Happy New Year, all. Allow me to begin this one with a few skeptical (as
distinct from cynical) thoughts on brewing. Long-post alert; please trim
largely if replying.

There's an old saying that there are two kinds of people: the righteous
and the unrighteous. And the righteous decide which is which. Hoping to
avoid that trap, I'd like to observe that there are two kinds of tea
aficionados: those who like to be very precise in all their
manipulations, and those who are (or appear to be) casual or even
sloppy. The first kind further divide into those who use scientific
tools like digital scales, thermometers and timers, and those who find
precision in ritual, counting breaths, reciting mantras, etc. The second
also divide, into those who use a combination of experience and
sensory signals to provide needed cues for a behavioral precision, and
those who just like to see what emerges by happenstance.

I suggest that all four groups have exactly as much fun, enjoy their tea
to the same degree, and make equally fine company. They may also have
equivalent tacit knowledge of tea, though perhaps not the same ability
to express it explicitly.

The largest difference, in fact, may lie in what used to be called "the
story" and has now been elevated to "narrative." This is where myth and
magic come in. I suggest that as working definitions, myth is a body of
formal knowledge that may once or somewhere have been true, but that is
largely or entirely untrue here and now, or at least not reproducibly
true across situations. Magic is narrative about why and how things
work, told so compellingly that it influences what people experience
irrespective of what's in their cups. (And both often use the language
of science, though not its data, methods or epistemology.) Both have
roots in testable fact, but have become remote from any kind of causal
proof, reproducibility, or mechanistic basis. Examples could include the
injunction to match pot and leaf shape (come on!), the compelling effect
of certain clays or metals (just throw an old silver spoon or shards of
a dropped Yixing into a glass pot, and save a few shekels), or the
mid-infrared emissivity of some magical charcoal (first wash off the
clay, dirt and ash, then draw conclusions about operationally irrelevant
subtleties).

So are fact and science better? Better for what? We (most of us) are not
trying to create the next encyclopedia of tea truth, just to share what
brings us pleasure. And on the way, compare notes on what leaf and
equipment from what vendors, and what methods applied in what
circumstances, and narratives about it all seem to make us the happiest.
Sometimes the tenets of science serve us well: propose, test and confirm
or falsify hypotheses, run controlled experiments with managed
parameters, document both apparent conclusions and nulls or noise. This
quickly brings us to some generally (not universally!) held heuristics,
like using cooler water for greens and boiling for reds, ways to
maintain freshness, what regions and packers and times of year most
reliably produce the best teas. But even these aren't absolute; witness
certain discussions about cupping all teas at the boil, or the
definitive superiority of FF DJs, or the persistent canards about water
source, freshness and other aspects.

From my point of view as student (and occasionally teacher), the
important meta-learning for all on the path is that almost all tea
"knowledge" is only situationally useful - and that establishing one's
own tastes and pleasures is the most urgent task, after which
refinement, broadening and deepening will happen anyway. In other words,
take everything as a guide, and almost nothing as a rule.

For quite a few years, I've been on a private quest to determine some of
the key parameters of brewing technique that lead to more useful
real-life control than usual instruction offers. The purpose, per the
four categories above, is not rigor, but just some idea of where best to
play. A life in the lab notwithstanding, I almost never use measurement
equipment of any kind in brewing. But I still seek ever-more precise
distinctions in aroma, appearance and other signals to guide getting the
best of each steep.

This quest has led to some categories on which many of us have already
written. A few I'm still exploring (and on which I'd welcome others'
thoughts) include:

- The irreversibilities: over-ripening, over-roasting, over-aging,
overheating and oversteeping.

- The non-reciprocity between steeping time and brewing temperature.

- The effects of steeping time vs. intersteep time in gongfu, and the
interactions of common ritual or quasi-technical activities (e.g.
deliberately incomplete draining) with both.

- Distinguishing between the effects of brewing and drinking temperatures.

- Distinguishing the effects of enzymic reactions before kill-green
(so-called fermentation) from those of roasting, and both in turn from
passive chemical oxidation and microbial/fungal action, especially with
Pu-erh and other "live" teas.

One specific question in this portfolio is how far to break down pieces
of cake when brewing. This mainly applies to Pu-erh, but numerous other
fine teas are likewise available in pressed form. There seem to be three
main schools of thought on this:

- Neatly pry off one intact chunk and drop it in the gaiwan or pot
complete.

- Take it apart it up somewhat, either a random mix of large and small
pieces as it breaks, or a careful division into smaller chunks of
roughly equal size.

- Complete dissection almost into individual leaves, usually with care
to avoid breaking them if possible. (Or, in some cases, including some
deliberate fragmentation.)

There's no doubt that these produce different results. Perhaps the
simplest model has each leaf or fragment leaching out at some rate once
it is exposed to water. (The real situation is much more complicated and
interesting as extraction rates depend strongly on leaf hydration in
several ways, some non-linear or history-dependent.)

If uniformly divided single leaves are well-mixed with water, the amount
of material extracted per unit time will follow some kind of curve that
increases rapidly with hydration and temperature, then tapers off at
some rate depending on various binding, solvation and diffusion effects.
So the uniformly divided leaf offers a sort of baseline of what the tea
"ideally" delivers over time under a particular set of conditions.

Having the leaf pressed into lumps can then be understood as overlapping
the same curve repeatedly, smeared over time: when the first-wet leaf is
completely depleted, there is also material just "peaking" and some in
its first extraction. In certain cases, each steep in the middle of a
long series might resemble the result of pouring all into one mixing
vessel, or of doing a single long steep with all of the leaf divided.

