Mike,

Jim's got a point in there somewhere. Nigel, if I recall correctly,
emphasized that the data you get from one set of leaves does not necessarily
carry over to others. Instead, he offers a set of guidelines that include
such facts as the leaves closest to the tip of the stem -- the buds, for
example -- contain more caffeine than the older leaves further away from the
stem tip. I look askance at the Holy Mountain caffeine data.

Michael

> Teasites that list caffeine content are the sames ones who claim their
> most expensive oolong makes hundreds of cups an oz. All you need for
> this group is a newserver and reader or if you have cheap MSN as an ISP
> Google Groups. If you want to know something about tea just ask the
> group and usually somebody can give you an answer without URLs. I did
> some homework and Nigel at Teacraft did a post back in 2000
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...read/thread/fa
>
c933f57fe09f9d/ccfece8f3894ea0e?q=%22caffeine+weight%22&rnum=2#cc fece8f3894e
a0> e
> which is more informative than websites simply repeating each other.
> You could Google all day and not find the kind of information on recent
> posts about TGY and LS. I'm the only one recently to ask a question
> about a Cantonese packaged puerh in a bamboo basket and not receive an
> answer. Too bad because it doesn't taste like a green or black but
> something I like better. I suspect it is a rare black LiuAn at $6/500g
> but won't know till an expensive black LiuAn arrives from China from a
> contact through my local tea shoppe. If they're the same I'll
> panhandle on Ebay all I can find in my Chinatown and finally retire.
>
> Jim
>
> Mike Petro wrote:
>> I know that you have often stated how URLs are trespassing here,and
>> that you never follow them, but I offer you a link anyway since it
>> contains a very specific answer to your question.
>> ...I delete URLs with shopping carts...