I'd like to see them too if you have the chance : )

On 7 Apr 2006 20:16:34 -0700, "Jason F in Los Angeles"
wrote:

I emailed you my suggestions off the list

Dominic wrote:
Since it is basically on-topic, I'm looking to try a green pu-erh,
could anyone direct me to a place to purchase a smaller amount (or at
least affordable)... also to the exact tea you would have someone try
as their first green pu-erh? I have no way to decide which one to start
with out of all of them. I've read on Mike's site, but nowhere is there
an easy way to figure out 1 or 2 to start with as good introductions.

For years and years every Chinese supermarket in town stocked the green
Xiaguan tuo boxes. I haven't seen any since last fall. Even the black
Xiaguan French export tuo boxes are almost impossible to find. I can
still find cooked Xiaguan brick and cake.

Jim

Jason F in Los Angeles wrote:
Kathy wrote:
It was a very disconcerting experience to say the least when I realised that
I'd been had like this, and I'll be the local chinese sellers are probably
clueless as well as they ALL had the same thing.

The green crane boxes I found in LA Chinatown had crane logos inside
and actual raw pu'er, and the cranes had all four feathers so I figure
they're not fake, unless the fakers got that much right this time.

Unfortunately, somebody else was clued into my finds and snatched up
the rest of these tuo, and the only thing remaining at that store is
cooked menghai discs that look like fakes.

I am a rank beginner but here are 2 greens to try

The 50 gm yin hao from Jing Tea Shop is very good
I believe he sell one as a sample, I liked it enough to order a kilo.

The Dai bamboo 500gm from Yunnan Sourcing is in my cup right now and I
like it very much, initially I was using water that was too hot but
once I dropped down to about 190 it became special.

You're still sure you're looking at the correct uncook all green
Xiaguan tuo box? The outside will say Xiaguan and have the crane
emblem. The other green like export box with the cooked Xiaguan tuo
will have the wording for Chinese National Native Produce on the
outside. It sounds like someone took the cooked Xiaguan and put it in
the box for the uncooked. The two prices are the same. Supermarkets
only worry about the retail markups on their shelves based on
wholesale. The managers don't know tuo from duck. I can get Xiaguan
5x250g brick bundles for $8 and 8x357g tongs for $18.

Jim

Kathy wrote:
"Space Cowboy" wrote in message
ps.com...
I heard that story before. Where is the profit on a buck sale even
with substitution?

I wondered that - mind you these same teas - the real thing that is - sell
for a lot more than $1 on-line which makes the supermarket prices seem
unrealisticlly low for the so called quality. Could this be reason they are
so cheap.


Cooked is generally less but not necessarily by
that much. The all green Xiaguan tuocha box should have the crane
emblem on the outside. The inside should have a wrapper with the same
crane emblem and green puer.

This is the dead give away. The inside wrapper does NOT have the crane
emblem - it has some chinese writing design and not a crane in sight. I
couldn't find any boxes in any store which still had what should be the
original contents based on the outside box.

It was a very disconcerting experience to say the least when I realised that
I'd been had like this, and I'll be the local chinese sellers are probably
clueless as well as they ALL had the same thing.

yeah, i haven't seen any since...january i think. we still get cooked
tuo in export boxes, xiaguan cooked bricks, "jujube fragrant" papery
cooked bricks, lincang mengku cooked bricks, the menghai-region "7262"
(faked or stolen recipe number), and various supposedly aged bings
priced from $8-199, though these 'aged' ones all look and smell cooked
and have the same wrapper (same fonts, same proportions, etc.)
regardless of age. I should take a picture of them and post it here
sometime. Several grades of loose cooked pu'er are available, including
$200/lb that's also supposedly very old.

I have the 'aged' cooked bing that sells for $20-some-odd dollars, and
it exhibits some characteristics of aging (looser leaves, mellow, not
musty, nutty), so perhaps they're aged cooked bings, but I'm still
doubtful. I've had a mind to buy one just to sample it out to more
knowledgable people I've been bugging the owner about carrying
better quality sheng and he's not been very responsive, even though his
expanded pu'er selection is doing well.

Jim wrote:
For years and years every Chinese supermarket in town stocked the green
Xiaguan tuo boxes. I haven't seen any since last fall. Even the black
Xiaguan French export tuo boxes are almost impossible to find. I can
still find cooked Xiaguan brick and cake.

Jim

"Space Cowboy" wrote in message
oups.com...
You're still sure you're looking at the correct uncook all green
Xiaguan tuo box? The outside will say Xiaguan and have the crane
emblem.