As some of us have found, though, this is not generally a good
description of the experience. Key factors probably include the widely
variant rate of extraction of sugars and simple amino acids vs. more
highly condensed polyphenols, and flavor fatigue and thresholds. The
latter leads into the whole area of flavor balance vs. concentration
(which lends itself to some easy and revelatory dilution experiments),
another very import reciprocity failure in brewing. Those who regularly
use gongfu approaches with young sheng Pu-erh and dan cong oolongs are
especially aware of how small changes in multi-steep timing can
transform astringent mouthwash into nectar.

My own interest in this area arose from experiences with really
well-aged (in time and technique) sheng Pu-erhs, between 30 and 100
years old. The whole flavor-profile-with-dilution effect really came
forward, as the older teas tend to extract very quickly at the beginning
and then keep yielding appealing brews over twenty or even thirty
subsequent steeps.

My question was/is whether the power of the early steeps might be
carried over into those following, without compromising the smooth
delicacy of the latter. Not being economically equipped to do a full
experimental series with 1950s Blue Label, I've mostly been playing with
bingcha in the 10-year range. The game goes like this: break up the cake
into small flakes, steep a few times, then start adding small pinches of
fresh dry leaf every few rounds.

The results have been variable but compelling. In many cases, I've been
able to get strength and smoothness in pleasing collaboration. This
makes a case for starting with large chunks and letting matters unfold
as they will, but I've found this to yield poor control - often
too-rapid wetting of the whole mass, without the later boost; or too
slow, with fresh leaf always overpowering the quieter late notes. So I'm
starting to do the add-a-pinch routine more often.

Although this works pretty well with my favorite oolongs as well, I've
mainly been testing the approach with Pu-erhs. Another observation in
this class is that *small* amounts of shu pu-erh can work very well with
a sheng base. Since shus continue to extract almost forever, this lends
credibility to the practice of mixing sheng and shu in a single cake.
But my limited experience suggests that the ratio as supplied is way off
optimal; the smoothest sheng-like experience seems to happen with only a
few percent of shu added.

All early results. Your mouthfeel may vary. I hope some here will add
their own greater wisdom.

