How Did You Develop Your Sense of Tea Flavors and Aromas?

combined tasting can highlight subtle differences, including flavor aspects

It's not uncommon for Reddit discussions to raise interesting starting points on tea themes, as in this case, considering how you can develop a sense of tea flavors.  That's not the most natural way to frame that set of ideas, related to how I see it, but it works, since it's functionally equivalent.  That post is here.

I guess it's not really a secret how my IRL status links to that Reddit profile, so this is what I commented (left in the original cut and paste formatting, which is extra janky, but that also works):

 

It's an interesting prior question if analytically identifying distinct flavors enhances the tea drinking experience, or if it's irrelevant instead. 

Moving on to the actual question, it just takes practice. Over a long period of time with lots of exposure, and focus on this theme, it will become easier to identify both general ranges of flavors and distinct flavor inputs. One tool that can help with this is a flavor wheel. It won't help initially, because you need the developed skill to go with it, but separating flavors into ranges does work better, and it helps having an idea of what you might be experiencing. It's this kind of thing (from here):

Note that some flavor you pick up with your tongue, often referred to as tastes (although these terms are used loosely in common usage): salt, sweetness, bitterness, sourness, umami (savory range). These others are sensed by your rear nasal passages, so they tend to be referred to as aromas.

This subject just keeps going. Sweetness isn't really identified by the typical sensation of carbohydrate range, of sugars, so you are really sensing other taste range that you associate with that same experience, or that mimic it (two different things). Astringency is a mouthfeel aspect, that is completely separate from this, but that is often confused with the experience of bitterness, or that could be adjacent to it. Sometimes a lack of one aspect range can seem to affect how you experience others, or an excess of one could have a different but comparable effect.

In practice there will always be flavors you just aren't familiar with, like those of a broad range of flowers (for many), or for obscure spices (eg. identifying the different incense spices). Then beyond that there is a broad range of what you've already experience that's going to be hard to associate, even though in a loose sense the flavor is familiar. Malt works as an example. Most of us have tried Ovaltine, or malted milk shakes, but it can be tricky identifying that flavor as what you are experience. Malty flavor in Assam black tea is related but it's something else, so we can use flavor concepts to cover a range of related tastes. Flavors perceived as negative can come across differently, or a base flavor range context including less pleasant flavors can steer you to noticing certain range (eg. even limited sourness might steer you to identifying musty or mineral flavors, while perceived sweetness might cause you to "look for" fruit or other positive range).

In actual practice there are a few things you can do. You can eat before tasting tea, but it should be neutral food, and you should eat it an hour or so before the tea. You can then still eat during tea tasting, but it should be even more neutral food, maybe something like nuts, a cracker, or croissant, to avoid adjusting sense of taste. It would be better to never smoke, and to avoid other harsh food or other flavor experience, all of the time. You can use water to "cleanse" your palate between tasting rounds, or even infusions of the same tea. Some flavor experience can build up in a positive way, or I suppose a negative way, but it can help resetting taste to get a clearer image of it. It's best to give yourself a lot of time and mental space. It takes a lot longer than it seems that it might. Sure, you can gulp a few swallows of a mug of tea and sense some flavors, but it helps to sip and slurp over an extended time, to really pause to consider what the experience is, what the constituent parts are.

Other inputs can matter more than it seems that they would. If there's potpurri in the room that's not going to help at all. Even a very dry environment can throw off the experience. People's sensations vary over time, maybe with different times of the day, or can vary from day to day. One part of the ongoing shift in form of perception is about noticing how all of that works for you.

That's a lot of it.  Ordinarily I'd unpack that first part more, whether or not an analytical approach that isolates and defines flavor aspects seems helpful, but leaving it open doesn't skip much.  People would see that differently, and I have mixed feelings about it myself.  I don't think that much gets lost, not moving on to a more analytical interpretation, and to the extent that kind of review helps it might make more difference beyond flavor range.  

It seems that as you try to do more with comparing teas you end up isolating aspects more and more, but the focus on the flavor list interpretation may not be as helpful or functional as identifying other ranges of strengths and weakness.  Typical positive range includes intensity, complexity, body / feel, aftertaste expression, refinement (an especially vague emergent and higher level range), sweetness level, balance, and so on.  

Negative aspects, flaws, or other limitations can take on lots of forms.  Sourness is a good example of what people typically hope not to experience, although there are exceptions, some fermented teas that are supposed to include a little (like a Japanese fermented goishi cha).  Some mineral flavor range can be especially positive, and other scope quite unpleasant.  A bit of "cement block" taste might be in the middle, but leaning towards less positive.  A tea as tasting like an ash tray would usually be negative, and that can come up.  Some of those positive aspects missing or seeming out of balance can represent flaws (eg. sweetness level seeming off, or feel being thin).

In some online product descriptions--a minor subset of all of them, since it's rare--a lengthy list of flavors can seem improbable.  Complex teas can express a lot, and flavors can evolve across rounds, but when a dozen flavors are described as primary that's likely to be exaggeration.  Don Mei come to mind; he talks like that.  But some people really could free-associate a lot of valid feedback about the experience; maybe he is just doing that, a lot of the time, and isn't even clear himself on when it bridges over to less justified marketing spin.

And this circles back to whether or not it's positive or helpful to describe aspects.  If you are struggling to place 3 or 4 primary flavors then it might be interesting to develop a better aptitude for making such connections.  But once you pick up that ability maybe it would make sense to keep going, to see how far it can go, and that might become a valued part of your normal tea experience.  Or really the "raw experience" shouldn't change, with less labels placed on parts of that experience, so passing on all of it could also make sense.

That writing never unpacked how the tea wheel can help with this.  It may be easier earlier on to get a more vague sense of a general flavor scope range, for example seeing flavors as vegetal or floral, without it being easy to narrow that to specifics.  Using the flavor wheel can help support that kind of a two-stage interpretive approach, and can help with suggestions about the finer distinctions.  

I remember once struggling to place a flavor in winter oolong version, something warm and rich, that was unfamiliar to me, within tea experience.  It turned out to be malt, or more specifically the range of malt found in Ovaltine or malted milk balls (or milkshakes), versus the drier, edgier malt expressed in Assam black tea.  A tea wheel didn't help me then, but it could have.  Instead it just eventually came to mind.

The photo caption at the start mentioned that combined tastings might help.  But it's hard to say how.  That really works better to highlight differences, more than specific aspects.  If one version is much fuller in feel that will be quite clear, for example.  Differences in relative sweetness level stands out.  Something like greater flavor complexity, more going on for diversity of aspects, would also stand out, but it wouldn't necessarily help with identifying one flavor aspect version.  

It's drifting off topic a bit, but something also gets lost in using this approach.  You wouldn't notice the "cha qi" or body feel effect from just one version, which I don't tend to pick up on well anyway.  And a flavor experience can seem to build over time, as you drink round after round, in a form beyond simple transitioning, changes to aspects.  Switching between two versions would offset that.

Practice would make the most difference, trying lots of teas, and paying attention to them.  It's hard to describe what that entails.  It helps to set aside time and attention space, to spend a half an hour or an hour just drinking a tea.  Relatively pleasant but still neutral outdoor exposure can be nice for that; you don't need to be isolated in a low-stimulus empty room. 

he's not in the picture; this is from another day

As I type this, on an apartment balcony in Honolulu, a small bird with a green head stops by on the nearby evergreen tree to chatter on about something.  I suppose he is costing me focus, but in a pleasant sense.  It's nothing like watching a 45 minute Youtube video, where I'm immersed in a screen.  For me I also avoid music in the background; it's just one more layer of stimulus to tune out.

my very patient tea drinking companions back in Bangkok, usually caught up in exploring

that space.  having tea with breakfast doesn't help, but eating somewhat neutral foods first is fine.

