What does it mean when tea versions aren't type-typical?

 

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

Trying two Laos sheng versions

 

We talked to someone new to vending tea in Laos not so long ago, Danang Thorphialuang.  He's working on a vending site that I'll mention in a later review post.  This is a review of two of his teas, versions of sheng (just not sheng "pu'er," since it's from Laos).

For most of those meetups I wrote a summary of the discussion but in some cases people didn't want any exposure, or in very few the discussion didn't include central themes that made for a good story.  Laos tea in general is one of my favorite themes in tea exploration, but that discussion just didn't narrow down to a few central subjects well.  One of my first introductions to interesting tea related to visiting a coffee farm in Laos and buying some tea too, about 12 years ago.  Anna of Kinnari is one of my absolute favorite tea contacts, and Somnuc (a personal contact) passed on really interesting samples, and meeting Alexander of Laos Tea was a wonderful highlight in visiting Moscow.

with baby Keo visiting a Laos coffee and tea farm

Danang talked about his experiences with Laos tea, and we talked about Laos tea in general, and different trade and development issues.  I suppose I've covered those kinds of themes in more detail in lots of posts here.  We talked about a tisane he helps produce and sell that were new to me, a dried gooseberry version.  I'll review that again in another post, since he sent some to try (and these teas; many thanks to him for that).  It just didn't come together enough, without repeating a lot of what I've said about Laos tea development.  This is in a different area in Laos, towards where the "plain of jars" is, per my understanding.

Danang seems like a nice guy.  That may seem beside the point, since this post is about teas, but to me it's really not.  I've tried to do meetups with people that I deeply respect as individuals more than those I respect as authorities on tea, and it has worked out well to combine the two contexts.  It's idealistic to think that more people who share a beverage choice are more exemplary individuals than average, but in a better world than this one that would be universally true.  As it is I take comfort in it being mostly true.

Review:

#1:  The initial flavor for this includes characteristic bitterness, moderate in level, and complex somewhat earthy and vegetal range beyond that.  This includes a touch of mushroom, but the form seems to be of a type that might transition off after the first round.  I don't really love mushroom flavor in sheng but this is generally positive, and it will probably be much better next round, the typical initial "opening up" cycle.  I'll save the flavor list breakdown for then.

#2:  this is unique in style, in between a lot of other type ranges.  A warm sweetness and richness leans towards black tea and a vegetal edge, stronger than tends to come up in sheng, is more like green tea.  It's even more bitter than the other version, so it's clearly sheng.  I think it will also be much better the next round, but for a different reason, for allowing that bitter edge to settle a little.  I brewed these much longer than I tend to for first infusions, not in the 10 second or so range that might be optimum for a high proportion, but well beyond that to not be mentioning a slow start, and how I can't tell yet how they will develop.  Results were pretty similar for how much I'm getting covered in review notes anyway, just for a different reason.  

When people mention bitterness in sheng that's really talking about a range of aspect experience and intensity.  A most familiar form is from not yet aged, chopped leaf factory teas (Dayi or Xiaguan, or like that); those can be a little harsh.  Then a much milder form can complement typical above average quality sheng, balanced quite differently, or some better versions really are quite bitter, as this is.  It would only work well brewed fast, so I'll try that next round.

#1, second infusion:  a little light; I erred on the side of brewing these a bit fast, 5 seconds instead of longer than 15 the first round, maybe a little overshoot.  That mushroom is already almost completely dropped out.  For this being faint it won't be ideal for complete description, and a slightly heavier round will work better next time.  The rest balances.  Sweetness is ok, at a good level, and feel works, with other complexity supporting the experience.  Refinement and balance are good; for local made teas that's often not the case.  I think this is probably as good as versions presented with all sorts of quality level and style claims.  What I mean will be clearer in description next round.

#2:  sweetness and a floral perfume character really ramped up.  I knew this would improve but not like this.  It still has a bit of extra vegetal edge leaning towards green tea style but this is closer to standard sheng range (to me; I suppose that part is a judgment call).  Sometimes good versions of sheng that lean towards green tea style seem like they would work well as a replacement for green tea, an improvement on that range of experience, and this is like that.  Probably conventional Western brewing wouldn't get great results from this, until someone could really dial in infusion strength.  For this range I think it's much better to use hotter water and then low infusion times to adjust infusion strength; results are much better.  