Salubrious sipping to all-

DM

On Jan 1, 6:02*pm, DogMa > wrote:
> Happy New Year, all. Allow me to begin this one with a few skeptical (as
> distinct from cynical) thoughts on brewing. Long-post alert; please trim
> largely if replying.
>
> There's an old saying that there are two kinds of people: the righteous
> and the unrighteous. And the righteous decide which is which. Hoping to
> avoid that trap, I'd like to observe that there are two kinds of tea
> aficionados: those who like to be very precise in all their
> manipulations, and those who are (or appear to be) casual or even
> sloppy. The first kind further divide into those who use scientific
> tools like digital scales, thermometers and timers, and those who find
> precision in ritual, counting breaths, reciting mantras, etc. The second
> * also divide, into those who use a combination of experience and
> sensory signals to provide needed cues for a behavioral precision, and
> those who just like to see what emerges by happenstance.
>
> I suggest that all four groups have exactly as much fun, enjoy their tea
> to the same degree, and make equally fine company. They may also have
> equivalent tacit knowledge of tea, though perhaps not the same ability
> to express it explicitly.
>
> The largest difference, in fact, may lie in what used to be called "the
> story" and has now been elevated to "narrative." This is where myth and
> magic come in. I suggest that as working definitions, myth is a body of
> formal knowledge that may once or somewhere have been true, but that is
> largely or entirely untrue here and now, or at least not reproducibly
> true across situations. Magic is narrative about why and how things
> work, told so compellingly that it influences what people experience
> irrespective of what's in their cups. (And both often use the language
> of science, though not its data, methods or epistemology.) Both have
> roots in testable fact, but have become remote from any kind of causal
> proof, reproducibility, or mechanistic basis. Examples could include the
> injunction to match pot and leaf shape (come on!), the compelling effect
> of certain clays or metals (just throw an old silver spoon or shards of
> a dropped Yixing into a glass pot, and save a few shekels), or the
> mid-infrared emissivity of some magical charcoal (first wash off the
> clay, dirt and ash, then draw conclusions about operationally irrelevant
> subtleties).
>
> So are fact and science better? Better for what? We (most of us) are not
> trying to create the next encyclopedia of tea truth, just to share what
> brings us pleasure. And on the way, compare notes on what leaf and
> equipment from what vendors, and what methods applied in what
> circumstances, and narratives about it all seem to make us the happiest.
> Sometimes the tenets of science serve us well: propose, test and confirm
> or falsify hypotheses, run controlled experiments with managed
> parameters, document both apparent conclusions and nulls or noise. This
> quickly brings us to some generally (not universally!) held heuristics,
> like using cooler water for greens and boiling for reds, ways to
> maintain freshness, what regions and packers and times of year most
> reliably produce the best teas. But even these aren't absolute; witness
> certain discussions about cupping all teas at the boil, or the
> definitive superiority of FF DJs, or the persistent canards about water
> source, freshness and other aspects.
>
> *From my point of view as student (and occasionally teacher), the
> important meta-learning for all on the path is that almost all tea
> "knowledge" is only situationally useful - and that establishing one's
> own tastes and pleasures is the most urgent task, after which
> refinement, broadening and deepening will happen anyway. In other words,
> take everything as a guide, and almost nothing as a rule.
>
> For quite a few years, I've been on a private quest to determine some of
> the key parameters of brewing technique that lead to more useful
> real-life control than usual instruction offers. The purpose, per the
> four categories above, is not rigor, but just some idea of where best to
> play. A life in the lab notwithstanding, I almost never use measurement
> equipment of any kind in brewing. But I still seek ever-more precise
> distinctions in aroma, appearance and other signals to guide getting the
> best of each steep.
>
> This quest has led to some categories on which many of us have already
> written. A few I'm still exploring (and on which I'd welcome others'
> thoughts) include:
>
> - The irreversibilities: over-ripening, over-roasting, over-aging,
> overheating and oversteeping.
>
> - The non-reciprocity between steeping time and brewing temperature.
>
> - The effects of steeping time vs. intersteep time in gongfu, and the
> interactions of common ritual or quasi-technical activities (e.g.
> deliberately incomplete draining) with both.
>
> - Distinguishing between the effects of brewing and drinking temperatures..
>
> - Distinguishing the effects of enzymic reactions before kill-green
> (so-called fermentation) from those of roasting, and both in turn from
> passive chemical oxidation and microbial/fungal action, especially with
> Pu-erh and other "live" teas.
>
> One specific question in this portfolio is how far to break down pieces
> of cake when brewing. This mainly applies to Pu-erh, but numerous other
> fine teas are likewise available in pressed form. There seem to be three
> main schools of thought on this:
>
> - Neatly pry off one intact chunk and drop it in the gaiwan or pot
> complete.
>
> - Take it apart it up somewhat, either a random mix of large and small
> pieces as it breaks, or a careful division into smaller chunks of
> roughly equal size.
>
> - Complete dissection almost into individual leaves, usually with care
> to avoid breaking them if possible. (Or, in some cases, including some
> deliberate fragmentation.)
>
> There's no doubt that these produce different results. Perhaps the
> simplest model has each leaf or fragment leaching out at some rate once
> it is exposed to water. (The real situation is much more complicated and
> interesting as extraction rates depend strongly on leaf hydration in
> several ways, some non-linear or history-dependent.)
>
> If uniformly divided single leaves are well-mixed with water, the amount
> of material extracted per unit time will follow some kind of curve that
> increases rapidly with hydration and temperature, then tapers off at
> some rate depending on various binding, solvation and diffusion effects.
> So the uniformly divided leaf offers a sort of baseline of what the tea
> "ideally" delivers over time under a particular set of conditions.
>
> Having the leaf pressed into lumps can then be understood as overlapping
> the same curve repeatedly, smeared over time: when the first-wet leaf is
> completely depleted, there is also material just "peaking" and some in
> its first extraction. In certain cases, each steep in the middle of a
> long series might resemble the result of pouring all into one mixing
> vessel, or of doing a single long steep with all of the leaf divided.
>
> As some of us have found, though, this is not generally a good
> description of the experience. Key factors probably include the widely
> variant rate of extraction of sugars and simple amino acids vs. more
> highly condensed polyphenols, and flavor fatigue and thresholds. The
> latter leads into the whole area of flavor balance vs. concentration
> (which lends itself to some easy and revelatory dilution experiments),
> another very import reciprocity failure in brewing. Those who regularly
> use gongfu approaches with young sheng Pu-erh and dan cong oolongs are
> especially aware of how small changes in multi-steep timing can
> transform astringent mouthwash into nectar.
>
> My own interest in this area arose from experiences with really
> well-aged (in time and technique) sheng Pu-erhs, between 30 and 100
> years old. The whole flavor-profile-with-dilution effect really came
> forward, as the older teas tend to extract very quickly at the beginning
> and then keep yielding appealing brews over twenty or even thirty
> subsequent steeps.
>
> My question was/is whether the power of the early steeps might be
> carried over into those following, without compromising the smooth
> delicacy of the latter. Not being economically equipped to do a full
> experimental series with 1950s Blue Label, I've mostly been playing with
> bingcha in the 10-year range. The game goes like this: break up the cake
> into small flakes, steep a few times, then start adding small pinches of
> fresh dry leaf every few rounds.
>
> The results have been variable but compelling. In many cases, I've been
> able to get strength and smoothness in pleasing collaboration. This
> makes a case for starting with large chunks and letting matters unfold
> as they will, but I've found this to yield poor control - often
> too-rapid wetting of the whole mass, without the later boost; or too
> slow, with fresh leaf always overpowering the quieter late notes. So I'm
> starting to do the add-a-pinch routine more often.
>
> Although this works pretty well with my favorite oolongs as well, I've
> mainly been testing the approach with Pu-erhs. Another observation in
> this class is that *small* amounts of shu pu-erh can work very well with
> a sheng base. Since shus continue to extract almost forever, this lends
> credibility to the practice of mixing sheng and shu in a single cake.
> But my limited experience suggests that the ratio as supplied is way off
> optimal; the smoothest sheng-like experience seems to happen with only a
> few percent of shu added.
>
> All early results. Your mouthfeel may vary. I hope some here will add
> their own greater wisdom.
>
> Salubrious sipping to all-
>
> DM

Wow, what an excellent post! It's really too good for usenet, it
belongs on some webpage for linkability (or a copy could go
on the web..). I mostly do oolongs, but I find that I can't get
no smoothness with first few steeps, and after that I get
the right combination of smoothness and power by making
longer steeps until it's completely exhausted.

In regard to the question of careful measurement: I think that's
the folly of beginners for two reasons, firstly because they
can sometimes make wildly off-base mistakes with leaf
amount, temp, etc and careful measurement is one way to
avoid that; secondly, and most importantly, newbs will often
start with lower grade teas (which is a sensible approach
at first) and the thing I noticed about lower grade teas is that
they *may* come out *really* good sometimes, but they're
very fidgety and even as they cool down just a little bit, they
can turn really bad. In addition, even if they have a really great
flavour, they will often have a not-so-great accompanying
flavour, whereas the best part about good mid-grade and
high grade teas is that they're more reliable and the BEST
part is that they _degrade gracefully_ when you do something
wrong. For example, if you add a little more leaf than needed,
a bad tea may come out bitter whereas a good or great tea
will simply be a little stronger than usual and in fact you might
say "when I use the 'right' amount, this tea is really great, and
now that I used too much of it, it's _still_ really great, just in
a slightly different way!". Do you ever find yourself thinking that?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that a low-grade tea (and I
don't mean in terms of price, as cheap teas can be very good
sometimes) - low-grade tea often gives you a hint of
greatness but you never get it just right and you feel that if
you could just have perfect control of all variables, you would
have a shot - yet even with perfect control it almost never
works out.