Ginger flower and honey orchid fragrance Dan Cong

 

honey orchid left, in all photos

This reviews two more Dan Cong from an ITea World sample set, sent by them for review. The last two were exceptional (orchid and magnolia fragrance versions).

One is the most commonly sold Dan Cong type, Mi Lan Xiang, or honey orchid fragrance (or aroma).  The other version, ginger flower fragrance, I've probably never tried. Their site description of that set follows:

iTeaworld 2024 Christmas Gift Sampler: Fenghuang Dancong Oolong Tea  ($109.90 for 100 grams)

Fenghuang Dancong Oolong Tea:  Huang Zhi Fragrance, Orchid Fragrance, Honey Orchid Fragrance, Magnolia Fragrance, Ginger Flower Fragrance, Osmanthus Aroma, Cinnamon Fragrance, Almond Fragrance, Night-scented Stock, Jasmine Fragrance

I might add a note on their brewing advice, before touching on the subject of value.  They recommend using Gongfu brewing, of course, starting at 6 to 8 seconds, and moving to 10 to 15 seconds, for up to 10 infusions.  That's fine, but I would brew these quite a bit longer, and only get about 6 to 8 rounds out of them.  If I was using a proportion of 8 or 9 grams I'd probably roughly match their parameters, but to me 8 seconds isn't long enough at 5 grams to 100 ml.  That's about preference, not really an optimum.  I'm a sheng pu'er drinker; I can't be brewing teas really light like that, but it is one common form of preference.  It might even work slightly better to isolate flavor aspects, even though that's counter-intuitive.

Is just over a dollar a gram justified for these?  I tend to state over and over that I just won't buy tea at a dollar a gram.  I probably wouldn't buy these.  But for what they are, the quality of the four versions I've now tried, that's about right.  At least they offer sales that could cut that back a little, 20% off if you spend over $100, so it seems this would drop automatically, at least now.  If these really cost 80-some that's a pretty good value.

It feels odd saying that.  Who spends over 80 cents a gram on tea?  People who don't care what the cost is, or who get hooked on types and quality levels of teas that they just can't get for less.  It's better not to do that.  This is where I usually say that other range of similar tea, for this type, isn't as good, in a sense, but it's interesting and pleasant enough that it doesn't matter, it's fine.  With Dan Cong you kind of take a hit.

I will say this:  I just bought decent Dan Cong for a gift at $20 per 100 grams.  It won't be this good, and this range of different DC versions doesn't turn up.  I bought that in a Bangkok Chinatown, and you can't match value or that version offering on the internet, oddly.  I didn't try that exact version I bought, to be clear, but I've bought Dan Cong from that shop three times, I think it was, so you can kind of get a sense of what they sell from that kind of history.  Upper medium quality Dan Cong can be really nice, if you can find it.  Online sources wouldn't sell that for less than $40, but it's still 40 cents a gram instead of 80+.  Other Chinatown shops here would probably sell lower quality Dan Cong for more; it was an exception, even for here.

These might all be that little bit better, or at least the first 4 were.  Maybe the honey orchid, Mi Lan Xiang, wasn't quite on the level of the others, but they were all pretty far up there for quality.  So I guess if you really feel that you need to experience what pretty good Dan Cong is like this is reasonable (given the other versions are like the first four, and I expect that there could be some quality variation).

Review:

Honey orchid:  that's nice.  I didn't use an extended first round for these to bump infusion strength to a normal level, so I'll be trying them light for a first infusion.  Character is good; these aspects are nice.  Tone is a little warm; it seems that oxidation level is balanced really nicely, probably supported with very moderate roast input, that is hard to fully place.  It all integrates.  Flavor is floral, of course, hinting a bit towards ripe peach.  The warmth comes across as a touch of cinnamon, at least so far.  Astringency hasn't emerged yet, but being on the light side that would be moderate.  It's a great start.

One might wonder if this seems really familiar, for this being the name for Mi Lan Xiang, the most common form of Dan Cong.  I guess so.  Those still vary a good bit, and this is a novel and positive version of one.

Ginger flower fragrance:  I guess that tastes a lot like ginger flower?  There is a light spice edge to it; it's really interesting.  The general tone is sweet, like jasmine, not even all that far from jasmine.  Again the moderate warmth works really well for this.  Floral tones are plenty bright and intense, and then it's grounded by warmer floral range, and what could seem like a bit of spice.  

This is so fragrant that it's perfume-like.  No tea this good is artificial, I don't think; I mean that volatile compounds give it a positive effect, what I often call liqueur-like, when the flavor context is slightly different.  It'll be interesting trying both slightly stronger.

Honey orchid #2:  I brewed these for about 15 seconds, or just over, not a long infusion time, but plenty for this proportion, for "only" using 5 grams.  Flavor is great.  Intensity picks up a good bit, but it stays in a similar flavor range.  A richness picks up, a thicker feel.  Astringency also does, but it's not sharp or edgy, only tied to that fuller feel.  Flavor definitely includes a lot of warm floral tone and some peach, and again I read the warmer part as being like cinnamon, just not exactly that.  

Ordinarily I'd be brewing 8 or so grams of this, drawing out even more intensity, even for using slightly cut back infusion times.  As long as you keep infusion timing out around 20 seconds that intensity would still be there.  There is no sharp edge to worry about; may as well push this tea a little.  Refinement and balance are great.  There could be a little more depth, and a little more pop, with aftertaste carrying over a little more, so I'm not saying that this is an ideal version, but it's pretty good.  It's definitely in the right range.

Ginger flower:  that ginger edge really comes out; it actually tastes more like ginger this round.  Maybe I was expecting that to be less of a literal description, or maybe ginger flowers also smell like ginger toot.  The sweetness is again like jasmine, with more warmth.  Where the other includes warm tone that's towards cinnamon this is really aromatic incense spice range instead, a set that I don't have clear enough memory of to distinguish between (frankincense, sandalwood, etc.).  

Feel seems a little thicker, and aftertaste does carry over just a little more.  It seems natural to push these just a little harder next round, infusing them for just over 20 seconds, to see what comes of that.  There's nothing negative to work around, so it will be down to trading off maxing out intensity for having them brew less rounds.

Honey orchid #3:  it's funny how someone unfamiliar with this tea type range could be absolutely blown away by this tea version, the strong floral tone, touch of fruit, sweetness, richness, depth, overall intensity, the way it all balances, and so on, and then the other version amps a lot of that up just a little.  Good Dan Cong is really something. 

"Good" is so relative; above average quality versions just tend to be like this, but from how people describe even versions they take to be positive many aren't.  That characteristic astringency edge people describe needing to brew around is a quality issue.  I suspect that low elevation, monoculture grown versions are pushed too hard with chemical fertilizers, leading to that, but of course that's just a guess.

Aftertaste does seem to pick up a little, for adding just a little more infusion strength.  Feel is generally good, it just seems less noteworthy with the other being a little richer.  Maybe the flavor being relatively familiar does cost it a bit in terms of novelty, but it's not as if I'm drinking Mi Lan Xiang versions all the time.  It's been awhile.

Ginger flower:  that's as far as this should be pushed for infusion strength, or maybe this is tipped a little over a natural optimum.  You know when something is enough when it's too much.  The ginger type flavor is still novel and positive, and other floral range is nice, but that jasmine sort of floral note is a little too strong in this.  

Could that flavor have been bumped by contact with actual jasmine flowers?  Sure, it's possible.  I'd guess that's not an input, but the effect would be like this.  It wouldn't draw out that much ginger flavor though.  And the supporting incense spice range warmth is really interesting and pleasant.  This is just how good Dan Cong goes; it's a little surprising that tea can be like that.  If added flavoring could be this clean, balanced, and positive I'd probably drink flavored teas.  Good Wuyi Yancha can be a bit surprising too, but not as much across this floral and fruit range, typically.  That liqueur-like effect can be really strong in some types of those though.