The richness of that floral tone includes so much range and depth that it might include some fruit too.  Interpretation of which fruit is probably meaningless, given that heavier bitterness and floral intensity mask that part.  It's mostly floral, by a large margin, with rich and heavy floral tones, like lavender, and lighter and brighter range, like plumeria.  The point was that it's so complex and has so much depth that it seems like there's more to it.  It's interesting how proportion is similar for these (but this may include just a little more leaf) but this is on the strong side, while the other is light.  It might have to do with transition pattern as much as anything else.

#1, third infusion:  this is coming in nicely.  A bit of warm tobacco range picks up, adding to mild floral tones present before.  When a mediocre quality sheng ages significantly to taste a lot like a cheap cigar smells that's something else, related, but quite different.  Tobacco range is really complex; it covers a good bit of scope.  Probably somewhat mixed or non-distinct floral range stands out most.  Then a warm tobacco range joins that, which could easily be interpreted as a wood tone.  It's not mushroom; that faded away, or changed to be something else.  

#2:  floral range is really complex in this, and it comes across as much sweeter.  The vegetal range of that has all but faded away now, adding more depth across warmer range.  It's still mainly complex floral tones.  The rich feel complements that rich flavor profile, along with a relatively high level of sweetness.  It's still bitter, but in a much more moderate range, not even all that high as young sheng goes.  Faster (appropriate) brewing probably offset that as much as transition.

#1, fourth infusion:  not so different than last round.  The warm tobacco oriented range along with subdued floral tones is nice.  It's odd how this is a relatively subdued flavor intensity tea with the other on the opposite side.  I suppose for this including that other range it works better, that slight wood tone background and aspect category complexity works well as a lighter tea, where if the other was dominant floral but light it might seem thinner, or more limited.  Where the other is rich in feel this has some slight dryness and structure to it, again which I see as working well for matching both types.

#2:  also not so different than last time.  Sweetness difference stands out a lot in contrast, higher matching floral range flavors for this.  There is a background edge of warm bark spice that gives this complexity, that makes that one heavier dimension of complex floral range work all the better.  Mixed together these might be nice; for experimenting with adjusting proportion it could balance.  I poured the last of these two rounds into one cup and it does add up to a nice middle range.  The more forward floral tone and sweetness in this version probably stands out more but the other gives it better depth than just drinking the second alone.

#1, fifth infusion:  I'll probably drop taking notes here, since I tend to get bored with review process prior to a 10 round cycle.  As I always say late transitions can be very positive and interesting, so it's not about that lack of potential, I'm just over it, and putting readers through an 1800 word review is too much.  It's nice the way that in Mattcha's blog he lists out 14 or so infusions, with a different 3 or 4 flavor description for each round, but I never tend to notice that much shift.

Tobacco range really bumps up in this, a factor for giving it a much longer infusion time, again between 15 and 20 seconds (due to writing a bit and not minding the time, not so much a planned alteration).  It works well for there being other range.  Floral tone underlying that is mild, like chrysanthemum, but it plays a nice supporting role, acting as a base.  I could relate to people interpreting fruit aspects in this like raisin or dried orange peel, but they are subtle in comparison with floral and tobacco range, which I take to seem like a spice scope input.  No one is mixing part of a cigarette into their soup to season it, but the range and profile role is comparable in this.

#2:  again a little strong for using the longer time; the other version is well suited for this infusion time but this isn't.  It's a cool effect how rich the feel is.  Sweetness is a bit much in this too, at this strength, a little cloying.  Again for mixing the two the effect might be better than for either, although the first worked better brewed stronger than for the lighter rounds.

This reminds me of running across a typical idea about how blended sheng versions were traditional in the past, and the push towards narrower and narrower area and character type sourcing is new, and maybe not well-suited for aging transition.  I'll drop descriptions here, and never do much with conclusions, since my impression was probably clear enough already.  These are really nice, much better than I would've expected, as good as a lot of South East Asian sheng that I've tried adjoined with a lot more hype about quality and interesting background.

Tangent about narrow origin versus blended source sheng

This idea was expressed by Lawrence Zhang, in podcast interview with the owner of Crimson Lotus, and re-summarized in a blog post summary in Mattcha's blog (so with a extra layers to this citation, since it's a transcript from a summary):

33:35 “What young sheng puerh characteristics and qualities characteristics are best for aging?”  “Most of the good stuff gets made into single origin puerh which is mostly a function of cost.  It’s very hard to find anyone who wants to put some Laobanzhang material in a some regular old blend… because you can’t sell it for that much because no one will pay for that much  (see my post on Extinct Blends)… after 10 plus years of experience with some of these teas, I’m not convinced that single estate puerh will age that well… or not that interesting…. Old cakes are all blends.”  Old schoolers generally prefer factory teas and blends over single estate.  80% of what I buy and consume are blends.