Once you get some experience under your belt, you can
still brew low grade teas sometimes, but you learn not to
expect too much out of it and just try to get it about right,
and if you make a mistake - throw it out, no reason to cry
over spilt tea! If you brew a good tea, it will happily
accomodate some variation in parameters.

One thing that we have to consider is that it's simply not
practical to have so many things like thermometers, scales,
measuring cups cluttering up your kitchen space for
every-day brewing; and few people have spare time for that
every single day - therefore, if you can get close enough,
there's no reason to make things more complicated than
they need to be.

> Magic is narrative about why and how things
> work, told so compellingly that it influences what people experience
> irrespective of what's in their cups. (And both often use the language
> of science, though not its data, methods or epistemology.) Both have
> roots in testable fact, but have become remote from any kind of causal
> proof, reproducibility, or mechanistic basis. Examples could include the
> injunction to match pot and leaf shape (come on!), the compelling effect
> of certain clays or metals (just throw an old silver spoon or shards of
> a dropped Yixing into a glass pot, and save a few shekels), or the
> mid-infrared emissivity of some magical charcoal (first wash off the
> clay, dirt and ash, then draw conclusions about operationally irrelevant
> subtleties).

There are quite a few things that are difficult to measure, and
you can never be absolutely sure as to what makes a real
difference and what does not (short of double blind testing);
but as far as I'm concerned, I think I can be convinced of such
things when I know that I would prefer a certain outcome and
my taste keeps telling me that it's just the opposite.

For example, I found that I can't stand gong-fu made with
water boiled in an electric kettle. At the time, it was not
possible for me to make tea near the gas stove, and I
bought a very expensive, nice-looking, well made Zojirushi
dispenser. I was very happy with it right up to the point
when I made the first cup of tea. I really *wanted* it to
work and spent a lot of time trying different ways of
brewing, more than a few different teas, all to no avail.

To me, if there are two options and one of them is more
comfortable and practical, I know that I could convince
myself that it's better even if that's not necessarily true.
I don't think it can work the other way, though. If I can't
get myself to like the easier option (and in that case, the only
possible one at the time), despite trying my best to
like it, that's proof enough for me.

Ahh the Dogma I know and respect has surfaced again...

Look for my comments interspersed throughout.



> There's an old saying that there are two kinds of people:......

I, at times, have belonged to all four groups. With a new genre or an
especially rare tea I tend to be very scientific using all the
precision and repeatability available to me. Then once I get to know a
tea I tend to "just do it", going from the gut. In fact my absolute
best steepings were when I just did it without any real forethought,
but this approach has also resulted in many putrid cups particularly
if I didn't know the genre.

> I suggest that all four groups have exactly as much fun, enjoy their tea
> to the same degree, and make equally fine company.

Agreed, and that is one of the wonders of this vast world of tea.
After witnessing so many styles, methods, and approaches, and getting
fantastic results from each, it proves that there is definitely more
than one way to skin the proverbial cat.

> So are fact and science better? Better for what?

I am a technical person, and therefor appreciate the ability to
communicate precisely on things that matter to me. However tea is as
much an art is it science. When I approach a tea from a strictly
scientific point of view I seldom get what I would classify as my
greatest cups of tea. What I do get is the ability to acquire
reproducible knowledge about a tea. At that point I can apply the
touchy feely art of tea in order to achieve the truly outstanding
sessions.



> - The effects of steeping time vs. intersteep time in gongfu, and the
> interactions of common ritual or quasi-technical activities (e.g.
> deliberately incomplete draining) with both.

This is one area where folklore and ritual appears to indeed have
legitimate and reproducible affects. Often the folklore or ritual is
designed to accomplish some aspect that truly affects the brew.
Especially in Asian cultures these rituals seldom state the "real
reason" for doing something, but rather cloak it in some mysterious
cultural prose. For example the amount of time it takes to do a task
that involves some seemingly nonessential gestures is indeed simply a
method of marking the time necessary for steeping, intersteeping,
cooling, etc.



> One specific question in this portfolio is how far to break down pieces
> of cake when brewing. .......
>
> - Neatly pry off one intact chunk and drop it in the gaiwan or pot
> complete.
>
> - Take it apart it up somewhat, either a random mix of large and small
> pieces as it breaks, or a careful division into smaller chunks of
> roughly equal size.
>
> - Complete dissection almost into individual leaves, usually with care
> to avoid breaking them if possible. (Or, in some cases, including some
> deliberate fragmentation.)

I most often employ the first method, simply break off a chunk and
throw it in the pot. I then lengthen my steeping time during the first
few steeps. I have found that I often get great results this way, and
the progression of change throughout the steeps is much more balanced.
I am told the third method produces a sweeter tea than the second
method, although I have not really seen that in my own cup. I think
the whole chunk concept has a lot to do with the extraction you refer
to, and I like the progression of steeps I get when using this method.


> My question was/is whether the power of the early steeps might be
> carried over into those following, without compromising the smooth
> delicacy of the latter. Not being economically equipped to do a full
> experimental series with 1950s Blue Label, I've mostly been playing with
> bingcha in the 10-year range. The game goes like this: break up the cake
> into small flakes, steep a few times, then start adding small pinches of
> fresh dry leaf every few rounds.