Honey orchid #4:  the feel isn't necessarily thicker or richer, but somehow it picked up a syrupy effect; the texture changed.  That's nice.  Intensity and complexity are good, and depth, but somewhere in that set is the closest thing to a limitation this tea has.  It could hit harder.  I suppose it could be slightly more intense and complex, and could express a little more depth.  It feels like splitting hairs saying that.  Someone could buy a dozen Mi Lan Xiang versions and not get one this good.  But there's a magic that happens when it's all dialed way up, and this quite good, but maybe just short of magical.

This is part of why I feel like chasing quality level optimums is a bad thing, to be clear.  If you need every new and different next experience to be better than all the last you set yourself up for disappointment instead of enjoyment.  This is already so good.  I'm just trying to place it, for people who are really on that page, into Dan Cong.  It would make for a bad goal trying to top this tea, and an expensive one, probably requiring some hit and miss, but it would be possible.

Ginger flower:  at just the right infusion strength this gets pretty close to magical.  The way all those flavors I keep describing come together, with the rich feel, warmth, depth, aftertaste trailing on--it works.  I suppose that ginger and floral mix, not so far off jasmine range, may not appeal to everyone, or that incense spice undertone people might see as less positive than I do.  To me it all really integrates.  I don't think it was a happy accident that made this tea turn out this good; I suspect that whoever made it really knew what they were doing.

That reminds me, in the last meetup at my favorite Bangkok Chinatown shop the owner, Kittichai, was describing how oolong is harder to make than sheng pu'er (in his opinion).  He said that to make sheng the material plays a lot of the role, and if you get the simpler standard steps right it will turn out as well as the material allows.  But oolong is different; there are more steps, more inputs, and more judgment required.  That matches my understanding too, even though I have zero experience with processing tea myself.  The timing for every step needs to be carefully determined, not according to a recipe, but in relation to the material and the conditions, related to how compounds are changing just then.  It's the same for withering, bruising, and oxidation, on to fixing, then later roasting; variable after variable requires tea maker input.

It seems funny saying that since over and over I've said that South East Asian sheng is typically just a little off Yunnan versions, probably related to processing differences.  Some of that could be intentional; people seem to draw out withering or add a limited oxidation step to offset the final bitterness and astringency, the harshness.  In Yunnan if the material is a bit aggressive after processing it just is; you age it some to offset that, not change the processing inputs.  What do I know anyway; I'm just a tea drinker.

Fifth infusion:  in order to not repeat those same aspect lists I'll just combine thoughts in one note for this round, and end this note-taking.

The honey orchid version has levelled off related to changes, not necessarily fading, but maybe giving up a little intensity.  It's quite pleasant like this, and not changed, but a next round would need to be infused longer to get this far.

That ginger tone is always surprising in the other version, when you first taste it each round.  And it being supported by so much floral and spice range is really something.  I suppose the feel could be a little thicker, but there's so much novel and well-balanced range that it's really splitting hairs to point out where it's weakest.

Conclusions:

These are much better than the earlier tasting sets from ITea World.  If you go back and read the wild origin material posts I did those teas are positive, mostly, but they're not complex, intense, balanced, and refined like this, none of them.  Then again this is Dan Cong (and they also cost more); that would be like trying sheng pu'er and saying that other type range just doesn't match it for intensity.  Of course not.  Just across that one dimension these aren't as full-throttle intense as the ordinary range sheng pu'er versions I often have with breakfast.  But across almost every other dimension the aspects really stand out.  

I suppose that only applies if someone loves floral-oriented teas with some fruit and spice range to add depth.  If someone loves green tea or hei cha, and not that range, these may not work as well for them.  To me the appeal seems relatively universal in form, but in practice personal preference isn't exactly like that.  People like whatever they like.

Blind Yiwu sheng tasting, comparing two reviews, and on aroma compounds

Sample #1 left, Sample #2 right

not much to go on in these descriptions

I typically taste teas relatively blindly, not checking aspects description or sometimes even basic product details before reviewing them.  This takes that a step further, in an interesting development proposed by Philip of Yiwu Mountain Pu'er.  I'm trying three better sheng labeled only as 2018 maocha # 1, 2, and 3, not getting to the third yet.


This blog post write-up has two additional parts to it.  After that review, and after identifying what the teas really are, I cite a second review of one of the samples by someone else.  A third section covers what aromatic compounds contribute to the flavors in any foods, including teas, which may shed light on differences between the two reviews.  The parts link up as connected themes.

The Yiwu Mountain Pu'er samples are very young sheng, surely spring harvest material since it's not so far into summer now.  It's probably a safe guess they're Yiwu; that's essentially the range that vendor sells.  As for other characteristics, source type, or aspects I don't know.  They smell a bit similar: rich, complex, and sweet.  But I tend to start reviews with brewed tea details, since that part is more interesting.


It has been nice doing simple, straightforward tastings lately, recently trying a nice orthodox Assam, a South Korean green tea, and a Myanmar sheng.  Only the last is comparable scope, and beyond that I've been mostly off sheng for a couple of weeks.  I really liked the black tea cycle the week before that; it was nice to return to that familiar ground.

It's my impression that it would help to stay grounded in one type more, that if I was only drinking sheng, or black tea for that matter, that I'd stay more dialed into finer details and more familiar with the typical range.  But it's also my impression that if you drink a broad range of types over a very long period of time you also adjust to variation, a higher level type of acclimation.

As for parameters it's the usual story; I've eyeballed the proportion, which did seem relatively standard, and water used is just a bit off boiling, nothing too controlled or ideal.   I did use a fast rinse, one concession to convention.

Review

Sample #1 is nice; that stands out as a main initial impression.  You can pick up the inclusion of bitterness from just smelling the wet leaves (or at least I think I can, even though it shouldn't work that way), so that was a concern, but the first impression is that it's smooth, sweet, complex, and balanced.  That bitterness didn't stand out as pronounced.  Brewing whole leaves moderates that.  People tend to get the impression that young sheng can be horribly bitter (or at least I did), in part from not being used to it, but also because of drinking chopped-up medium-quality factory tea.  Most whole leaf teas tends to come across as smoother and more subtle.

it's become habit to start with a very light first infusion

still unfurling

Floral tone is the main flavor component; common enough for sheng.  Between that aspect and the taste running a bit sweet it seems like Yiwu.  It's early for a full aspects description or mentioning how good the tea is but I can guess.

The clean, balanced, and distinct flavors are a good sign.  The round is light, brewed fast, and not opened up yet, but the feel has some fullness to it and the aftertaste sticks around a long time.  Both of those can work well as quality markers, not so much aspects I love most personally, although they do support the overall effect.  They tend to show what a tea is for general type, in different ways.  I'd expect this to be a little more challenging at this light stage, not as smooth as it is, since it's brand new sheng, but it works well for me.

That recent Myanmar sheng had some decent feel-structure going on, and substantial bitterness, but it also was sweet, balanced, and more drinkable than some other relatively good versions are.  It's not a terrible sign that a tea doesn't need another couple of years to be drank, more just a function of type and style.  Typically Yiwu shengs shouldn't be unapproachable, even brand-new versions.


Sample #2 is quite different in character; interesting.  Mineral tone does a lot more in this aspect range.  It's warmer, with more range in that other direction, and not quite as sweet, bright, and intense.  It's still pretty good tea, as much as I can judge such things, but for whatever reasons the style is quite different.  For Yiwu the first sample range is more what I'd expect; I wouldn't necessarily guess this is from there.