This reference to "single estate pu'er" is only part or one description of that paradigm.  These two teas I'm trying are from two different production batches that might have come from a relatively limited and nearby source area.  I highly doubt this material was grown on any sort of "estate."  It's not as if re-planted tea farming is unheard of in Laos, but production from older naturally growing material is a common paradigm.  Not that the plants these were from were necessarily all decades old; it grows as a now-wild or feral plant type, so some plants are older and some younger.

Back to the blending versus single-origin theme, a producer could balance inputs in teas by combining versions from any scope of range, from different parts of Yunnan, or just from different relatively local production sources (as I would imagine these two teas are).  Of course lots of inputs like plant genetics, growing conditions, and processing factors all mix.  The paradigms people tend to be familiar with are wild origin tea versus plantation grown versions, differences related to broad or smaller source area regions, processing style varying (including how whole the leaf is), harvesting season related (mainly spring versus fall tea), and plant type age varying.  The "factory" part is about larger producers like Dayi, CNNP / Zhongcha, Xiaguan and many others sourcing tea from lots of places and mixing it. 

It could be a little misleading, what that says.  One might take it as an implication that 20+ year old teas all being blends, almost all made by large tea producers, is an indication that in the past this was regarded as the best approach.  It was just what sheng pu'er was, how it was processed and then sold.  Sheng was also a cheaper version of tea; there was no comparison 20 years ago to most of it now costing between $50 - 100 (standard sized 357 gram cakes), or for "gushu" material now typically being priced in a $1 / gram range, with high demand versions much pricier.  Sheng pu'er is a different thing than it was.  In another 10 years what Lawrence is saying will either be confirmed or proven false, about aging potential tied to styles, but with this "narrow origin" trend largely starting in the last decade it's too soon to call.  Of course since the pu'er boom was in the mid-2000s there would be plenty of exceptions to use as examples that are around 15 years old now, but it's my understanding that the broad style shift occurred a bit after that.

He seems to have addressed that; the claim is that he's already had 10+ years experience with some of these teas.  Fair enough; he's been at this awhile, so his personal experience is as good as any as an indicator.  Let's check for how long, since if it's 12 years that's cutting it close, but over 15 that's easier to accept (not that he couldn't have been drinking aged "narrowly sourced" teas 10 years ago).  This July 2007 Chadao blog post sets his public discussion of pu'er timeline:

The 'Constant Tea Meeting': MarshalN on Blogging about Tea

...It's been almost a year and half since I started my blog. 

So early 2006; almost 16 years ago.  He helps frame where blogging and tea discussion stood at that time:

Initially I had no idea how many people would read it. I figured that if I get 10 readers a day, I would be doing well, since according to some study the average blog is visited by 7 unique visitors every day. While my blog has certainly exceeded that expectation, the fact remains that it is merely a small project, comprising mostly of notes for myself and observations I have gathered along the way.

During this time, however, the blogosphere has blossomed. When I first started, only four of the links on the blog existed -- Babelcarp, CHA DAO, La Galette de Thé, and the LiveJournal Puerh Community. The rest, as far as I am aware, were still in gestation. Now any visit to any of these sites will bring you to even more blogs and journals out there, composed by dedicated tea drinkers like you and me. Just keeping up the reading would mean visiting a dozen or so blogs every week, at least.

So tea blogging and tea discussion really came online in a developed form between 2006 and the middle of 2007; odd that it seemed to shift so fast.  Given people weren't limiting that discussion to brand new teas then we are at a good place for lots of people to have developed impression of teas from 15 years ago, a typical threshold for relatively fully aged teas.  And again no one needs to limit what they try to what was produced right when they entered tea exploration; aged versions of these teas were a common theme in the last century, just not as developed.

The main problem then is going to be sorting out a consensus take on this issue ("after 10 plus years of experience with some of these teas, I’m not convinced that single estate puerh will age that well… or not that interesting...").  He's definitely one of the main experts to listen to for a developed opinion, but he's still just in possession of one more subjective preference.  Two different people could judge the exact same tea differently, based on varying preference patterns.  Lawrence Zhang is credited with accurately representing a traditional Hong Kong perspective and preference for tea styles, but I can't even guess at how accurate or limited that really is.