Interesting approach, I like it.....

While I have tried the shu/sheng mix I have not tried the
replenishment technique you mention, but will do so soon on some young
shengs. Not sure I would bother on well aged shengs though as I like
the yields and progression I get now, and damn that stuff is expensive
and getting more rare every day.

Mike

www.pu-erh.net

Drinking a 70s PLA sheng brick, a tea with a long story behind it.
This one is OK, just ok, however another brick I had of the exact same
stuff was putrid.

The best account of someones critical approach to tea. There has to
be a method to your madness. I explain mine in fits and starts like
giving up on the pot and drinking teas off the top. I wished we all
could get along. Since we cant it doesnt excuse civility. I think
certain approaches to tea stand the test of time. The scientist gets
bored. The artist is always learning. I personally think aged puer
is a myth even discounting the trust in the Madoffs of the puer
world. Look at my recent puer video links showing sundried puer tree
leaves being steamed and compressed into cakes. Youll have to believe
in magic to think it makes any real difference in 30 years. Puer is a
preservation technique which correlates to my oxidized teas that have
been sitting around that long. The taste is simply a snapshot of back
when. I think puer taste can be appreciated for the vastness of
Yunnan. You dont have to wait for anything. Ill have to say puer is
fun. It begs for manhandling and manipulation. If the local puer
tasting group ever has another meeting youll have to widdle my puer by
hand.

Jim

PS I personally think shu is more challenging than sheng. Im in
Chinatown recently and see some loose shu which came in a tin. Ive
never seen puer in a tin besides the sampler tins in packs. I loved
the "A specially selected of buds and young leaves of tea prepared
with traditional sanitary method". It is comparable to the recent
compressed Nan Nou shu I mentioned. Im going back to stock up. Shu
is the only tea I drink that I think has any medicinal benefits. Ill
forgo the commercial puer video making you slimmer, younger, prettier,
and cleansing your arteries. Like aged puer it doesnt pass any sense
of creduity.