I like the way this mineral-forward character works out; it's not as if it's murky, or completely lacks floral range, or if the balance doesn't work.  Feel is a bit less pronounced, and aftertaste extends on but not in the same way.  Mineral trails into spice a little, which I'll have more to say about once the tea actually opens up, if that develops.


About that comment about being source-area typical, I never really worked through different source areas enough to get a good feel for that, which for many is the main starting point.  It seems like half what I've ever experienced is Yiwu, but I needed more patterned exploration to put the rest together.  Lincang, Nan Nuo, and Jing Mai I've tried a good number of versions from, but not all that many from others.  Variances in specific locations within broad areas, and the input of other factors, throws off seeing one aspect set as characteristic for those anyway.  I think the generalities are clear enough anyway; by that I mean it throws off me being clear on patterns, which are easier to piece together over a lot more exposure.

Second infusion

The first sample is brewing just a little darker.  That doesn't mean anything to me; just passing it on, since the photo may or may not make that clear.  I snapped a picture of the teas brewing; that's a good way to go long on an infusion time.  These might have brewed just over 10 seconds so the timing should be fine.

still brewed light, really in the right range though

Sample 1 has evolved a lot.  For all the flavor range and intensity this picked up it might have another step to go in doing that again in the next round.  Mineral range joined in a lot with the sweetness and floral range, and bitterness plays a larger role, stepping up with the other levels.  Just over 10 seconds is a long infusion time for an intense sheng at a normal proportion; that could be part of it.  That mineral is similar to what was going on in the other sample; odd those came out in a different order like that.  Sometimes sheng can have a really bright, lighter, flinty or limestone sort of mineral range, but this isn't that.  It's not warm and towards earthy range either.  To tie both to other areas and tea types Taiwanese oolongs more often exhibit the former light, flintier mineral range (although that varies), and Wuyi Yancha the second earthier or heavier version.  This mineral is complex, and kind of between the two, and it spans some range.

This tea is complex enough that it won't be easy to describe.  I could say a lot about the parts but it's more about the way it pieces together and balances.  There's still a good bit of floral tone to it.  Some part is quite catchy, not so far off the sweet, rich, creamy plumeria scent.  Instead of trying to list it all out I'll just mention that feel shifted too, that structure thickened, including a little more complexity of impact across all your mouth and dryness.  The bitterness balances the rest well.  I would expect a touch more intensity for older plant source tea, even though this tea is intense.  From what I've tried of more wild-grown teas they tend to be quite aromatic, with flavors in a slightly different range, also a bit softer and more subtle.  This isn't like that but the range of some aspects being pronounced within a slightly more subtle than full-throttle presentation for intensity reminded me of it.


Sample 2 didn't change as much.  It's slightly warmer, still on the soft side.  Mineral tone evolved a little towards a milder earthiness.  This is kind of an unusual version of sheng, related to what else I've tried.  Floral being present but quite restricted is unusual, the tea being really soft and subtle as those go is different, and that primary mineral aspect range is unfamiliar.  There is some bitterness, at a low level that helps rather than approaching becoming a limitation.  Aftertaste is unusual, in the way that mineral tone really sticks around.  The unusual part is that the other normal flavor range doesn't stick around as much as those often do, and that the feel isn't thin but isn't pronounced in any way.  It's an odd combination of effects, not aspects that I usually notice going together.  This tea could be brewed stronger, where the other one was at the upper edge of fine for intensity level, prepared in exactly the same way.

Third infusion

I went with a 15 second infusion this time.  It will be longer than optimum for the first tea but it will condense where this brewing process is going to go, and will probably be about right for the second.

just slightly darker (these pictures do repeat)

Sample 1:  not overbrewed, in one sense, but this would work better prepared lighter. That intensity is interesting, in terms of flavor, mouthfeel, and aftertaste.  The different levels of aspects balance nicely, even for pushing it for infusion strength a little.  Floral tone and a good bit of mineral balance a bitterness level that's significant but not a challenge at all.  The description of those is close enough to last round to not go back through all that, and it will work better to brew a lighter infusion to try and further break apart what is coming across as floral and mineral range to me.

The aftertaste seems to serve as a quality marker for this tea, more so than flavor description.  It's strong, and sweet, and runs back your tongue and to the rear of the mouth, maybe even down the throat a little.  And it kind of doesn't stop; a minute later the tea tastes almost as strong as when you drank it, and two minutes later not diminished all that much.  People speak of enjoying the way that can trail on for half an hour or however long but I tend to not focus on it.  It's interesting for a few minutes, and in this tea's case still far from over then.  In this context I can let it run for some minutes to appreciate the novelty but there's another tea to taste.

It works to clear your palate with water in between trying the two.  This tea aftertaste is even standing up to the water, not in any hurry to move on.


Sample 2:  This is a novel tea experience, I'll give it that.  Mineral and warmer earth again describe the range, but it's odd actually experiencing that.  It's not as sweet as the other tea, not as intense, without much of the floral range at all.  It does have some fullness of feel and the aftertaste does linger but not even close to the extent the other does, and not in the same form.  It's closer to the metallic taste of sucking on a penny.  It's not bad, not "off" in any way.  The flavors are still clean, it's subtle but with a different kind of less pronounced intensity, and it still works.  It's just not familiar.  For someone expecting and desiring that Yiwu sweet, floral, mineral supported, intense blast they'd be much more into that first tea.  It would seem odd to me if this was a perfect match for anyone's sheng preferences, but then my own are still evolving.

I really expected both to be more bitter.  Some of that might be me acclimating to bitterness as a main supporting taste, so that it just seems normal, and not even necessarily like a bad thing.  They're both not teas that really need a few years to be drinkable, at all.  Yiwu should be nice when young, and not overly bitter or astringent, per my other experience, so maybe it was wrong to expect more of that.  That Myanmar sheng was a little stronger in that aspect, as I'm remembering it, so maybe it was just that, a "last-tea-drank" expectations carry-over.

Fourth infusion

I'll try this as more of a flash infusion, since that will work well for the first sample, and then I'll just make due with passing on how subtle the second turns out to be related to that.  These teas are really kicking in, related to feeling them, the drug-like effect.  Somehow I expect that #1 might be behind that more.  I'm not as sensitive to that range of effects as others describe being but sensitive or not anyone would be noticing it.


Sample 1:  this is how this tea should be prepared; very lightly.  It's not to counter a flaw or negative aspect in the tea, but the balance is just perfect that way, and the intensity is still not diminished.  This has to be a pretty good tea.  I'd expect it to be more challenging in some way for being that intense but it's really not.  The bitterness falls into a great level of balance, and the feel has lots of structure but it's not edgy.  Mineral level could be challenging if it was just a little different but it balances well too.  These aspects don't just balance, they complement each other.

That floral tone has evolved in complexity to extend as much into fruit.  It's within a lot of other complex range, and not distinct enough that people would tend to interpret it in the same way.  The brightness is like citrus, and another "rounder," deeper part is a little like part of some types of mango that don't tend to come up very often.

not exactly like this but close

When I lived in Hawaii we had three different versions of mango growing at our house.  One was a common type, a smaller, multi-colored, softer flesh version, good fruit but sort of most like ordinary mango.  One other someone referred to as "elephant mango," an absolutely giant version I've never seen anywhere else.  It was bright and citrusy, different than other types in flavor too.  I suppose the citrus range in this is similar but that's not where I'm going with this.


The last type was the best mango I've ever tasted, by far.  It was a little larger, not as oblong shaped as most mango are, and multi-colored, the kind that turn green, red, orange, and yellow.  Was it ever good.  I've bought versions here that seem related--lots of kinds of mango grow in Thailand--but nothing else was ever like that one.   It doesn't work to say this "sample #1" tea expresses exactly that same flavor but it's similar.