My son tried these teas with me and I was mentioning to him how that early bitterness in one version would fade and change over even 5 years, but that no one is going to age this particular tea to experience that, and become clearer on effect.  Probably mixing these two together would make sense, then aging that, and that won't happen either.  I did eventually pour the last of two rounds together and maybe they are better that way, more balanced.  I suppose something must get lost in the experience too, the distinctiveness.  

Surely a broad range of sheng versions we come in contact with offset initial input limitations in such a way, and were blended from different sources to create a more balanced and seemingly higher quality final version.  Not just "factory blends," I don't mean; it must occur with what is presented and sold as narrowly sourced off-area versions like these, again created by as simple an extra step as mixing these two types together.

Again many thanks to Danang, for providing a much more interesting tea experience than I expected.  Sheng from outside China can be pretty good, but higher quality, distinctive, and pleasant versions like these are really nice to experience.  I expected them to be a lot more ordinary.

Wild origin teas, adopting foreign tea styles

First posted by TChing here.

These two subjects came up recently in an online social meetup with Rajiv Lochan, about teas made from "wild" origin forest-source plants, and that of producers adopting and interpreting foreign styles of tea.  Problems can occur with both themes and approaches.

The range of both of these ideas and cases is all a bit complicated.  It can be hard to map out what is occurring or might occur related to using different types of natural growth plant sources, or drawing on local tea processing styles, and draw clear lines in what is typical or acceptable and what goes too far in violating some type of norm.  We didn't get very far with that discussion, so to be clear all of this is my own framing of a complex set of ideas, that we didn't discuss in detail in that meetup.

It's well known that wild growing tea plants are common throughout the Assam area, and other areas in India, and in Thailand, Myanmar, Laos, and Vietnam.  These Assamica variety plants aren't closely related to Yunnan Assamica, or maybe even to plantation Assamica versions of Indian teas.  Due to interbreeding with other species of Camelia Sinensis the range of what is growing can be inconsistent.  The typical understanding is that these plants are remnants of past use and intended planting by earlier people, not necessarily in ancient times, but as some point in the past.  Within that context the tea plants could be seen as feral versus truly wild, untended but not completely naturally propagated.  All that could be clearer, and to some extent it doesn't really matter.  

natural growth tea plant in the north of Thailand

this shows size better

what that area looks like

One influential tea blogger has claimed that wild tea plant produced beverages are better regarded as a tisane, not as true tea.  To me that goes a little far with applying category judgment, but I get it, and there's a lot to that.  Processed version results are often inconsistent, just less so for Yunnan based versions (or those represented as such).  Two of the main versions I've tried in Thailand ended up being quite sour, and then more other versions presented as such were not atypical of Yunnan Assamica plant based sheng pu'er.  I recently tried an Indian newly-created version of sheng, which was very unusual, as close to black tea in character as sheng pu'er.  It's not "pu'er," which is a region-specific type, but then sheng means "raw," so as I see it using that term is equivalent to calling any tea black (relatively fully oxidized), just a general description.

So again, what's the problem with "wild origin tea," beyond someone preferring to keep the term and range of "tea" narrowly focused?  Inconsistency can be seen as a problem, for products to vary with changes in whatever happens to be gathered.  Some of the plants could really be Camellia Taliensis material, a version that's around in Yunnan, or Camellia Formosensis, a "wild tea" plant in Taiwan.  Or something else, or a hybrid, a mix of types.  It doesn't seem to pose a significant safety issue, that a producer might be poisoning you, but just not knowing what a product essentially is can seem unusual.  Maybe to some extent there is a health risk to be considered; I can't exclude that.

maybe "Shan" versions come up most, not the Formosensis "wild teas" listed (source)

Importing styles from one country or region to another is something else, raising a different concern.  Rajiv expressed how Indians producing something called Longjing or Matcha could be deceiving, whether or not location based designation protection deems that unacceptable or not.  I completely agree.  

This reminds me of a very early experience with tea in visiting Vietnam, trying a version of Japanese green tea there, produced with Japanese support.  I'd be a better judge now of how close the style match was, but I bought some and drank it, and it seemed fine, or maybe just a little rough edged.  At the time I thought it was great that countries and cultures could influence each other like that, to share experience and technology.  Later, after thinking it through and being exposed to more background, I realized that it was likely that the tea was destined to be sold as being from Japan, regardless of where it was finally consumed.  That's different.  The knowledge sharing and alternative product development steps still seem fine, but that last step not so much.