On Jan 1, 7:02 pm, DogMa > wrote:
> Happy New Year, all. Allow me to begin this one with a few skeptical (as
> distinct from cynical) thoughts on brewing. Long-post alert; please trim
> largely if replying.
>
> There's an old saying that there are two kinds of people: the righteous
> and the unrighteous. And the righteous decide which is which. Hoping to
> avoid that trap, I'd like to observe that there are two kinds of tea
> aficionados: those who like to be very precise in all their
> manipulations, and those who are (or appear to be) casual or even
> sloppy. The first kind further divide into those who use scientific
> tools like digital scales, thermometers and timers, and those who find
> precision in ritual, counting breaths, reciting mantras, etc. The second
> also divide, into those who use a combination of experience and
> sensory signals to provide needed cues for a behavioral precision, and
> those who just like to see what emerges by happenstance.
>
> I suggest that all four groups have exactly as much fun, enjoy their tea
> to the same degree, and make equally fine company. They may also have
> equivalent tacit knowledge of tea, though perhaps not the same ability
> to express it explicitly.
>
> The largest difference, in fact, may lie in what used to be called "the
> story" and has now been elevated to "narrative." This is where myth and
> magic come in. I suggest that as working definitions, myth is a body of
> formal knowledge that may once or somewhere have been true, but that is
> largely or entirely untrue here and now, or at least not reproducibly
> true across situations. Magic is narrative about why and how things
> work, told so compellingly that it influences what people experience
> irrespective of what's in their cups. (And both often use the language
> of science, though not its data, methods or epistemology.) Both have
> roots in testable fact, but have become remote from any kind of causal
> proof, reproducibility, or mechanistic basis. Examples could include the
> injunction to match pot and leaf shape (come on!), the compelling effect
> of certain clays or metals (just throw an old silver spoon or shards of
> a dropped Yixing into a glass pot, and save a few shekels), or the
> mid-infrared emissivity of some magical charcoal (first wash off the
> clay, dirt and ash, then draw conclusions about operationally irrelevant
> subtleties).
>
> So are fact and science better? Better for what? We (most of us) are not
> trying to create the next encyclopedia of tea truth, just to share what
> brings us pleasure. And on the way, compare notes on what leaf and
> equipment from what vendors, and what methods applied in what
> circumstances, and narratives about it all seem to make us the happiest.
> Sometimes the tenets of science serve us well: propose, test and confirm
> or falsify hypotheses, run controlled experiments with managed
> parameters, document both apparent conclusions and nulls or noise. This
> quickly brings us to some generally (not universally!) held heuristics,
> like using cooler water for greens and boiling for reds, ways to
> maintain freshness, what regions and packers and times of year most
> reliably produce the best teas. But even these aren't absolute; witness
> certain discussions about cupping all teas at the boil, or the
> definitive superiority of FF DJs, or the persistent canards about water
> source, freshness and other aspects.
>
> From my point of view as student (and occasionally teacher), the
> important meta-learning for all on the path is that almost all tea
> "knowledge" is only situationally useful - and that establishing one's
> own tastes and pleasures is the most urgent task, after which
> refinement, broadening and deepening will happen anyway. In other words,
> take everything as a guide, and almost nothing as a rule.
>
> For quite a few years, I've been on a private quest to determine some of
> the key parameters of brewing technique that lead to more useful
> real-life control than usual instruction offers. The purpose, per the
> four categories above, is not rigor, but just some idea of where best to
> play. A life in the lab notwithstanding, I almost never use measurement
> equipment of any kind in brewing. But I still seek ever-more precise
> distinctions in aroma, appearance and other signals to guide getting the
> best of each steep.
>
> This quest has led to some categories on which many of us have already
> written. A few I'm still exploring (and on which I'd welcome others'
> thoughts) include:
>
> - The irreversibilities: over-ripening, over-roasting, over-aging,
> overheating and oversteeping.
>
> - The non-reciprocity between steeping time and brewing temperature.
>
> - The effects of steeping time vs. intersteep time in gongfu, and the
> interactions of common ritual or quasi-technical activities (e.g.
> deliberately incomplete draining) with both.
>
> - Distinguishing between the effects of brewing and drinking temperatures.
>
> - Distinguishing the effects of enzymic reactions before kill-green
> (so-called fermentation) from those of roasting, and both in turn from
> passive chemical oxidation and microbial/fungal action, especially with
> Pu-erh and other "live" teas.
>
> One specific question in this portfolio is how far to break down pieces
> of cake when brewing. This mainly applies to Pu-erh, but numerous other
> fine teas are likewise available in pressed form. There seem to be three
> main schools of thought on this:
>
> - Neatly pry off one intact chunk and drop it in the gaiwan or pot
> complete.
>
> - Take it apart it up somewhat, either a random mix of large and small
> pieces as it breaks, or a careful division into smaller chunks of
> roughly equal size.
>
> - Complete dissection almost into individual leaves, usually with care
> to avoid breaking them if possible. (Or, in some cases, including some
> deliberate fragmentation.)
>
> There's no doubt that these produce different results. Perhaps the
> simplest model has each leaf or fragment leaching out at some rate once
> it is exposed to water. (The real situation is much more complicated and
> interesting as extraction rates depend strongly on leaf hydration in
> several ways, some non-linear or history-dependent.)
>
> If uniformly divided single leaves are well-mixed with water, the amount
> of material extracted per unit time will follow some kind of curve that
> increases rapidly with hydration and temperature, then tapers off at
> some rate depending on various binding, solvation and diffusion effects.
> So the uniformly divided leaf offers a sort of baseline of what the tea
> "ideally" delivers over time under a particular set of conditions.
>
> Having the leaf pressed into lumps can then be understood as overlapping
> the same curve repeatedly, smeared over time: when the first-wet leaf is
> completely depleted, there is also material just "peaking" and some in
> its first extraction. In certain cases, each steep in the middle of a
> long series might resemble the result of pouring all into one mixing
> vessel, or of doing a single long steep with all of the leaf divided.
>
> As some of us have found, though, this is not generally a good
> description of the experience. Key factors probably include the widely
> variant rate of extraction of sugars and simple amino acids vs. more
> highly condensed polyphenols, and flavor fatigue and thresholds. The
> latter leads into the whole area of flavor balance vs. concentration
> (which lends itself to some easy and revelatory dilution experiments),
> another very import reciprocity failure in brewing. Those who regularly
> use gongfu approaches with young sheng Pu-erh and dan cong oolongs are
> especially aware of how small changes in multi-steep timing can
> transform astringent mouthwash into nectar.
>
> My own interest in this area arose from experiences with really
> well-aged (in time and technique) sheng Pu-erhs, between 30 and 100
> years old. The whole flavor-profile-with-dilution effect really came
> forward, as the older teas tend to extract very quickly at the beginning
> and then keep yielding appealing brews over twenty or even thirty
> subsequent steeps.
>
> My question was/is whether the power of the early steeps might be
> carried over into those following, without compromising the smooth
> delicacy of the latter. Not being economically equipped to do a full
> experimental series with 1950s Blue Label, I've mostly been playing with
> bingcha in the 10-year range. The game goes like this: break up the cake
> into small flakes, steep a few times, then start adding small pinches of
> fresh dry leaf every few rounds.
>
> The results have been variable but compelling. In many cases, I've been
> able to get strength and smoothness in pleasing collaboration. This
> makes a case for starting with large chunks and letting matters unfold
> as they will, but I've found this to yield poor control - often
> too-rapid wetting of the whole mass, without the later boost; or too
> slow, with fresh leaf always overpowering the quieter late notes. So I'm
> starting to do the add-a-pinch routine more often.
>
> Although this works pretty well with my favorite oolongs as well, I've
> mainly been testing the approach with Pu-erhs. Another observation in
> this class is that *small* amounts of shu pu-erh can work very well with
> a sheng base. Since shus continue to extract almost forever, this lends
> credibility to the practice of mixing sheng and shu in a single cake.
> But my limited experience suggests that the ratio as supplied is way off
> optimal; the smoothest sheng-like experience seems to happen with only a
> few percent of shu added.
>
> All early results. Your mouthfeel may vary. I hope some here will add
> their own greater wisdom.
>
> Salubrious sipping to all-
>
> DM

On Jan 1, 9:02*pm, DogMa > wrote:
> All early results. Your mouthfeel may vary. I hope some here will add
> their own greater wisdom.
>
> Salubrious sipping to all-
>
> DM

Wow! What a great start to the new year of tea. One of the best and
most accurate summations of almost all of what is discussed and
debated here and elsewhere. Tea to me is a personal thing, I don't
really need formality (which may have been one area you missed in your
initial post), scientific parameters, or much at all beyond some tea,
a vessel, and hot water. I don't ever really fret over exact amounts
of tea, type of vessel, or exactly how hot or how the heated water
came to be. Any quirks I have are just personal dislikes, such as no
metal involved in storage or preparation and a dislike of glass in any
part of the equation beyond storage jars. I'm not afraid of tap water
as long as it is passed through a 3 or 4 stage filter mainly just to
remove chlorine, I'm not afraid of electrically or gas heated water,
and I don't use a stopwatch or really even close counting of breathing
I go with what I know feels right. Oftentimes the fact that I do not
measure time or temp or leaf leads to "happy accidents" (thanks Bob
Ross) that change even my most long held practices. I'm not always
100% mindful while brewing but occasionally when I have the time and
can achieve the state I love it dearly.