Sample #2 doesn't work as well at this lighter infusion strength.  I might go with splitting the infusion time for a last take for these notes, going longer for it.  This isn't bad tea but it does pale a bit in direct comparison with the other; it would probably seem like a better version drank alone.  I don't like that style as well (the individual preference part), and the quality level also doesn't seem to match up.  At least it's different.  If someone did want subtlety, warm mineral range, and a young sheng that wasn't bitter it could work well for them.  The overall balance is fine, and the unique range effect is interesting.

#1 left, #2 right

Fifth infusion

This will be about all the tea I want to drink in one sitting, ten small cups worth.  I had a light breakfast before this session--corn flakes--or else I couldn't drink this much of these.  Food counters the intensity of the drug-like effect.  For people drinking tea for that effect it would make sense to skip that part but my drug use days are behind me.  I drink one beer a week, typically, and drinking a large coffee makes me feel edgy and off.  The leaves will be far from spent but they often tend to transition less in later rounds anyway.


Sample 1:  not much to add; going with a fast infusion again (10 seconds) it's still intense, not that different, maybe fading just a little.  Not fading in the sense the tea is on the way out, but in that it's time to adjust up in infusion time, and the full-blast intensity has dialed down some.  It really would have worked to go very light on the first 4 infusions (probably even slightly better) and it would be at this stage after a half dozen instead.  As is typical the aspect balance shifts and bitterness and mineral play a slightly larger role, with sweetness and bright floral dropping back just a little.  The second part shifts into fruit a little more here, a complex expression of it, citrus and a fruit input not far off an unusual form of mango, as described in the last round.


Sample 2:  going with a 20 second infusion time instead--breaking with brewing the two in the same way--helped this version.  Brewed at the right intensity level that aspects set is catchier.  I do like the way that pronounced, broad-range mineral tone balances with the sweetness and floral range that is there, with mild bitterness helping as opposed to being negative.  I suppose if someone really disliked bitterness this tea could be better than the other, but maybe they shouldn't be drinking young sheng at all anyway.


This runs short on my subjective impression so far, doesn't it, how much I liked the teas?  The first really seemed like very good tea, typical for the general Yiwu type, just a much better than average version of it, one of the best examples I have yet to try.  The second was interesting, more distinctive for being different, but I didn't like it as well.  To some extent it seemed not as good, in addition to that character just not matching my preference.  It wasn't bad tea, and didn't seem flawed, it just didn't seem typical.  Trading out normal floral range and the fruit that showed up in the first version for warmer mineral aspect wasn't as nice.

Next I'll mention what Philip said the teas are.  Again that would have been cool if I could've taken a stab at what these are, wine-sommelier style, not just to pin down origin area within Yiwu but also what other inputs made them into what they are, related to growing conditions, processing choices, and so on.  I just can't do that.  I never did get to that level of cause / input mapping, even under the best circumstances.  I've noticed some interesting differences related to more wild-grown teas, and the subject of old plant leaf sources keeps coming up, with some related differences now familiar, but those are only two parts among a set of inputs.

Philip's input on what the teas are 

Maocha 1 is our Gaoshan Gushu maocha from our family gardens.  Processed personally by my wife (with a pressed version listed here).

Maocha 2 is the maocha of Wild Spirit.  These newer growth trees were grown via seeds spread amongst the forest floor and left for natural selection.  This is the second year of picking and therefore there is now management on the trees and road leading to the 'garden.'

There's surely a lot more to be said about these teas, about processing input, growing conditions, plant types, lots of layers or related input.  Those site product descriptions linked to fill in a bit for details.  But a different interesting direction has turned up, a way to focus on the interpretation of aspects present instead.  I was talking with Philip of Yiwu Mountain Tea about some of those issues, and he mentioned another recent review of the same exact tea as in Sample #1, so I'll check on that in the next section.

Philip mentioned them setting up a sample set for these different 2018 maocha versions, listed here, including these teas:

2018 Gaoshan Gushu
2018 Gedeng Gushu
2018 Yiwu Maocha Spotlight
2018 Yiwu Wild Spirit
2018 Yiwu Early Spring Qiaomu maocha


Those two samples are the first and fourth listed.  That does represent a really unusual opportunity, to try teas on that level for that price (5x15 or 75 grams listing for $36.99, on sale now for $33.71). 

I was just talking to a fellow sheng enthusiast who mentioned trying to keep his habit on a very restricted budget, only buying semi-aged factory teas in the range of $35 per cake.  Being on a budget is fine, just how life goes, but it would be nice to have an option to try teas outside the normal range once in awhile.  Or as another friend once advised better not to; the worst thing you can do, he said, is to run across a really good example of a sheng pu'er that you like.  For me it's no problem; I really could quit at any time.  And it helps having a natural inclination towards oolongs and black teas, so that I can really appreciate the extra complexity and depth of sheng, but I'd never turn completely away from everything else.

Comparison with a second independent review by Philipp Aba

I'll cite the relatively complete tasting notes from an Instagram post, from Zero-zen Artlab, with that author, Philipp Aba, also writing the Tee Haus blog.  The tea photos are very nice, artistic in theme, in a range of pleasant looking teaware photographed against rustic wood and leather backgrounds, well worth clicking over to check on that part.


Gaoshan Gushu Maocha 2018 @yiwumountaintea

Bouquet: ...buttery dense atmosphere of baked apples and pears with layers of woodsy dark forest honey and also first hints of great aging material showing within its leathery and oud / agarwood well composed subtle highlights. Within the second infusion this whole profile changes again into a very fresh and citrus like character especially of starfruit.


Liquor: Also its liquefied profile hits dense and thick notes with such a remarkable composition...  ...buttery sweet sugar aspects of marshmallow (more the plant origin), hints of cotton candy followed by baked apples and pears, subtle notes of green grapes but also tiny hints of roses but more in a candy kind of version but there is also a massive herbal aspect of marigold, dandelion or even tiny not so bitter hints of gentian to it. 

The aftertaste is as rich as this whole sensational session with a lingering finish. Like within its aroma a very elegant citrus fresh layer shows up within a second and each steep after that covering small marbles of forest honey with a refreshing herbal light fusion of birch leaves (and juice), hazelnut leaves, buckhorn and spruce needle... [and also including] a very subtle but lovely bourbon vanilla note... 


Editing that would have reduced it to what seemed most important to me, and all the ideas and descriptions are distinct.

It's poetic, detailed, and interesting.  It matches some of what I wrote.  A lot of the differences can be resolved, even though at first glance the two descriptions kind of contradict.

Starting at the rougher level, both descriptions do mention both floral and fruit aspects, both citing citrus as one component.  The fruit range is described differently, as different fruits, and in more detail in this other review.  It doesn't help that I described the fruit as tasting like a type of mango that almost no one would have ever tried.  On my first read of this second review it just seemed wrong, describing the tea as only tasting like fruit and not at all floral, but I had misread this part:  also a massive herbal aspect of marigold, dandelion or even tiny not so bitter hints of gentian to it.

This second review description doesn't mention mineral as present at all, or that there is any bitterness, both of which are relatively universal in younger sheng (with the second oddly very limited in the Sample #2 version).  It does mention the pronounced aftertaste.  It would be possible to move past bitterness and mineral as only the context within which the true nature of the tea is expressed.  Those weren't the most interesting parts anyway.


Beyond preparation differences (using different water, or parameters) a lot of the rest might relate to the role subjectivity plays in tea experience.  I wrote a post about that two years ago, asking other bloggers and one wine maker friend for their take on the matter.  That wine-oriented friend was basically saying that if a wine really is fruity one person might "get" cherry and another blueberry, and it's not necessarily that either is wrong.  The same fruit aspect in a tea could be interpreted as baked apple, pear, and star fruit, or as a type of mango, even though that might seem a bit counter-intuitive.