The shop had only one type of toucha for sale and this was it. Green box
with crane on it. When you opened it (it was taped closed) there was a
card in the bottom saying it was A grade pu-reh which had been steamed .
But the wrapper on the pu-erh didn't have a crane (Chinese writing instead)
and the leaves were dark, cooked leaves, and not very good when I tried
them. I've had better cooked pu-erh before. I might have forgiven them
somewhat if the tea was good, but it wasn't.

Kathy

The other odd thing I find puzzling about the recipe number is grading
information. I think it is more indicative of taste or leaf quality
than leaf size. So how can the grade for one factory be the same as
the grade for another? I got a tong (10x100g) bundle of cooked Jingmai
mtn wild tree from Lancang factory. The first cake has a neifei with
just the number 5038 which I think is the recipe. The second cake just
has the Lancang logo for the neifei. I didn't check the others. It
would be the oldest recipe I've seen and predate the modern factory
recipes from the mid seventies.

Jim

Jason F in Los Angeles wrote:
....
Mike P.'s translation help is where I got most of my terminology.
Fangcha = "Square" tea, tong = 7 cakes (i think i first read this on
the Hou De site). As far as numbered cakes go, the convention is that
they stand for a recipe and the last number is the factory, but those
same numbers (7542, 7262, etc.) appeared on cakes from different
factories all over Maliandao, so either other factories are attempting
to recreate Meng Hai recipes (for example), confuse the marketplace of
novice customers (possible!), or there's something else to the story
we're not getting.

[Space Cowboy]

The other odd thing I find puzzling about the recipe number is grading
information. I think it is more indicative of taste or leaf quality
than leaf size. So how can the grade for one factory be the same as
the grade for another? I got a tong (10x100g) bundle of cooked
Jingmai
mtn wild tree from Lancang factory. The first cake has a neifei with
just the number 5038 which I think is the recipe. The second cake
just
has the Lancang logo for the neifei. I didn't check the others. It
would be the oldest recipe I've seen and predate the modern factory
recipes from the mid seventies.
Jim

[Kevin]

Cooked Pu-erh and 1950's doesn't add up in my books. It was "invented"
some 20 years later.
This number is probably something else; like a batch number maybe ? 5
being 2005...even then 38 batches for 1 year isn't possible....no idea
what it is.

Kevin.

Space Cowboy wrote:
The other odd thing I find puzzling about the recipe number is grading
information. I think it is more indicative of taste or leaf quality
than leaf size. So how can the grade for one factory be the same as
the grade for another? I got a tong (10x100g) bundle of cooked Jingmai
mtn wild tree from Lancang factory. The first cake has a neifei with
just the number 5038 which I think is the recipe. The second cake just
has the Lancang logo for the neifei. I didn't check the others. It
would be the oldest recipe I've seen and predate the modern factory
recipes from the mid seventies.

Jim

The 5038 is NOT one of the standardized State sponsored recipe codes.
It is a non-standard code that was privately done by that one single
factory. I sincerely doubt that the first 2 digits of "50" have
anything to do with a 1950s recipe. Is is just a batch code with little
meaning outside of the factory.

Those old codes are pretty much meaningless today unless they come from
one of the old State run factories that have since gone private, like
Menghai or Xia Guan. In most other cases those codes have taken on a
new persona and retain little of their original meaning. They are more
of a SKU and/or marketing method now, more than anything else.

The ORIGINAL standardized factory codes were developed (in the 70s) by
the State run factories as a means of identification of recipe
information. Since the privatization of the State run factories these
codes have been copied and adulterated to the point that many of them
no longer have the same meaning that they did when they originated.
While some of the original (now private) State Run factories are still
using those codes to represent the old original recipes, many new
factories are simply copying the codes to cash in on their popularity.

I have heard 2 schools of thought about the standard factory codes. One
school of thought comes from the Hong Kong corner, and the other comes
from Taiwan. The main difference being the definition of third
character.

Scenario #1
1. First 2 digits represent the first year of production for that
recipe. IE 7542 was first created in 1975, the same recipe in
subsequent years would be suffixed by the actual year and represented
as 7542-89 etc. However, you typically don't see this suffix except
in collector or business circles.
2. The third digit represents the grade of the leaf which was related
to size.
3. The fourth digit represents the factory.

