of teas would probably work best, regardless of type; that part was a mistake.

I'll probably try this again with a rolled oolong version to see how it works with a very mild but complex tea, which should also help to isolate feel effect even better.

Review, comparison of Wuyi Origins Rou Gui with two water types:

Rou Gui with Volvic:  just amazing tea!  I'm not sure if that's the water though.  This didn't say if it was fruity type or cinnamon Rou Gui but judging from the heavy, warm cinnamon taste it's that.  Flavor is intense, feel is thick, level of roast is perfect, slightly noticeable but only complimentary.

Rou Gui with filtered tap water:  this is similar but the flavor may pop a little less.  It seems to be drawing out a lightly different vegetal note, as if the warm mineral resembles celery just a little.  Cinnamon is slightly flattened out.  This difference is so minor that tasting across different times it wouldn't really stand out as much, but side by side it does quite a bit.  Sweetness is down just a little too.  It's the same great tea, almost the same flavor profile and feel, just a little different.

an early round; color differences didn't seem to tell a lot of story, so I'll pass on adding more about that

Second infusion:

Rou Gui with Volvic:  this tea is just perfect as cinnamon intensive Rou Gui goes.  The balance, intensity, all the profile taken together; this is it.  The cinnamon part really jumps out.  It's warm and rich, almost connecting a little with a very subtle roast level, or maybe it only seems that way.

Rou Gui with tap water:  it's almost the same experience but it is missing some of the one high point that makes the other tea experience so special, the brightness, sharpness, and intensity of that cinnamon flavor.  The deeper tones and supporting elements carry across fairly well; fullness and body isn't bad, kind of similar.  The first version might have a slightly heavier, oilier feel, which is more positive.  It's a quite similar tea experience but funny how those parts that seem most interesting and critical are what flattens out.


It's too early for conclusions but the results already seem clear enough; this local water doesn't work as well.  I don't foresee buying bottled water to drink tea with though.  I wouldn't throw out a few large plastic bottles a week to get this effect difference, or probably even one 1.5 liter bottle a week to review using a different version.  It's a shame the local water isn't better but adding expense and impacting the environment to drink slightly different versions of tea isn't going to work out.  Maybe a charcoal treatment effect will help; that idea comes up a lot.

Later edit:  it was too early for conclusions; the opposite kind of trend turned up in the fourth and fifth infusions, a trend that was much more pronounced in the sheng version.

Third infusion:

Rou Gui with Volvic:  This tea is probably evolving a bit in character but I've lost track of clear prior impression to describe that.  It's still great, probably with a slightly shifted balance of aspects.

Rou Gui with tap water:  it's great with this water too, with less difference standing out than had initially.  It's still not quite as intense, giving up just a little sweetness, and more so dropping out just a little punch in the warm cinnamon aspect.  There is a very minor difference in the mineral tone, so subtle it would only come across in direct comparison, but it doesn't work to describe it or judge how negative it is.  I think it is slightly negative versus neutral, but that's a judgement call at this point, as much just a difference.

Fourth infusion:

Rou Gui with Volvic:  a slightly dry underlying mineral in this might have increased this round, it just doesn't stand out as much in this as it had for the sheng at this stage, or take exactly the same form.  The tap water version is just as good this round, or perhaps even slightly better.  So strange; I have no idea why that would be.  I would expect effects to shift a lot for increasing brewing time in later round but this isn't really onto that as much as it would be in two more infusions.

Rou Gui with tap water:  still really exceptional, not losing anything for intensity or positive range.  I think depth is picking up, that the one-note emphasis on cinnamon is deepening to include a lot of other warmer tone range, that it balances even better.  It was great the other way too though, focused more on that one flavor aspect.

Fifth infusion:

I'll lengthen infusion time slightly but these teas are holding up; adding a lot of time for that wouldn't be positive.  I'm brewing these over 10 seconds now, for what I'd take to be optimum, maybe around 15, but it goes without saying that I'm not timing this, since I just don't.


Rou Gui with Volvic:  mineral is a bit much in this, a dry version of it.  Looking at the mineral profile calcium and magnesium seem to be at the level I'd expect to work best, based on following online discussions about that (12 mg and 8 mg, respectively).  It's not "hard" water, but that should be enough to play a standard role in extraction and setting profile.  The rest, the total dissolved solids value, would be a bit much; there's lots of other minerals in this.  This is still really pleasant, and a very nice citrus aspect is ramping up in this tea, a "chen pi" dried mandarin peel type effect.