As an engineer I want to take that straight into consideration of which taste / flavor related compounds actually are present, or aren't.  I did a lot of research on that last year, that never saw the light of day as being posted, related to researching machine-"tasting" of tea.  In some taste-complex foods, like in wine and tea, there really can be a lot of compounds that don't just sort of relate to those found in other foods items, they can be the same.  Interpreting a mix of them is another thing.

I'll do a tangent on that next, but I think that's only part of the story.  Complexity being interpreted in different ways must also relate to interpretation by the taster, to making associations beyond perceiving what is present.

Aroma compounds

This deeper dive relates in part to the difference between tastes and aromas.  Tastes are a basic, more limited set (sweet, salty, bitter; probably that vary more than those unified categories imply though), and aromas are more complex sensations (which could also be referred to as tastes, or as flavors instead, depending on how concepts are being used).  Aromas are carried by volatile compounds, detected in the rear nasal passages instead of by the tongue.  Ordinary language use of these category concepts varies.  To some extent there being correct food-science definitions beyond ordinary concept use is relevant, but it doesn't necessarily work as a final word.

If a limited set of people--eg. tea enthusiasts working within established norms--evolve different use of concepts they could be wrong in the sense of conflicting with established terminology, but right to the extent that the descriptions are functional, and are inter-subjectively accepted in a group.  For example, that Zero Zen blog broke out separate categories of "bouquet" and "liquor."  To the extent these are meaningful, useful category descriptions understood by a reader to me they are completely valid.  It seems more common to see a category break of taste / flavor and aroma / fragrance (which is probably similar to that divide, if not the same).  That split isn't always parsed in the same way, but to some extent normal use does seem somewhat consistent.


Wikipedia's short version on aroma compounds helps clarify this (sort of):


...An aroma compound, also known as an odorant, aroma, fragrance, or flavor, is a chemical compound that has a smell or odor. A chemical compound has a smell or odor when it is sufficiently volatile to be transported to the olfactory system in the upper part of the nose...

...Flavors affect both the sense of taste and smell, whereas fragrances affect only smell. Flavors tend to be naturally occurring, and fragrances tend to be synthetic.[1]

Aroma compounds can be found in food, wine, spices, floral scent, perfumes, fragrance oils, and essential oils. For example, many form biochemically during the ripening of fruits and other crops. In wines, most form as byproducts of fermentation...


I'm not certain that general concept category framing works as a last word but the divide they're specifying is clear enough anyway (beyond that odd "upper part of the nose" reference; I think description as sensation occurring in the rear of the nasal passages might be more standard).  I've mentioned a different Chinese traditional distinction that doesn't map directly to these before (contrasting aroma and flavor, which does sometimes go by "liquor," or less translated "good in soup").

The list format version of these "aroma compound" types in that reference article is interesting (only a sample):


Esters

Fructone (fruity, apple-like)
Hexyl acetate (apple, floral, fruity)
Ethyl methylphenylglycidate (strawberry)

Ketones

Cyclopentadecanone (musk-ketone)[2]
Dihydrojasmone (fruity woody floral)
Oct-1-en-3-one (blood, metallic, mushroom-like)[3]
2-Acetyl-1-pyrroline (fresh bread, jasmine rice)
6-Acetyl-2,3,4,5-tetrahydropyridine (fresh bread, tortillas, popcorn)

Lactones

gamma-Decalactone intense peach flavor
gamma-Nonalactone coconut odor, popular in suntan lotions
....


A partial citation of that first category listing (different entries of it) helps explain what's going on:

It's possible that the last three compounds on that table could be present in a food, or a tea, and different people would "get" differing degrees of nail polish, fruit or rum, and then apple or pineapple.  I mean that as possible intuitively, and as a thought model.  I'm not a food scientist, so the claim is limited related to that set being likely to occur naturally together or not.

It sounds like I'm saying that the longer a flavor list is in any review the better, as review scope of any kind goes, that it's all likely to "really" be in there, so the reviewer who goes on and on probably really is just more sensitive.  Maybe.  Or maybe they're just more imaginative, and they are making leaps that aren't really justified by the aromas--flavors, if you use the concept that way--in the food or drink item.

All of this probably implies a more cut-and-dried taste experience than is actually how that works out.  We must perceive sets of different compounds and related inputs in different ways, more so than the experience of tasting working as a binary-value sensory experience, related to a specific compound that maps to a specific flavor being there or not.

It is possible for a machine (compound testing) to "taste" a version of brewed tea and shed more light on it, a very complicated subject I'm going to completely set aside for now.  How that works out in practice was fascinating to review (to me), but it never did fall together into a central theme as I'd hoped.

Conclusion

I'd guess that the other reviewer, Philipp Aba, probably is more sensitive to subtle aroma / fragrance distinctions than I am.  Not mentioning any bitterness or mineral aspects isn't necessarily problematic; it's normal for me to focus on a limited range in a tasting, and to let other scope drop due to that focus.  I suppose it's also possible that he was more or less wrong about noticing some of those aspects.

Taste sensitivity and interpretation are two separate but related themes, not necessarily the same thing.  One might see a correlation to the idea of someone being a "supertaster," which is worth doing one more short tangent on here.  From the sounds of it that person would "taste better," but what that means is really more specific, from an article by the Scientific American:


The number of taste buds varies from person to person. People who have relatively more taste buds are called supertasters. To supertasters, foods may have much stronger flavors, which often leads to supertasters having very strong likes and dislikes for different foods. Supertasters often report that foods like broccoli, cabbage, spinach, grapefruit and coffee taste very bitter. The opposite of supertasters are non-tasters. Non-tasters have very few taste buds and, to them, most food may seem bland and unexciting. 

Of course this leads back to a twist:  tasting, in the broader sense, relates to sensing and interpreting input from both taste buds on the tongue and receptors that are part of the olfactory system, to detecting aromas.  Another part of that article mentions this relation to tasting bitterness in a compound:


Testing a person's sensitivity to a bitter chemical called 6-n-propylthiouracil (PROP) is a more definitive way to determine if he or she is a supertaster; non-tasters can't taste PROP, but supertasters can and really don't like its bitter taste! Average tasters can taste it too, but its bitter taste is not strong enough to bother them.

It's too much of a leap to speculate further but it seems at least possible that a limited ability to detect bitterness--being a "non-taster," on that scale--may help someone detect, interpret, and appreciate the other aromatic flavor range, versus that detected by the tongue.  A non-taster may make a more effective tea taster, in a limited sense.


Or I suppose it's much simpler to just conclude that aptitudes, training, and final interpretations can vary.

In this test case both reviews found the sample #1 tea to be pleasant, high quality, complex, and distinctive, just described differently.  With both identifying pronounced aftertaste, thick mouth-feel, floral range, and fruit, with only the last described differently, beyond the citrus component being common, the descriptions weren't as different as they first seemed.

there's more to say about an upcoming tasting at this zoo; better next time

Oolong pu'er, about sheng aging potential

Related to reviewing different sheng versions lately considering which sheng pu'er will age well and which won't keeps coming up.

A comment about a Moychay Nan Nuo sheng relates directly to that (here on Reddit, by Jay, if he's familiar, who sells tea here):

It'll be interesting to watch it age over several years but my gut instinct is that it will fade rather quickly in BKK. The fruity flavors often indicate oolong style pu that will fade out with age.


I had framed a similar idea in that original review more as a question.