Scenario #2
1. First 2 digits represent the first year of production for that
recipe
2. The third digit represents the recipe within that year
3. The fourth digit represents the factory

In both scenerios the factories represented by digit 4 are as follows,
all of them were Government owned factories at the time, some of the
original factories don't exist anymore hence I don't know their
codes.
Kunming Factory - 1
MengHai Factory - 2
Xia Guan Factory - 3
FengQing Factory - 4
Unknown - 5
Unknown - 6
Unknown - 7
Haiwan Tea Factory - 8
(also used by Long Sheng Tea Factory)
Langhe Tea Factory - 9


I personally believe in scenario one, my reasoning is this: the third
digit can only be one of 9 possibilities which easily corresponds with
leaf grades. If the third digit is a recipe code then 9 digits might
not have been enough if there were more than 9 recipes in a given year,
and I don't see the factories as limiting themselves to only 9
recipes per year. On the flip side of the third digit issue is the fact
that modern cakes are seldom made from a single grade of leaf anymore.
Many cakes will have higher grade leaf on the surface and lower grade
leaf in the middle. This is done for flavor blending, smaller leaves
are sweeter while larger leaves add strength, as well as for
appearance. For example you might have a grade 6-7 leaf in the middle
with grade 2-3 leaves on the surface. This is common on both bingcha
and bricks.

Mike
http://www.pu-erh.net

Thanks Mike, for the informative post. I'd have to get another bundle
to see if it is a batch number or private recipe. Don't anyone hold
their breath waiting for me to find out. The number gets lost after
the first cake in any case. Maybe the number is used by the collector
to give the wrapper blemishes an identity. Most of my puer don't
indicate a recipe. The only reason I see a recipe becoming popular is
because it has proven good aging characteristics, supposedly.

Jim

Mike Petro wrote:
....a little of me and you...
Space Cowboy wrote:
I got a tong (10x100g) bundle of cooked Jingmai
mtn wild tree from Lancang factory. The first cake has a neifei with
just the number 5038 which I think is the recipe. The second cake just
has the Lancang logo for the neifei. I didn't check the others. It
would be the oldest recipe I've seen and predate the modern factory
recipes from the mid seventies.

The 5038 is NOT one of the standardized State sponsored recipe codes.
It is a non-standard code that was privately done by that one single
factory. I sincerely doubt that the first 2 digits of "50" have
anything to do with a 1950s recipe. Is is just a batch code with little
meaning outside of the factory.

Those old codes are pretty much meaningless today unless they come from
one of the old State run factories that have since gone private, like
Menghai or Xia Guan. In most other cases those codes have taken on a
new persona and retain little of their original meaning. They are more
of a SKU and/or marketing method now, more than anything else.

"Mike Petro" writes:

[...3rd digit means (1) leaf grade or (2) recipe #...]

I personally believe in scenario one, my reasoning is this: the third
digit can only be one of 9 possibilities which easily corresponds with
leaf grades. If the third digit is a recipe code then 9 digits might
not have been enough if there were more than 9 recipes in a given year,
and I don't see the factories as limiting themselves to only 9
recipes per year.

Why not? Nine *new* recipes per year might be a lot.

On the flip side of the third digit issue is the fact that modern
cakes are seldom made from a single grade of leaf anymore.

Not that I have any specific knowledge, but this seems more cogent to
me, for why would they use names that had no meaning?

By the way, what does "modern" mean in this context?

Is it possible that the third digit meant leaf grade until the
transition to multi-grade compressed Pu'er, and then its meaning
shifted to recipe number within year of origin? The latter meaning
would in a sense be a generalization of the former, for a recipe would
specify the leaf grade(s), right?

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

Lewis Perin wrote:
I personally believe in scenario one, my reasoning is this: the third
digit can only be one of 9 possibilities which easily corresponds with
leaf grades. If the third digit is a recipe code then 9 digits might
not have been enough if there were more than 9 recipes in a given year,
and I don't see the factories as limiting themselves to only 9
recipes per year.

Why not? Nine *new* recipes per year might be a lot.

My gut tells me that no Factory in their right mind would back
themselves into a numbering scheme that would limit them to only 9
recipes a year. Now the possibility does exist that back in the 70s
they were so short-sighted that they thought they would never need more
than 9, but I give them more credit than that. Heck, today some
factories have as many as 50 recipes in a given year.



On the flip side of the third digit issue is the fact that modern
cakes are seldom made from a single grade of leaf anymore.

Not that I have any specific knowledge, but this seems more cogent to
me, for why would they use names that had no meaning?

By the way, what does "modern" mean in this context?

I am not sure when this practice started , but clearly it has been
widespread since at least the 90s. This could very well be one of the
reason the old standards became obsolete.