Rou Gui with tap water:  slightly better than the Volvic, for not including so much of that dry mineral effect.  The rest of the profile is similar.  The citrus part may be at a slightly lower level, so not as intense or positive, but the overall effect is better for not tasting as much like that dry version of mineral.  Mineral is great in tea, in the right balance; it grounds the experience.  Older plant source teas and natural origin teas seem to express a lot of that, an underlying mineral element supporting overall complexity.  It's just slightly nicer in this tap water version for balancing better, in this particular infusion of this tea, per my judgement.  The difference in extracting other flavor range hasn't dropped out but is has shifted in balance; it seems to matter less.

I didn't note differences or aspect range for feel or aftertaste much for these; that didn't seem to vary as much as flavor related to the water type input.

a later round; adjusting infusion times would change effect of color difference

Lao Man E sheng water source input testing:

King Tea Mall 2018 Lao Man E sheng gushu with Volvic:  bitterness stands out; to be expected.  One could learn to love that effect, even at this level, but I haven't.  If it balances well with the rest I can appreciate it, even like it, but this is a bit much.  The tea seems to obviously be good tea; all the other markers for quality work out, thick feel, clean flavors, depth and complexity, lingering aftertaste.  That front end bitterness really defines the experience though, then it trails on, not dropping that much intensity for awhile.  At least sweetness goes along with it, and there is plenty of other range.  I'd expect it to drop off a little by round 3 or so but I'm not sure how far past that I'll get.

Lao Man E with filtered tap water:  a touch of metallic taste seems to be added to the rest.  That extended aftertaste is going to make this a terrible choice for combined tasting though, about as poor a choice as one could make.  I might have considered that, but it's not like I'm drinking Lao Man E all the time.  Rinsing your palate with plain water (not warm, not cold) works, but it's a lot to rinse in this case.  Making mistakes to learn from can be a good thing, it's just more pleasant when they're less obvious, less stupid mistakes.

In general the flavor profile seems to pop a little less, again, with that mineral difference the main change.  Sweetness may be slightly reduced but bitterness is dominating the flavor profile anyway, so it would stand out less.

Second infusion:

Lao Man E with Volvic:  bitterness is easing up; it's balancing a little better.  It won't be until the next round this approaches a more conventional sheng profile though, more evened out.  The point here is the difference anyway.

Lao Man E with tap water:  beyond a touch of mineral difference in this (not really a positive one; a touch of metallic flavor) and a slightly reduced fullness of feel it's similar.  The other Volvic brewed version comes across as slightly sweeter.  In the case of the Rou Gui it's about a shift in the best attributes being slightly dimmed, but the character isn't so different beyond that.  In the case of this it comes across differently.  That shift in underlying mineral, slightly less full feel, and slight reduction in sweetness seems to add up to change the tea character more.  They're only small shifts, and the basic aspects are the same beyond that, the general feel, flavors range, aftertaste, feel, but the effect is more of a change, or a change at a deeper level.  Again the Volvic brewed tea is just better; there was no trade-off that benefited using this local Bangkok tap water, at least not yet at this stage of infusions.

Third infusion:

Lao Man E with Volvic:  this is much better balanced for transitioning over those rounds.  Not in comparison with sheng that doesn't emphasize bitterness, if someone doesn't like bitterness, but I'm fine with it at this level, it's just definitely not a close match to personal preference.  The thick feel is nice, how clean this tea is, how the different layers of aspects work together.  One part under that is actually a little floral, drifting a little towards fruit, but deeper light mineral is really stronger. 

Rich, full feel is nice.  Aftertaste works a lot better for dropping off.  Usually people would couple those last two descriptions with where the feel impacts your mouth or throat, with aftertaste also related to a lingering feel.  I'm never so good with all that, in part for not valuing it.  It probably is as much a valid quality marker as what I do pick up more, but it seems a developed preference that would be as natural to never develop.

Lao Man E with tap water:  this finally works about as well as the other version.  It gives up a little thickness in feel but somehow the fruit and floral range (complex, but subtle, hard to define) is standing out a little more in this.  It might be working out as well or even better for not stripping out as intense a version of that bitterness.  Feel losing a little thickness isn't as positive.