I love the fruit in it, and that overall "bright" effect.  Often when I'm drinking sheng made within the past year I'm saying this might be better in a year or two, a little less edgy, but in this case I'm not so sure.  If that brightness were to decline, as it would to some extent, the balance might be just as positive, or more so, or the tea could've been best drank when very young like this.


Of course the deeper issue is what aspect range indicates a tea will age well, and to what extent that varies by preference, or is it not possible to tell by trying a tea.  All of that is essentially what this post is about.  I frame that as a question in the response to that comment by Jay about "oolong pu'er":


I've ran across this description, and take it to mean sheng pu'er that resembles oolong in aspect character, smooth, not astringent or bitter, sweet, sometimes with fruit aspects.

The odd twist is that often mentions of that term pair it with descriptions of processing variation (or error, depending on interpretation) with the tea heated more in the kill-green (shaqing) step causing conversion of compounds essential to sheng pu'er fermentation (or whatever someone wants to call that, since there's more back-story about that term too). But only at that simple one-step variation description it should become more like a green tea, shouldn't it? 

Some other descriptions, which usually don't mention "oolong-style" as a comment, say sheng that's heated too much more or less is green tea. But green tea usually tastes nothing at all like oolong, with more initial oxidation being a main difference in the two, beyond difference in resulting aspects. That additional oxidation wouldn't be present in sheng that got a bit hot during processing. 


Jay mentioned that Tea Chat discussion link for further reference, along with a concise overview "some of the stuff that is aromatic and flavorful and easy to drink today can die in a matter of three years."


I'll look into that Tea Chat discussion here, citing parts of it.  It never really resolves, but it's interesting to consider individual points made.  I want to touch on another tangent first, about people using the terms fragrant and aromatic in different ways.  I'm sure it means something very clear and consistent to the people using it, probably even well agreed upon in limited groups or circles, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that the meaning varies among people.

exploring sheng aging by trying six years of consecutive samples (here and here)

more to follow about turning another page in trying interesting versions

More on aroma, fragrance, and other aspect descriptions

It's common enough knowledge that basic taste / flavor is really divided into two parts, what our tongues pick up (salty, sweet, umami, etc.) and aromatic compounds, identified in sensors in the lower rear of the nasal passages instead, related to our sense of smell.  I've mentioned this "basics" video summary by Barb Stuckey before, author of "Taste What You're Missing."

It would be simple if aroma is intended as only the information carried by aromatic compounds that are identified by sensation related to smell.  In this tea vendor blog post that's essentially how it's being used.

The problem is that I've ran across other range of uses before, and it doesn't seem to be quite that simple in these citations.  Jay mentioned in that comment "some of the stuff that is aromatic and flavorful," apparently contrasting the two (which I had just cited).  It doesn't work well for flavor to mean what's tasted by the tongue in that, although it could still work.  Typical language use of the concept of flavor includes both types of sensory input, but then the concepts of taste and flavor tend to blur together in common use.  In lots of citations related to tea use of all of the terms seems to vary, but to generally incline towards one specific concept range, assumed as shared and understood.

A research article (Tea Aroma Formation) summarizes aromatic compounds present in tea, reflecting that simple version:

The current review summarizes tea aroma compounds and their formation in green, black, and oolong tea. The flavor of tea can be divided into two categories: taste (non-volatile compounds) and aroma (volatile compounds). All of these aroma molecules are generated from carotenoids, lipids, glycosides, etc. precursors, and also from Maillard reaction. In the current review, we focus on the formation mechanism of main aromas during the tea manufacturing process.


So why not just leave it at that?  "Taste" can be reduced to what the tongue is picking up, "aroma" to the rest, to aromatic compound input.  Or on the looser side taste or flavor could mean both, and someone could be more specific about how they're using the terms if it's really necessary.  The reason I'm not comfortable leaving it at that (that first option) relates to running across the terms being used in different ways.  Generally loose ordinary language use of broad terms is something else, but I mean in discussions about tea.

Of course most of the flavor of all teas is carried mostly by aromatic compounds.  Sweetness is picked up through sensation by the tongue (mostly, as far as I know and can determine), even though it's not typically sugars causing that in tea, but also other compounds that come across similarly.  The same is true for the feel of teas, astringency, and bitterness and sourness, obviously, but beyond that most is "aromatic," or from the contribution of volatile compounds.

Onto the complication:  often the pronounced floral or fruit range in a tea like a Mi Lan Xiang Dan Cong is referred to as flavorful, while the more subtle, different range in a Ya Shi (duck shit) Dan Cong is referred to as aromatic instead.  Of course some people will disagree completely with that; my central point is that people are using the terms in different ways.  Is that convention--if correctly identified--only because someone is using the terms in the wrong way, or that they aren't clear on how limited tongue-based taste perception is?  Maybe.  But it seems to represent a different convention that breaks "flavor" apart differently than just between tongue and nasal passages instead.

I've been through some degree of training in wine tasting but referring back to that doesn't help (which could instead relate to limitations in my own training and memory).  And even if there had been a clear convention and terms break-down there it still might not carry over.

Ordinarily I'd speculate, and say that a certain range seems to have represented what people are meaning by "aroma" in some cases, with the rest pushed off to "flavor" or whatever else.  I have expressed thoughts on this before but I can't really get much clearer to pinning this down.  I tend to use "aromatic" myself in a specific and limited sense that's probably not universal, or who knows, maybe almost entirely incorrectly.

Just because someone is from within the Chinese tea tradition (like my online friend Cindy, who even makes tea) they're not necessarily a great reference for a universal use of terms.  Even if someone could site a tea-master or ancient tradition school lineage that wouldn't necessarily support their use of any description terms as universal.

All of this isn't really central to this discussion, the part about oolong pu'er, but it sort of does keep coming up in the parts of it.

Kalani checking out a dragon.  Happy New Year!

About types of sheng, and "oolong pu'er"

Part of the broader idea of exploring sheng lately has been to start to sort out how different types of age differently.  Of course aging input is just one issue related to judging or enjoying a sheng pu'er.  Related to exploring that, most recently I tried a series of Yiwu sheng samples designed to show aging effect (here and here), and before that  attended a vertical tasting of those (narrowed to teas from Ding Jia Zhai, a village in that larger Yiwu area).

It's a review that I understand is going to be a process, nothing I'm going to get far with in any limited amount of time.  It goes without saying that I'm barely getting started, but I do keep saying that anyway.  "Just getting started" means different things to different people, and what I mean is that I've tried and reviewed some related teas over the last four years, but not that many of them, something like a few dozen.  There are probably less than 20 related reviews here, of versions of sheng. 

Tea quality is another issue, beyond any sort of count related to what someone has tried.  It would be possible to keep trying low to medium quality versions of sheng pu'er and not really see that half of the picture, or to many, to get much relevant exposure about what the tea type is really supposed to be about.


The discussion in that Tea Chat thread about "oolong pu'er" goes a lot further with isolating aging concerns, with the main two references here:

Tea Chat forum "Oolong Pu'er Processing" thread

Related, The Mandarin's Tea "Oolong Pu" post

A citation from the author of the second personal blog post (by Tim) within that original thread outline the central theme and concept definition of "oolong pu'er:"


Those high aromatic new style Puerh which goes stale in 8 plus years. They can't age and a total waste of time and money...  

...flat in the body, don't last many brews in a balanced way (aroma and body) but high aroma from the production of 2006 to current?  [2013, at that time of writing]


From there discussion varied related to root causes or descriptions of effect.  One vendor offered an summary of some issues and conditions, but it's not intended as a consensus take here, or even representative, just a good place to start (cited from "Bannacha's" post):


If you're refering to tea that got too much Sha Qing, they are quite easy to identify: the leaves are very green, they are astringent and they get bland very quickly, just like green tea.