I think Jim is right on the "Scientists" though in that it is soulless
and they generally flame out quickly. I know there is no "wrong" way
and many here are IT/Science/Analytical by nature but I *personally*
believe it is the most wrong of all of the ways of tea... rigid
formality and scripted conversation would be next up on my list of
wrongness. When I go back to old records and read historic accounts it
is never meant to be this way and never practiced.

I've recently tried again to spark some love for Puerh and have now
given up completely. I don't have a taste for it and no matter
vintage, price, type, style, it is always the same result I don't like
it. I used to be apologetic about it and think it had to be me or the
tea but I've now come to the reality and accept it. Again, I have to
agree with Jim in that it always seems the most medicinal of all tea
but that may be because I'd like to believe there is some reason for
my self-torture and abuse. I'm actually pretty sure there has to be
real validity to it all truthfully, but I'm willing to make that
sacrifice. I will say that I was always a fan of breaking off a chunk
and steeping that. It only seems to affect the first steep because
after that it all becomes loose for all subsequent steeps. I've never
been a fan of oaky/smoky flavors in any beverage but I know many do
and that is fine with me. I have a similar guilt about my general
dislike of alcohol. I love fine food but I do not have an affinity for
wines, no matter the vintage, grape, or price. Everyone has their
Kryptonite I guess.

I have tried adding fresh leaf to some spent or almost spent leaf
during brewing sessions and I've never been satisfied with the result.
It makes sense it could be done well, but that is another experiment
I've long since given up on. I would love to hear of a success though,
but I think the flavor of the brewed/cooked leaf always pushes through
adversely.

I think I am at a point in my journey where I no longer care about
acceptance or what I should like or do and just enjoy tea. Some tea I
drink because it is basic and I want that at times (Red Rose/Luzianne
teabags with some yellow lump sugar or honey) some I must have the
highest quality and freshness and gladly pay for it (Gyokuro, Huo Shan
Huang Ya, Shincha, BLC, and jasmine pearls), and some I seem to be on
an eternal hunt for perfection (heavily heavily roasted oolongs). Same
for teaware. I will probably add a very small, high quality Yixing to
my stable and stop. I plan on buying a nice brazier and kettle. Maybe
a few small odds and ends, but not much more.

Yixing does make a difference. Logically I'd like to think and state
differently, but over the years even as my skills progressed (and
still do) it has always consistently produced different (not always
better) results than any other method.

Your initial post hits on even more issues but I've exhausted myself
to come this far so I may have to come back for a second pass another
day

- Dominic

On Jan 2, 3:02*pm, "Dominic T." > wrote:
> On Jan 1, 9:02*pm, DogMa > wrote:
>
> > All early results. Your mouthfeel may vary. I hope some here will add
> > their own greater wisdom.
>
> > Salubrious sipping to all-
>
> > DM
>
> Wow! What a great start to the new year of tea. One of the best and
> most accurate summations of almost all of what is discussed and
> debated here and elsewhere. Tea to me is a personal thing, I don't
> really need formality (which may have been one area you missed in your
> initial post), scientific parameters, or much at all beyond some tea,
> a vessel, and hot water. I don't ever really fret over exact amounts
> of tea, type of vessel, or exactly how hot or how the heated water
> came to be. Any quirks I have are just personal dislikes, such as no
> metal involved in storage or preparation and a dislike of glass in any
> part of the equation beyond storage jars. I'm not afraid of tap water
> as long as it is passed through a 3 or 4 stage filter mainly just to
> remove chlorine, I'm not afraid of electrically or gas heated water,
> and I don't use a stopwatch or really even close counting of breathing
> I go with what I know feels right. Oftentimes the fact that I do not
> measure time or temp or leaf leads to "happy accidents" (thanks Bob
> Ross) that change even my most long held practices. I'm not always
> 100% mindful while brewing but occasionally when I have the time and
> can achieve the state I love it dearly.
>
> I think Jim is right on the "Scientists" though in that it is soulless
> and they generally flame out quickly. I know there is no "wrong" way
> and many here are IT/Science/Analytical by nature but I *personally*
> believe it is the most wrong of all of the ways of tea... rigid
> formality and scripted conversation would be next up on my list of
> wrongness. When I go back to old records and read historic accounts it
> is never meant to be this way and never practiced.
>
> I've recently tried again to spark some love for Puerh and have now
> given up completely. I don't have a taste for it and no matter
> vintage, price, type, style, it is always the same result I don't like

I was at exactly the same point only one week ago, but now
I've discovered that I love at least one inexpensive raisin-y
Puerh from Hou De as long as it's done with gas stove. I
guess that doesn't do the magic for you.. Maybe there is
some other unexpected wild trick that will unlock the
wonders of this tricky type of tea for you..

> it. I used to be apologetic about it and think it had to be me or the
> tea but I've now come to the reality and accept it. Again, I have to
> agree with Jim in that it always seems the most medicinal of all tea

Interesting, I see white as the most medicinal. In fact I'd say water
is more medicinal than any tea. If I only drink just the water
during the day, I always feel noticeably better than if I drink tea.
Tea is a guilty pleasure, as far as I'm concerned.

> but that may be because I'd like to believe there is some reason for
> my self-torture and abuse. I'm actually pretty sure there has to be
> real validity to it all truthfully, but I'm willing to make that
> sacrifice. I will say that I was always a fan of breaking off a chunk
> and steeping that. It only seems to affect the first steep because
> after that it all becomes loose for all subsequent steeps. I've never
> been a fan of oaky/smoky flavors in any beverage but I know many do
> and that is fine with me. I have a similar guilt about my general
> dislike of alcohol. I love fine food but I do not have an affinity for
> wines, no matter the vintage, grape, or price. Everyone has their
> Kryptonite I guess.

