 |
an atypical wild origin Thai oolong, left, and a more standard Oriental Beauty (DFMR) version |
This is something I've been giving a lot of thought to lately. I just re-tried a Thai oolong that doesn't match an established oolong style closely (based on Assamica material; one might expect that), and realized that it's quite pleasant in a completely different way (than related to standard oolong range).
I would've said that in the review (from a month or so ago), but somehow what it means to me has changed in that month, or at least I'm working back through it again. Looking back that tea was reviewed along with a Jin Xuan cultivar based Dong Fang Mei Ren (OB) version; that's not completely typical either.
Often how I frame ideas in very specific communication helps, when I respond to a group post theme, or when I'm discussing an issue with a friend or producer. Drawing on that form, this is what I've recently said to a producer about this subject, about that oolong:
I just had the rest of that oolong with breakfast, and it's quite pleasant. One thing I've been considering lately is that my expectations about teas being "type-typical," about matching styles I expect, may limit how much I can appreciate some versions. I've been considering this for a long time, but I'm seeing it in a new way recently, related to having a lot of experiences with that theme.
I don't mean that I described that tea negatively, when I shouldn't have. What I mean is that everyone's expectations would be colored by that, to some extent. How well people like teas that don't match a specific style closely may relate to maturity of their tea experience. It would take a long time to learn how different styles are expressed, then even longer to move past that as a main framework for evaluating teas. I'm not finished with the second part, I don't think.
For more background, I've been using Moychay tea versions as comparison in some recent posts, because they sent some samples to review (as in that post). Some of them are very pleasant, but not completely type-typical, usually only related to a single aspect not completely matching, so not that far off. Or in that case presenting an OB version made from a different plant type (variations of Qing Xin are more normal, I think, but this isn't a key point in this content, and maybe that's not right).
I try to express that this kind of variation isn't necessarily negative, since some people would like many kinds of changes better, but at the same time a very close match to expectations could be positive in a limited way, in that it's what someone is probably often trying to buy. And if they want to have the most typical experience related to building up awareness of types that works better.
That Assamica based oolong included a touch of atypical roasted input flavor, and the feel is structured differently. It's all exactly what one would expect from wild-origin, different plant type tea (from variety Assamica instead of Sinensis, as most oolong is produced from).
The wild origin material theme really changes a lot. In many cases oolongs are made from controlled genetics cultivars, for example from Jin Xuan, from #12 in a series of identified, cross-bred tea types (most typically produced as a light style, rolled form oolong). Even teas made from traditional, older, conventionally established plant types--oolongs from Taiwan, Anxi, Fujian, and Guanzhou China, as types of Tie Guan Yin, Wuyi Yancha versions, and Dan Cong--would tend to be a limited range of things. Cultivar genetics wouldn't be controlled, but plant types would tend to be similar, or would vary across a narrow range (which is two ways of saying the same thing, those last statements).
A plant growing out in a forest doesn't change it's genetics, but plant types can evolve and drift a bit as different plants die and are naturally re-initiated. They can cross-breed themselves, more or less. Maybe having a lot of other varying vegetation around changes outcome quite a bit, as many believe, but that's something else.
So far this is heading towards an assumed conclusion that we should also appreciate aspects and styles as they are, instead of filtering our enjoyment into narrow style and type preferences. But why? That kind of works, but neither extreme seems necessary, or intuitively right.
Processing inputs are something else, that we would consider differently. Producers evolve production processes over time, grouped into distinctive approaches and styles, and in the best cases what works best gets carried on, and what doesn't is filtered out. So these traditional final-outcome styles represent that, as the most possible outcome that producer feels that they are able to achieve.
Broad preferences for styles and aspects can still vary over time. For whatever reasons a lot of higher level oxidation and roast input to different types of oolongs, from different areas, has been getting unselected, with lighter styles becoming more dominant. This isn't a recent trend; Marshal N wrote quite a bit about this in his early "A Tea Addict's Journal" blog. That was mostly critique of modern "nuclear green" Tie Guan Yin being unfavorable, not as pleasant as traditional more oxidized and roasted versions, and not as favorable for your stomach (per his take, but there's a lot of truth to be considered in almost everything he says, or said). But he also must have made other comparable observations about other types and styles, at different points.
I recently tried a Dan Cong that was made in that older style--assuming that one accepts what I've described as a broadly applicable and accurate generalization, which probably doesn't completely work--and it was very favorable. That review was here, which compared that to a much lighter style Dan Cong version. So why don't producers stick with earlier styles that seem so pleasant?
 |
that second one is a little light, right? |
Maybe it relates to preferences shifting over time. Maybe the additional processing steps add difficulty, without bringing additional sales draw, in terms of increasing demand and selling price. I don't really know; I would expect that causes and conditions are complicated.