Can we say that Vietnam should not produce Japanese style tea?  It's not as easy to conclude that.  The toothpaste is definitely out of the tube in relation to Vietnam producing Taiwanese style oolong, a lot of which is understood to return to Taiwan to be sold as Taiwanese tea back there.  It would be all the easier for Vietnamese-Taiwanese versions to be misrepresented in other countries.  In the North of Thailand you can buy the same Thai tea packaged as either from local production, what it is, or as being from Taiwan, what it isn't.  That's a hearsay based account, to be clear, related to what has been passed on to me second hand as vendor communication.  It doesn't conflict with how other types of branded products are sold here.

Let's set that aside, and consider that if every product is sold as exactly what it is, should India produce Japanese style green tea or not?  It's hard to find a broad enough justification to say no, but there are clear reasons for seeing that as a negative thing.

What about sheng ("pu'er")?  As I see it we are onto a different kind of case, because at least based on my single related experience the resulting product from India couldn't be presented as Yunnan true pu'er, even if one wanted to do so.  It's too different.  Of course a variation of sheng made just across a border from China could be exactly the same as teas made a few kilometers away.

one year old Ketlee Indian "sheng;" it's dark

So now we are talking about hybrid styles, about one region borrowing processing steps and final tea styles from another.  Is that ok?  To me it is, but I can relate to why some "purists" wouldn't think so.  My favorite Indonesian tea producer, Toba Wangi, has moved to produce tea plant types from other places, made by drawing on foreign processing styles, as novel new tea types.  I think that's fine, but maybe not everyone else would.  It could depend on how the tea plants were obtained, and of course on branding / marketing claims.

early Toba Wangi plantation plantings; definitely monoculture

Nepal tea being sold as Darjeeling is something else altogether; now we are back to a sort of counterfeiting case.  What about a Nepal tea being based on a Darjeeling clone, borrowing as much as possible from Darjeeling processing, grown in conditions chosen to duplicate results, but still sold as Nepal tea?  That seems less clear, and not as clearly ok.  And that seems much closer to what Vietnam is doing with Taiwanese oolong, since all of those steps and factors match in that case.  Even Taiwanese people are brought there to process the tea, per my understanding. As Chinese people are now, and have long since been, training people in Thailand, Laos, and Myanmar to make pu'er-like tea.  

locally produced "wild" Thai "sheng pu'er-like" tea

Vietnam is different related to this case; the tradition of making what they tend to call "sun-dried tea" is not new to them (or maybe really just translated to dried tea, per what I've been told).  Those teas have long since been bought and brought back to China to be blended into Yiwu pu'er versions.  Mind you Vietnam makes a broad range of local styles that don't exist anywhere else too; their tea tradition is very diverse and developed.  Some of it is rustic and rough-edged, and some refined, distinctive, novel, and very high in quality.  Vietnamese teas don't get the credit they deserve, but the more awareness and demand spreads the more pricing inflates, so it's probably not a completely bad thing.

It's hard to end either subject with a clear "in conclusion..." summary.  Varying experiences bring up different combinations of circumstances and final outcomes.  I'm probably a lot more open to producers using different kinds of tea materials and processing styles than some others would be.  I see it as a natural evolution.  The sustainability issue related to using currently growing, forest based plants isn't lost on me; one main (frequent) alternative is for producers to clear-cut forest sections for mono-culture tea production.  That's not better.  Then right up to the edge of tea version counterfeiting I'm fine with producers borrowing styles.

Borrowing tea type names is almost a different subject.  Should Thailand producers be able to call teas Oriental Beauty?  If a type based on Yunnan sheng pu'er is made elsewhere, which is common, and pre-dated the current borders of China and the conventional name "pu'er," per my understanding, what should that be called?  Opinions would vary.  The point here was to raise these issues for consideration, for limited discussion, more than proposing my own take on resolutions or limitations tied to any of these themes.

Thai Oriental Beauty, or at least it's based partly on that type and style

Gongfu versus Western Style Brewing

first published as contributed to TChing

The basic definitions of these two brewing approaches are probably familiar, with the point here to consider why the outcome is so different.  In theory using higher proportion and shorter infusion times should be identical to using a far lower dry tea to liquid proportion and much longer timing, if you combine the Gongfu set of infusions together (“stack” them).  In practice maybe the separation does make the main difference, the experience of transition.  But the results seem quite different, so there could be more to it.  I’ll take two guesses here about possible additional factors.