Is it possible that the third digit meant leaf grade until the
transition to multi-grade compressed Pu'er, and then its meaning
shifted to recipe number within year of origin? The latter meaning
would in a sense be a generalization of the former, for a recipe would
specify the leaf grade(s), right?

Possible, yes, but again I find it hard to fathom that intelligent
Factory Engineers would back themselves into such a shortsighted
numbering scheme that only allowed nine recipes per year. I suspect the
"sa-mian" process (better grade on the face) evolved quite naturally as
a means of making prettier and tastier cakes. Independently, with the
privatization of the factories, the various factories drifted away from
the numbering standards. Now they are no longer relevant, with a few
exceptions, outside of the marketing realm.

Mike
http://www.pu-erh.net

In cup is a wonderful 90s cooked puerh, thanks Seb.....

Mike Petro wrote:
Possible, yes, but again I find it hard to fathom that intelligent
Factory Engineers would back themselves into such a shortsighted
numbering scheme that only allowed nine recipes per year.

Yeah - that would be about as dumb as a software major limiting file
names to 8 characters, or virtual memory to 2^32 bytes... Oh, never mind.

ObTea: My large stash of tippy Yunnan reds has been kept fairly well
sealed for a year or so. Flavor is dropping off, but no stale notes
emerging. Anybody else notice a decoupling of flavor loss and adverse
taste buildup on age?

-DM

Mike 4/11/06



Lewis Perin wrote:
I personally believe in scenario one, my reasoning is this: the third
digit can only be one of 9 possibilities which easily corresponds with
leaf grades. If the third digit is a recipe code then 9 digits might
not have been enough if there were more than 9 recipes in a given year,
and I don't see the factories as limiting themselves to only 9
recipes per year.

Why not? Nine *new* recipes per year might be a lot.

My gut tells me that no Factory in their right mind would back
themselves into a numbering scheme that would limit them to only 9
recipes a year. Now the possibility does exist that back in the 70s
they were so short-sighted that they thought they would never need more
than 9, but I give them more credit than that. Heck, today some
factories have as many as 50 recipes in a given year.



On the flip side of the third digit issue is the fact that modern
cakes are seldom made from a single grade of leaf anymore.

Not that I have any specific knowledge, but this seems more cogent to
me, for why would they use names that had no meaning?

By the way, what does "modern" mean in this context?

I am not sure when this practice started , but clearly it has been
widespread since at least the 90s. This could very well be one of the
reason the old standards became obsolete.


Is it possible that the third digit meant leaf grade until the
transition to multi-grade compressed Pu'er, and then its meaning
shifted to recipe number within year of origin? The latter meaning
would in a sense be a generalization of the former, for a recipe would
specify the leaf grade(s), right?

Possible, yes, but again I find it hard to fathom that intelligent
Factory Engineers would back themselves into such a shortsighted
numbering scheme that only allowed nine recipes per year. I suspect the
"sa-mian" process (better grade on the face) evolved quite naturally as
a means of making prettier and tastier cakes. Independently, with the
privatization of the factories, the various factories drifted away from
the numbering standards. Now they are no longer relevant, with a few
exceptions, outside of the marketing realm.

Mike
http://www.pu-erh.net

In cup is a wonderful 90s cooked puerh, thanks Seb.....


Mike,
Should we even be convinced that the recipe numbers, whatever they turn out
to be, have much consistency and thus much value? There appear to be
differences in the style and amount of mixing of cooked and uncooked leaf in
some of the recipes, and as usual I'm thoroughly confused. I'm going back to
talking about milk in tea. That, I can handle without feeling overly jerky.
Michael

Danny, recently sent me an email saying my Jian wasn't correct. This
wasn't the first time and won't be the last for my character gaffs.
Danny is gracious enough to let me know. With his permission this is
his correction:

¼þ jian4 aka Ö§ zhi1

Jim

PS I'm not sure of the bundle count. I'd have to buy a Jian off a
mule to find out.

Space Cowboy wrote:
Danny,Lew,Mike,anybody

This is my character for Tong Ͳ which is a tube or cylinder.
This is my character for Jian ¼í which is a bundle of eight (not 6 or
12).

Jim

Mike Petro wrote:
Although I am missing Tong and Jian, I will add them this weekend.
A tong is seven cakes wraped in a bundle.
A Jian is 6 tongs, often packed in a bamboo basket.

Also, Babelcarp is a great resource where you type in a tea term and
spits out the translation:
http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html

Mike
http://www.pu-erh.net