This concern makes teas falling within limited types and styles being "type-typical" a moving target. Could Assamica (plant type) material based oolong ever become conventional? It seems unlikely, but it could become more established. Could a broad demand for a lot of more oxidized and roasted oolongs become common again? Sure, that seems more likely. Or maybe that never actually dropped out, but producers and vendors were able to sell really light versions for a long time, in high volume, even though perhaps a broad sub-set of tea consumers didn't ever want that.
My overall favorite oolong producer, Wuyi Origin, favors a fairly light style, in general. But then they also produce oolongs in a range of different styles, related to all of the inputs, so they can serve a broad audience with different preferences that way. They are pretty good about accurately describing styles of what they sell, stopping short of a long flavor list breakdown, which I think makes sense. People only need a sense of what they are buying, not a complete and detailed interpretation, which can vary by person anyway.
What else comes up related to these recent reviews; what can I pass on from them? At times one aspect that seems like a very limited negative, perhaps even a flaw, can seem to affect a final judgment in a disproportionate way. I think it's possible to focus too much on an ideal, and hold expectations that are too prone to ranking experiences, instead of just appreciating what is positive.
As an example, a black tea recently didn't express complexity across a broad flavor range in the earliest couple of infusions, and then as it evolved later that filled back in (very recently; I just posted that while editing this). The tea became very balanced and positive. I'm not sure why it brewed like that, over those rounds.
Evaluated against expectations of superior quality, specific style, and balance across all dimensions that could seem like a significant flaw. But then maybe in some cases expectations evolve to make allowance for just this kind of thing, in terms of personal favorites. Let's go with an example of that.
Dian Hong is my favorite range of black tea, Yunnan styles, which tend to not be all one thing, even though people would use the category bundling in different ways. Sometimes versions include a lot of pleasant depth, but not as much pronounced forward flavor intensity. I can still absolutely love versions like this, even though it sort of represents a significant limitation.
 |
a Moychay Dian Hong (right), recently compared with a Thai black tea |
Such a tea might express pleasant cacao, dried fruit, roasted yam, or roasted sweet potato flavor, but in a limited intensity, with a lot of mineral depth (to add some specifics to that). My take is that the Assamica material used to make such tea is often used to make pu'er in the spring and fall, and a summer harvest, that is weaker in intensity, is often used to make that black tea type. So a spring harvest version of the exact same tea would be more complex and intense; it would be an example of a limitation. But in some cases the tea can still work well anyway. In a strange twist it would still be "type-typical," the theme I've been covering, because this is a normal way for Dian Hong to be.
So maybe I'm more open to that limitation because I expect it, based on having a range of related earlier experiences? That seems strange. As I experience it the tea style still just works. The extra depth adds a different kind of complexity.
To be clear here I'm using "depth" to mean that I automatically associate parts of the tea flavor experience in a physically represented way, with forward, intense, aromatic flavor aspects (fruit, floral range, whatever it is) as higher, and mineral or earthy "base" flavors as lower, and deeper. I don't think that imagined spatial analytic form is necessary, or that it adds much to the experience, it's just how I've came to "see" tea experience.
 |
pressed Da Hong Pao oolong (reviewed here); some novel presentation themes really work out |
Conclusions
Where am I going with this? As I try more examples that aren't completely type-typical I feel as if I'm changing how my own expectations relate to my own enjoyment of teas. Calling that "maturity" imposes a value assessment framework I really don't intend (in a comment earlier here), but there's not another readily available concept to use for this. I'm associating this with a part of a natural experience curve, and of course others would experience their own understanding and preferences shift in different ways instead over time.
Earlier in my tea exploration and communication I would ask others, through this kind of writing, to add their own perspective in comments. That essentially never happens. But I'll stick with these ideas, and see if they keep changing over time, and if my experience of different ranges of tea styles does.
As I try the rest of that oolong version, the later steeps, past a half dozen in count, I'm really enjoying it. The feel structure is interesting, evolved to be rich and full, and smooth. The flavor is unique. A roasted input aspect gives it an almost almond-like character, with other vegetal tone one might interpret in different ways, positively as roasted grain, or barley, and more negatively as cured wood (depending on how they see it).
It's nice. But it absolutely doesn't match any typical form of oolong I'm familiar with, and I've drank quite a bit of oolong.
To put this conclusion another way, I think it's possible to get stuck in the habit of looking for standard tea type experiences, and to experience minor flaws, or even what isn't present, as overly important, which reduces your ability to appreciate what is there, and is positive.
 |
Vietnamese Assamica based oolongs, reviewed here |