Me2 me2!!! I hate freaking wines and beers and what have you.
I mean, I can see how they can have an interesting flavour but
it's the taste of alcohol that ruins everything, and the effect
of alcohol (even a tiny bit) is even so much worse.

[Dogma] I almost never use measurement equipment of any kind in
brewing.

[Grasshopper] Overall, I concur with that approach. But measuring
equipment is good if one intends to write about the experience so
readers can replicate that experience and determine thereby if they
agree or disagree with the writer's opinions. Within the brewing
system, various dimensions can differ so wildly that two tea drinkers
with the same tea would likely drink very different beverages. A
scale especially is good when I write about compressed tea. I cannot
say, for example, "Fill the gaiwan two-thirds full with this tuo
cha." With loose leaf, of course, a scale is not so important. As a
student, I can learn a lot from posts that include data from measuring
equipment. As an example, for several years, I brewed shu using about
one gram per ounce of brewing water. Over time, I was drinking less
shu. I noticed in my reading that others were using more than twice
as much leaf and much shorter steeps. I tried that, and now I love
shu again. The greatest benefit of using measuring equipment is to
help those just starting their exploration of tea. Years ago, I came
across a website entitled, "We Review Tea." Most of the teas on that
website were not available by the time I discovered it, but by reading
the reviews, complete with carefully noted parameters, I learned how
to brew tea to achieve various results. For me at that stage, it was
a wonderful website, and I am indebted to the skillful writers who
contributed to it. But let me say again that, overall, I agree with
your sentence I've quoted. Tonight I'm drinking Ban Tian Yao. I'm
not using measuring equipment of any kind, and I'm loving it.

Quick note on the addition of leaf between steeps during a brewing
session. This works quite well with Dian Hong. I almost always add
more leaf after the first and second steep.

Great post, Dogma. Thanks for writing it. Best, Grasshopper

Ive always been of the mind how hard can it be to toss the spent
leaves and start over. However recently Ive been adding a little more
leaf to overcome the spent leaf aftertaste for one or two more cups.
Im always sucking on spent leaf anyway.

Jim

PS Shu is a learned taste like beer. Sheng is a glorified steamed
green tea with a little rotting thrown in.

On Jan 2, 4:02 pm, "Dominic T." > wrote:
> On Jan 1, 9:02 pm, DogMa > wrote:
>
> > All early results. Your mouthfeel may vary. I hope some here will add
> > their own greater wisdom.
>
> > Salubrious sipping to all-
>
> > DM
>
....can one read tea leaves...
> I have tried adding fresh leaf to some spent or almost spent leaf
> during brewing sessions and I've never been satisfied with the result.
> It makes sense it could be done well, but that is another experiment
> I've long since given up on. I would love to hear of a success though,
> but I think the flavor of the brewed/cooked leaf always pushes through
> adversely.
....if you believe in quantum theory...
> - Dominic

A couple of random thoughts- while I'm very casual about my tea making
in some ways, I'm also very dependent upon the precision other people
have had. I understand temperature, and always start my tea
experiments at somebody else's recomennded temperature, sort of. I
understand boiling and I understand green teas go best when the water
is just beginning to simmer, although I've never measured the
temperature on that. A teaspoon in about eight ounces of water
usually seems close enough, I used an iced tea spoon sort of leveled
off, not a measuring spoon for measuring purposes. I know from
experience to go scant on fannings and slighty heaped on broader leaf
tea. Toci

Very well said, and a great start to the new year, especially to all
of us who believe in multiple paths of enligtenment <g>

Dan
http://MyCoffeeandTeaStore.com





On Jan 1, 9:02*pm, DogMa > wrote:
> Happy New Year,....posting removed to save bytes<

DogMa > writes:

> Happy New Year, all. Allow me to begin this one with a few skeptical
> (as distinct from cynical) thoughts on brewing. Long-post alert;
> please trim largely if replying.

Sorry to join in so late. I've been traveling and largely out of contact.

> [...interesting factors in brewing...]
>
> - The effects of steeping time vs. intersteep time in gongfu, and the
> interactions of common ritual or quasi-technical activities
> (e.g. deliberately incomplete draining) with both.

Let me thank you again for alerting me to intersteep time a few years
ago. It can be good to use this consciously to manipulate the kind of
liquor you pour, but recently I've been inclined to try to avoid
intersteep "brewing" altogether by immediately removing the lid of the
brewing vessel after pouring. I find it makes the whole process
easier to control, as long as I'm not aiming for the hottest, most
concentrated brew.

/Lew
---
Lew Perin /
http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html

Grasshopper > writes:

> [Dogma] I almost never use measurement equipment of any kind in
> brewing.
>
> [Grasshopper] Overall, I concur with that approach. But measuring
> equipment is good if one intends to write about the experience so
> readers can replicate that experience and determine thereby if they
> agree or disagree with the writer's opinions. Within the brewing
> system, various dimensions can differ so wildly that two tea drinkers
> with the same tea would likely drink very different beverages. A
> scale especially is good when I write about compressed tea. I cannot
> say, for example, "Fill the gaiwan two-thirds full with this tuo
> cha." With loose leaf, of course, a scale is not so important.

Yes, but that doesn't mean it's useless. Loose leaves have a very
wide range of density/fluffiness, and it can be hard to estimate "how
much leaf" we have just by eyeballing. I think most of us, whether we
think in those terms or not, have a default ratio of weight or leaves
to volume of water that we like to start with when getting to know a
new tea. Doing this explicitly can help in finding our way with a new
tea before we're ready to dispense with measurements.

/Lew
---
Lew Perin /
http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html