By controlling the Sha Qing time and the wok temperature, you can make redder or greener tea, and, as long as it's not extreme, I think there's a large span of well processed tea. Then, it depends on your personal taste, what kind of aroma you prefer, and which mountain you're dealing with. I like a greener processing on Mengku tea, because it brings out the high pitched fragrance of this area. Redder tea might be good to emphasize on the body, the mouth feeling.



Later discussion identified a potential difference in the drying step as a potential main issue, that replacing sun-drying with an alternative process (citing "Nada" on page 2)


...He's been experimenting with how cakes have been ageing that have had different processing techniques & noticed a big difference between those that had been dried in a heated room after pressing vs those that had been dried in the open air. 

...We tasted some of his past pressings and there did seem to be a strong correlation. The naturally dried cakes did seem to be ageing better. 

In freshly pressed teas, the difference seems to be huge - the cakes dried in a heated room had strong aroma and tasted fresh soon after pressing, while naturally dried cakes seem to take months after pressing to recover from the process and have a much more subdued aroma.

Really all of these citations are just samples, and the whole thread is well worth a read. Of course people are going to be using some terms in slightly different ways (me even more so than them), and preferences would vary, but it seems possible to read past those issues and extract some clear insights.  It would be interesting if I could even tentatively link any of what I've experienced back to these patterns, but passing on guesses at this point would seem less than helpful. 

the "Oolong Puerh" FB business page.  that might've not worked out.

The various points raised don't really fall together as a clearly connected, narrow-range set of ideas, as this summary hasn't (so far, but it does keep meandering).  If you read through even the first four or five pages of that Tea Chat discussion it's narrower than this review of it makes out, but still hard to summarize.  

I'll cite a part that was particularly interesting, some comments on positive attributes of sheng by Shah82 (a name reference that might ring a bell; I've mentioned other input from him in this blog before), from page 4 of that discussion (edited down only a little for length):

Nobody is an expert. Not really, because this hobby is far too young as a broad phenomenon. Virtually everyone's experience in the West consists of furtive samplings of tiny quantities of the well stored aged tea, usually of well known tea like 7542 or 8582. So everyone is making best guesses, especially given how processing methods and blends have changed since the 80s and 90s. So you have to come up with a system that estimates how you should think of a tea. 

So for me, I go with: 

1) Does the aroma endure? You can't fake or process a quality aroma with depth/complexity/fullness, rise off the cup, and lasting more than a minute or so. 

2) How comfortable is it to drink? Is there astringency or bitterness? Is that astringency/bitterness productive in generating lingering aftertaste and huigans? Silky, gloopy, whatever texture? 

3) Is it like drinking water or some kind of soup? Body is a bit different than texture--you can have a thinner body, with a silk texture and that'd be pretty cool. Or a thick one that isn't right in some way. 

4) How much power, activity, and presence does the soup have on top of, and inside the throat? Too many people think mere cooling is a sign of quality. It is, sorta, but what sets off the really good from the mundane is the nature of the cool. Good tea has a different kind of cooling that's more ben-gay than mint. The effect tends to go down the throat and up the nose. It can also travel around the mouth, as in "wind rain effect" as the Chinese call it. 

5) How much qi does it have? Does said qi move along the meridians, so to speak, or does it just sit there? Is it comfortable or harsh? 

6) Does the tea have several stages in flavor as you go through a pot of water? Are the finishing brews pleasantly sweet and comfy? 

... You have to make choices about what you want. You'd read me or any of the bloggers strictly in the context of where your preferences and priorities tend to overlap with mine or anyone else... 

I will say that taste itself is highly deceptive. It depends on your water, whether you let the dry leave sit in the bowl a week or two, or any number of things. It can change with the years. The classic way people buy bad tea is by preferentially buying "approachable" flavor or aroma puerh. Which is why you see so much problematically tinkered puerh that gives a oolongly fruity or floral taste (or more red and mellow malt). 

For me, the easy way to tell, again, is to see whether that aroma *endures*. Many of these teas also will betray badness by becoming hard to drink or pointless to drink by about brew 6-8. *Few* puerh, however, are done straight processing green. A little butteriness is sought after. Or a little hongcha, or some nice smokiness. That's alright, so long as most of the underlying qualities are still there to age.

Ok, not edited down much.  There's lots interesting there, which I won't really comment further on.  I will mention that the one sentence about communication and shared perspective does deserve some extra thinking through.  It's insightful and clear enough, but perhaps easy to miss what is really being said.  As I take it he acknowledges that preference is a real issue, a context framework that the rest of the experience rests on, and that input from him or from tea bloggers is only valid to the degree that a general approach is shared.

Put another way, reading others' ideas about how they approach tea, and what they prefer, only goes so far.  There would seem to be better and worse references beyond that issue of generally matching preference scale.  As an example, a tea blogger could be on exactly the same page as a reader relating to general preference (for types, relating to subject concerns, and brewing approach, etc.), and still pass on a lot of wrong information, or could describe teas very badly.  And I suppose the opposite could be true; an online reference or discussion point could relate to a completely different scope than a reader is typically interested in or exposed to (eg. be written about a tea type that isn't of interest, or be based on very different personal preference scope) and it could still be interesting.

Typical mapping related to that, identifying who is speaking from a similar perspective framework, is simple enough; you just find an example of discussion of a favorite tea type, and see if the observations match (likes, as part of that, but also the details of the take, like aspect descriptions).

That last citation is a good example of how such ideas can be interesting, or even potentially helpful, probably not just related to people who are clear on what he's talking about.  At times others' perspectives are paired with attitudes and personality aspect inputs that can be a bit off-putting, and I suppose it all has to balance.

that one blog mascot again

Oolong pu'er as a positive description

Oddly this doesn't come up.  If there really are differences in processing approaches, and differences in aspect range of young teas, and in personal preferences, it would stand to reason that there couldn't be a completely clear division between what is good and bad.  But that's essentially how the term "oolong pu'er" tends to be used, only as a criticism of a specific version of a young sheng. 

The implication is that teas should be able to improve with age, or that people should prefer some other aspect range than is found in such a tea.  But that's usually not explicitly stated.  More often one or two aspects are criticized, and the person commenting just moves on.  I suppose the way this review of the discussion plays out accounts for one reason why that might occur:  it's not simple outlining what one might desire in a sheng, even when someone has the experience and communication tools at their disposal to do so.

All of this is only food for thought, to be compared to actual personal tea drinking experience. 

One interesting complication is that tea related preferences change over time, and that preference related to specific types of aspects changes.  It would seem problematic to try and like what you think you're supposed to like, to steer personal preference along the path of some consensus-defined natural learning curve.  Or maybe that could work.  Even for taking external input seriously, in a case when a tea drinker tries to branch out and add depth to the range of what they can appreciate, someone would still need to experience tea enjoyment tea by tea, and sip by sip, to work with where they are to some degree.

And so I come back to where this started:  will that Moychay Nan Nuo sheng age well, will it continue to improve?  I'm not sure.  I did just try it again with breakfast, to keep tabs on if my impression changes, and to compare it to the other related tea versions I've been trying this year.  I just checked; four of eleven posts this year were about sheng, with six versions reviewed, and two more in draft form now.  It's not a bad pace but a slow start to the blogging year, versus last year.  I still really like the tea.

I plan to keep drinking some, to enjoy it as it is now, and leave enough to try some later too.  Of course there's a bit of a gap in that approach:  if it does seem to improve over several years, or go through an "awkward phase" between years 8 and 13 (or whenever), it will essentially be gone by the time it has improved, already drank.  It would seem best if I could set aside a good bit of varied tea now to hedge my bets related to versions changing in different ways.  As far as making better guesses about likely changes I'm not getting far, yet.