The floral and fruit range I can try to define, to describe, but it would be a guess:  it's bright and sweet, so along the line of plumeria and dried mango.  There are lots of types of dried mango, so those tend to vary a lot, but that gets complicated to wade into that.  The brighter, sweeter, more citrus oriented kind.  In retasting both that bitterness hitting a little harder in the Volvic version isn't quite as positive, to me.  It may make for an exception that stripping out a little less intensity wouldn't always be a bad thing.

Fourth infusion:

Lao Man E with Volvic:  it's really strange how this is exhibiting a stronger mineral aspect, a slight metallic range.  It's almost as if I've mixed up the water sources, but then this probably does have more mineral content, so maybe that makes sense.  I have no idea what that means.

Lao Man E with tap water:  it's nice how that balance evened out.  Bitterness is still pronounced but the proportion is more relatable now.  The complexity is nice, the range of flavor, and how feel and aftertaste contribute to overall effect.

Fifth infusion:

Lao Man E with Volvic:  a dry mineral input is much stronger in this tea version.  It tips just a little towards how chlorine comes, that's just not it.  It's much more positive to say it tastes like limestone, and to be fair it's really in between the two.

Lao Man E with tap water:  there is less mineral effect in this, making it come across as sweeter in character, and better balanced.  I don't know that it is actually sweeter; that may just be how it seems, without as much of the mineral input changing things.  The tap water version was actually slightly better over the last two infusions, but to be fair the difference is a bit minor.

Conclusions:

It's crazy that two main shifts occurred in difference, varying a lot in early and later rounds.  Volvic brewed tea was clearly much better over the first two infusions, and clearly not as positive in the last, probably more even in the fourth, with tap water working just a little better in that round too.  I can't really unpack or explain that.  Somehow a shift in flavor and feel proportion across rounds favored the Volvic earlier on, and the filtered tap water later (which probably contains a lot less mineral).

It's worth noting that different people can and do use completely different timing sequences related to brewing different rounds to different infusion strengths.  It's more common to use lower proportions and longer times, and then to extend the timing more across later rounds than I tend to.  Why that is becomes a lot to account for, and beyond citing personal preference some of the rest wouldn't be clear.  It's hard for me to account for why people like tea prepared differently than I do; to some extent I suppose I never could.

It could be interesting to consider the water mineral content though, starting with the Volvic listing:

I'm kind of guessing, since I have been involved with plenty of discussions about water content but haven't memorized ranges, but the calcium and magnesium levels look ok, if maybe even a little low.  Per discussions those two are the main factors, with a moderate amount improving results, and high levels throwing them way off.  Looking back through old discussions and references, Rie Taluli did a review post comparing tasting results using of a number of types for green tea, and in a discussion comment of that post Peter Jones (who is into reviewing mineral effect themes) cited listings of standard mineral content of a number of brands:


EVIAN - Natural spring in France - 290mg/L sodium bicarbonate, 81mg/L calcium, 27mg/L magnesium, 6.7mg/L sodium. 

AQUAFINA (Pepsi), DASANI (Coke) - Municipal water through RO - no sodium bicarbonate, no calcium, no magnesium, no sodium. 

GLACEAU (Coke) - Municipal water through RO - no data, but unlike Dasani, they then add back in for flavor the calcium, magnesium, and bicarbonate. 

FIJI WATER - Natural spring in Fiji - 153mg/L bicarbonate, 18mg/L calcium, 14mg/L magnesium, 18mg/L sodium. 

NESTLE PURE LIFE - Municipal water through RO - no bicarbonate, 7.4-11mg/L calcium, 2.9-5mg/L magnesium, 4.4-9mg/L sodium. 

ARROWHEAD (Nestle) - Natural spring in Arkansas - no bicarbonate, 4-66mg/L calcium, 1.4-19mg/L magnesium, 3-17mg/L sodium.


I can't imagine that using Evian would work well, and it's odd that Arrowhead water is so inconsistent, but I'll leave off saying much more about the rest.  I do come back to the sodium level idea related to the local water version level.

About the local water description, some input is offered by Bangkok real time tap water quality monitoring (http://twqonline.mwa.co.th/EN/map.php?type=).  We live next to the Chitralada station, in the center.  These don't mean that much to me but they could to someone else:

free residual chlorine levels, Nov 9, 2019, 1 PM

chloride levels (mg / L)

turbidity (NTU)

ph

salinity, listed as g / L (seems wrong, too high?)