Joshua Linvers initiated this subject, posting about experimenting with variations of Western brewing approach for Da Hong Pao (a Wuyi Yancha type).  He found that some seemingly equivalent but slightly varied proportion and time combinations gave relatively poor results, versus other trials standing out as much better, although there would be some relative optimum.  In message discussion he suggested that agitation could be a significant additional factor in Gongfu brewing.

Let’s run through a standard description of both for comparison, based on my own preference more than a standard definition.  Western brewing is most often described as using about 2 grams of dry tea per 250 ml, infused at varying temperatures per tea type, often for two rounds at about 4 and then 5 minutes. For here I’ll shift that to considering use of 3 grams per that 250 ml (8.4 ounces), infused for 2 1/2 and then 3 ½ minutes.  I might back off that time even further for some stronger flavored versions, like broken black tea, or use a third round for more durable versions.  Best brewing temperature depends on type, with variations in infusion time used more than temperature for Gongfu brewing to offset intensity and potential negative aspects (eg. astringency).

For Gongfu brewing I tend to use about 5 grams of tea per 100 ml gaiwan (device), infused for something like 10 seconds for the first few rounds, bumped up after 3 or 4 rounds to account for intensity dropping, then even longer later in the cycle.  It’s typical to use full boiling point temperature, or just off that, maybe only cooler for green tea.  But then it’s more standard to Western brew green tea, in general.  I tend to go through 10 infusions or more even with a quick breakfast, out around 15 rounds for more durable or better tea, or for when I use a slightly higher proportion.

comparison tasting; can be informative, but it throws off shifting timing per preference

At a glance the first Western approach brews half a liter of tea using 3 grams of tea (although in practice that varies).  The second approach output might round down to 90 ml, considering space for wet leaves, with 10 rounds brewing 900 ml out of 5 grams of tea, with a typical slightly longer cycle extending past 1 liter.  

Timing for Western brewing was 6 minutes, in this example, but it’s harder to estimate the Gongfu total, since I vary each time based on last round results.  Guessing out one typical cycle might be (in seconds) 10, 10, 10, 13, 13, 15, 15, 17, 17, 20, adding to 140 seconds, which could easily round up to 3 minutes depending on tea version.  It’s worth noting that the Gongfu tea brewed (soaked / infused) for half as long, in total, in these parameter examples. Again variations complicate this; I might Gongfu a more intense tea starting out at 6-8 second rounds, and sometimes use longer later round timing.

It’s not so different, for total brewed tea production per dry leaf amount, within the range of normal variations for specific cases.  Looked at another way the infusion strength should be comparable.

In practice, to me, different teas provide much different results depending on which approach is used.  Sheng pu’er, twisted style oolongs (Wuyi Yancha and Dan Cong), and better whole-leaf black teas (like Dian Hong, or even whole-leaf Darjeeling) give better results brewed Gongfu style.  As I see it white tea, green, or shu pu’er often work out about the same, with broken leaf black tea as good or better brewed Western style.  I brew shu pu’er Gongfu style, almost exclusively, so I guess that implies I see it as preferrable, but Western style results are pretty good too. 

Why the differences in outcome related to approach?  I can only guess.  Maybe trying more infusions, seeing that ongoing variation / transition, is more positive in many cases.  It’s possible that I really am brewing teas lighter Gongfu style, in general, and that matches my impression (which would at least partly explain the total infusion time difference).  Two other factors might explain outcome differences, and also why the tea brews for half as long but is still roughly as “brewed out.”

All the pouring in and out adds agitation to the brewing process.  Swirling a Western infusion during brewing might be more comparable.  Also the leaves seem to not completely stop brewing between rounds, when they’re not actually in contact with water, beyond the leaves still being wet.  If you “flash brew” a round, only pouring the water in and right back out, over the 5 seconds or so that takes for two pours, the infusion strength is still significant.  Both factors would enable Gongfu brewing to use far less water contact time for similar extraction, with slightly different results.

a simple set-up for Gongfu brewing

This review goes no further than proposing these secondary causes for variation in results, versus drawing clearer conclusions.  Only experimentation with brewing approaches and parameters using different types would determine the best match to personal preference, which is the main goal.