July 2019 ph capture (to show variability)

I don't know what was in that water, for specific mineral content, and I don't know what the filtration process would have removed.  Chloride level was around 4 mg / l in this water, versus 15 mg / l in Volvic, but what of that?  Salinity just seemed wrong; those readings would seem like way too much salt, in the 150 mg / l range.  What if that is right; shouldn't the water taste like salt?  As a baseline I checked how much is in seawater:

On average, seawater in the world's oceans has a salinity of approximately 3.5%, or 35 parts per thousand.  This means that for every 1 litre (1000 mL) of seawater there are 35 grams of salts (mostly, but not entirely, sodium chloride) dissolved in it.


So 35,000 mg / l, which still doesn't answer if I could taste 150 mg, but it's a context of sorts.  It occurred to me that salt is sodium chloride, so unless I'm missing something the two values don't match up, the measured amounts of chlorides and salinity.  That prompted me to look up answers to both questions, how much salt can one taste, and what are normal levels for these.  This WHO reference covers the first:

Taste thresholds for sodium chloride and calcium chloride in water are in the range 200–300 mg/litre (2). The taste of coffee is affected if it is made with water containing a chloride concentration of 400 mg/litre as sodium chloride or 530 mg/litre as calcium chloride (3).



I don't think we can take that second sentence as good input about coffee enthusiast perspective.  More input from that source pins down range of chloride in typical fresh water:

The mean chloride concentration in several rivers in the United Kingdom was in the range 11–42 mg/litre during 1974–81..


That still doesn't resolve the monitoring inconsistency between salinity and choloride levels, but it is interesting to compare that to sodium levels in the other bottled waters.

Further conclusions:

That last section was mislabeled, wasn't it; not much for conclusions in there, or even speculation.

I suspect this tap water version ended up with very little mineral content in it, due to starting out with limited amounts and filtration removing some.  It's interesting to consider that tea producing more positive infusions initially might generally relate to producing less positive infusions across later rounds.  At least that did happen here, per my interpretation, and it may work out as a somewhat uniform generality (or may not; that goes without saying).  This could explain why some people push teas to produce very long counts of infusions, and others tend to not like them as much after a much shorter sequence, although simple preference difference seems to be just as relevant an input. 

Then again, who knows.  Round after round of trying out lots of water and tea versions would tell a longer, more accurate story.  In online discussion it's not uncommon for people to claim that they prefer different water (mineral content, presumably) for different tea types, and that would intuitively make sense.

I've never ran across much detailed speculation of why soaking bamboo charcoal in water is said to improve the results for making tea with it, even though people advocating that practice comes up a lot in discussion.  Even when it's being sold for this use, as in the case of this Yunnan Sourcing version, there's not necessarily a reason for why it might make any difference.  It probably does, it would just be interesting to hear guesses about why.  Here is one that Google search turned up, Tony Gebely's input, but somehow it's not satisfying as a complete and plausible explanation:


The idea behind bamboo charcoal, and any charcoal for that matter is the fact that it is extremely porous and will absorb impurities in water. It really isn’t “filtering” water if you set a stick in the water, in order to filter the water, the water must pass through granulated charcoal or some other medium (this is how Brita filters work)...


It would seem that it could be both adding and removing minerals from the water, and that only testing, instead of speculation or traditional input, would shed light on this.  I would tentatively accept that it really does improve results, although that would be clearer to me if I tried it myself.

Kokang Myanmar 2017 shu; water mineral as a brewing factor

This is line-jumping some other samples and teas I've not made it to but it will be nice to round out that intro to meeting this Myanmar tea producer at an expo (their main site and FB page, for further reference), described in that earlier post along with a sheng review.

Do I really have to cover that "pu'er" is a restricted Yunnan (Chinese regional) designation in every South-East Asian version post?  If you don't know that you probably also don't care.  It's shu pu'er, in all but name, and I personally don't care if people call it that.  To me there is no arguing over whether it is "shu / shou" or not since that just means that it's pre-fermented, and it is.

I've tried this tea; that's not normally how this goes.  Except maybe when I'm reviewing what I've bought a cake of, but usually not even then.  Reviews here are often a first impression, sometimes adjusted related to doing multiple tastings.  There are limits to that approach, which I've discussed; an evolved impression over many tastings would catch more, and at times what gets missed early on could be significant.

Tasting it came up at the Bangkok Impact hall a week ago.  That's crazy that it's only been a week; it's been a busy week.  All this leads into a tangent, which is best kept as short as possible given the extensive scope of that particular subject.  That vendor talked a little about water changing outcome, and that would be one of the main potential differences between what I'll experience this morning and a week ago.  I think I vary a lot too, that different settings affect my frame of reference, and that potential parameter changes would make a difference, but I'm more concerned with my own take shifting than either of the others.  All the same let's get into the water part.

A tangent about water as an input in tea aspect outcome

Water mineral content and other attributes makes a difference in tea aspects, obviously (although it's a point I won't try to establish here).

I use three-stage filter system to process Bangkok tap water at home to brew tea.  It's not ideal; how well that works would depend on what was in that water for dissolved solids before and after filtering, especially related to the types (minerals), relative proportion, and total level of each and overall total, ph, etc.  Of course I don't know that related to the starting point (although this research paper fills in some background on that, with real-time monitoring of some aspects). 

ph is 7.02 at my house right now; that seems fine

It's very common for tea enthusiasts to experiment with bottled water types and then select a favorite, and in some cases people would use different sources for different teas, which would make perfect sense.  Learning why the types work best (for them, per their preference), wouldn't necessarily be critical, since the final outcome would be the thing, the good results.  One common point that comes up, to cite an example, is that reverse osmosis processed water with very low mineral content is typically rejected as an unsuitable alternative.

I've meant to get around to doing water taste testing, and eventually I will.  I don't like the idea of adding to plastic waste by using bottled water sold in those.  It's at least conceivable here to use a source that washes and re-uses glass bottles, kind of an older-world theme that still does make sense, or really makes a lot more sense than it has in the last half-century since the opposite practice of using plastic instead became common.  It's funny how things can go in a cycle.

Whenever I talk to people about water for tea I end up referencing something an online friend says, since a guy who is active in a group I admin for is really into that subject, to the extent of being involved in university level research on it.  That would be Peter Jones, of Trident Booksellers and Cafe in Boulder, with that link to CU (I think; I could be clearer on the form of the last part).  I'm going to just cite a comment from him and move on, but scanning through other discussion and comments is as easy as running a search in that group, or places like the Tea Forum get into that as well:


...Voss would throw it off because of the pH at 5.5, which is acidic and will impact the flavor (as you noted). The ideal water is yet to be found... the ideal water for matcha will be different then the ideal water for oolong, or hongcha, or puer. Probably not by much, but if we are talking about ideal water, then yes. I am working with a professor to map out water in a way that we can talk about how aroma and flavor are extracted from the tea leaf, which mineral salts do the work, and how to arrive at that perfect water. 

We are still several months away from any conclusions. But basically you want your alkalinity to be 1/2 your total hardness, a pH in the 7s, and a balance of 2/1 of Ca to Mg. The other positive ion mineral salts also play a role in extraction. Attached is our water at my shop, which is considered very good for coffee and pretty good for tea from what tasters say. Will continue to share results when we learn more.


There you have it then.  That stops short of pinning down actual levels for Ca and Mg and total dissolved solids that would be ideal, kind of the main things to look out for, but it's a great start.  Again taste testing a half dozen types of water would provide good input on what works, it just wouldn't necessarily be consistent across tea types, so the matrix of testing one would do to get to their own working results could be a bit daunting.  Rie Taluli started in on that in a blog post awhile back.  It would be best to get on with tasting versus doing days of reading first but an account like that might make for a good short version.

On with tasting.  It's interesting to consider if I could potentially taste any difference between this shu and the sheng from when they made it at the expo (related to water used, or whatever else).  Probably that would work better for the sheng, since I tried it within two days of the event.  I will mention any differences if they occur to me, but hold off on starting with that earlier impression.

Review

The dry leaf looks nice; a reasonable amount of bud content is present, which often lends an intensity to a shu, and in some cases a nice creaminess to the texture.  I'll start this brewed longer than I typically brew other teas, around 20 seconds, and get around to checking out what a light infusion is like before too long.

It is pleasant, especially for just getting started.  The flavor range includes subtle versions of both light roasted coffee and cocoa.  I remember it as being even more subtle in flavor than this; that could relate to brewing parameters, or trying it right after a young sheng version may have made it seem like it was missing some aspect levels.  Talking a lot during tasting surely didn't help.  The feel is moderately creamy, but it's probably better to let it run a few infusions prior to saying more about that.

I let this round brew a bit under 10 seconds, plenty long enough for using a full-gaiwan proportion.  It can be interesting drinking shu a lot thicker, to experience that effect, and lighter, to help with actually separating out aspects in tasting.  Shu is nice for being flexible like that; it can be very pleasant across a broad range of infusion strengths.

A touch of earthiness joins that cocoa and light coffee range, or maybe replaces the second.  It's in the range of peat, or if it's more familiar a wet version of forest-floor.  For shu that's not a bad thing.  It can be interesting when versions are really creamy, even more based on cocoa, but I tend to appreciate a broad range of aspects in them.  I could relate to why people don't like any of that range, if they would prefer that it's more like well-aged sheng.  The two types tend to differ, with some limited overlap.

The creaminess is nice.  It reminds me of the effect from Guiness Stout, with both that aspect and some of the other earthy and sweet range mapping over.  It probably helps a lot to like Guiness Stout to appreciate this type of tea.


I brewed this third infusion at more like 5 seconds.  It's still not really light in infusion strength; using half this proportion would make it easier to dial that back more.  I like shu prepared stronger; that wasn't a mistake.  Peat is strongest this round, with any tie to light coffee mostly faded, and cocoa reduced to a limited supporting flavor aspect.  It's a clean form of peat; funny putting it that way.  It might work to try to sort out how some type of well-fermented tree bark is really more what I'm talking about, something less related to actual dirt (which tastes clean), but that's probably indirect and unfamiliar enough to not be a good description resolution.

It is clean though; there is nothing murky about the flavor, or sour, muddled, related to odd mineral tones, etc.  Based on a different interpretation mineral could be on even footing with the earthy aspects; it's definitely there, along the lines of how slate smells, an old form of chalkboard.  At a minimum it fills in the experience of complexity, allowing it to be rich in flavor, earthy, and clean at the same time. 

I liked it at that expo but it's slightly better than I remember, more complex.  If I'd not been paying attention I might have tried a version that had already been brewed a few times; that would change things.  I really thought not though, that they prepared a new sample for brewing right in front of me, but all the chatter could've made it possible to lose track.

There was an interesting guy visiting during tasting then, also named John, a Bangladeshi-German, and we talked quite a bit.  Since that doesn't have anything to do with this tea it's as well to not drift to far into about what; more just adding color to how that visit went.  Those staff were nice too, not less pleasant than Thais tend to be, which to me is high praise.

They had passed on a lot of good input about Kokang-Myanmar tea production as well, with most of that in that sheng review post.  It's no wonder I was a little distracted to do the shu profile memory-capture justice.  If I remembered tea profiles only as well as I do peoples' names I wouldn't remember what we had tasted that day.  It was just a black tea in addition to this sheng and shu; I'll get to that review later.

This still is pleasant on the next round, but I can relate to my impression at that expo better; it's a little non-distinct, with the most pleasant cocoa aspect fading.  I had the impression that it might have been more lightly fermented than some versions, that it could be more subtle for that.  Then I wondered if that wouldn't give it more potential to evolve over the long term.  The character that is present is great for shu, clean earthiness, supporting mineral, decent sweetness, cocoa, nice feel.  It's just a bit standard, right in that "tastes like typical shu" range.  I expected more intensity, since the sheng version is really intense, and since Myanmar shu have expressed that in the past.

This would be a great introductory shu; people often complain of versions being off in some way (tasting fishy at the one extreme), and this really isn't, at all.  For someone well down the path of appreciating shu it could still be a great breakfast tea, complex and pleasant enough to be interesting, just not as novel as some (atypical in positive ways).  To me cocoa in shu matches exceptionally well with a clean version of earthiness and mineral, and this includes that in the balance, just not quite as cocoa-intensive as some other versions I've tried.  I can even like a touch of tar in a shu; that tends to fade over a couple of years of aging, and even when present it can be interesting.  No tar in this; probably as well.

Dark wood may work as a good description at this later stage, mahogany or something such.  Earlier in my reviews I might well have said that tastes like leather to me; for whatever reasons I seem to have moved off as seeing that as a close match to flavor aspect scope that's probably similar or the same.

I've not mentioned aftertaste.  That is often more pronounced in young or old sheng than shu, which is the case here; it conveys some aftertaste effect but the full feel is a more positive supporting aspect.  I get the sense that's part of why some people are disappointed in shu, that an extra dimension here or there can drop out.

If it really is milder for being less fermented it might have more potential to continue to evolve over a number of years, to add depth over some aspect range, but either way it's nice. 

this leaf appearance may or may not indicate fermentation level