Lew wrote:
I think I know (and love) what you mean by algae: the taste and smell of a freshwater pond in summer.

Lew, thanks a lot for sharing that picture.
It helped me a lot to reflect on the "spontaneous", "automatic"
generation of my own aroma/taste visuals, all those numberless
potential factors that flow into those hallucinations.
Coming back to the Menghai, the visual that spontaneously showed up on
my internal screen was that of a camp spot on a late spring meadow
close to the beach on one of the Lofoten islands. Looking back it
reflects more of the salty/savory aspects of that specific tea but now
your summer pond not only matches the overall algaeish and herbal
facets better, but also reflects some of that teas aspects
("mustiness"/decomposition of organic matter) I didn´t mention.
Wonderful.
While I happily add "pondy" to my tea tasting vocabulary, I however
don´t see any advantage in a standardization of tea terminology but
still believe in using free and spontaneuos asscocations. Especially
after having tasted a large number of Darjeelings together with
professional tea tasters who indulge in endless repetitions of their
pretty limited professional terminology (woody, brisky, green, ...)
without deviating a single time from that muddy beaten track. IMO not
exactly helpful in communicating the impressions of a sensual
experience as complex as tea.

Karsten

writes:

[..."pondy"...]
While I happily add "pondy" to my tea tasting vocabulary, I however
don´t see any advantage in a standardization of tea terminology but
still believe in using free and spontaneuos asscocations. Especially
after having tasted a large number of Darjeelings together with
professional tea tasters who indulge in endless repetitions of their
pretty limited professional terminology (woody, brisky, green, ...)
without deviating a single time from that muddy beaten track. IMO
not exactly helpful in communicating the impressions of a sensual
experience as complex as tea.

I'm pretty ambivalent about trying to standardize tea vocabulary,
too. I wouldn't want to be limited to a finite list of adjectives,
certainly, but I do find it frustrating that we have so little idea
what the other is experiencing.

(Yes, I'm aware that there are philosophical issues here, and I don't
think it would help to ventilate them.)

I wonder if the professional tea taster jargon might be a place to
*start* (with black teas only, I'd imagine.) Does anyone know if the
tea tasters reliably agree with each other about whether a given tea
is woody, etc.? Has this been studied at Tocklai or someplace?

The tea taster jargon is just a *possible* starting place; there are
others out there, certainly in China.

Here's a possible comparison. I happen to care about music at least
as much as I do about tea. Music is pretty complex, too, not to
mention sensual. I find that I can glean a lot of useful information
- that is, bearing on whether I would actually *like* the music - from
reading music critics, often even those I dislike. I don't have the
same level of confidence reading what people write about tea, and it
bothers me.

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

Lewis 4/13/06

Michael Plant writes:

Lewis 4/13/06

writes:

Michael wrote:
Speaking of which, talk to us about your 12 year old green Menghai.

Brewed in my beloved, leaky 5$ Yixing pot it´s mellow and complex, a
pretty dense, "round" and savory spectrum with sweet notes of algae
and warm spices, delicate flashes of clove, very dynamic through the
steeps, sweet and silky almost creamy lingering aftertaste.

I think I know (and love) what you mean by algae: the taste and smell
of a freshwater pond in summer. For years I've thought that, if by
some miracle - which might be good or bad - our vocabulary for
describing tea gets standardized, the word for this will be "pondy".

Pondy it is, and I wonder if it could be what I affectionately call "musty"
on occasion. Michael

Well, it isn't what *I* call "musty": a kind of mammalian scent, I'd
say. When I think of the mustiness of a nice young Pu'er, I think of
my cat Buster's fur. We aren't getting this thing standardized, are we?

/Lew


No, we're not. But it's in the discussion of the words rather than the words
per se that get us there. Once we're standardized, we're boring. (Hey, some
of us perhaps accomplish that feat already.) I'll see if Jenny's fur works
as well as Buster's. I think perhaps that smell is "soupy."

Michael

[..."pondy"...]
While I happily add "pondy" to my tea tasting vocabulary, I however
don´t see any advantage in a standardization of tea terminology but
still believe in using free and spontaneuos asscocations. Especially
after having tasted a large number of Darjeelings together with
professional tea tasters who indulge in endless repetitions of their
pretty limited professional terminology (woody, brisky, green, ...)
without deviating a single time from that muddy beaten track. IMO
not exactly helpful in communicating the impressions of a sensual
experience as complex as tea.

I'm pretty ambivalent about trying to standardize tea vocabulary,
too.

Me too, needless to say.

I wouldn't want to be limited to a finite list of adjectives,
certainly, but I do find it frustrating that we have so little idea
what the other is experiencing.

We get there by expanding our analogies and discussions of them.

(Yes, I'm aware that there are philosophical issues here, and I don't
think it would help to ventilate them.)

Oh, it's warm out here in NYC. I'll just open that window. There.
Ventilated.

I wonder if the professional tea taster jargon might be a place to
*start* (with black teas only, I'd imagine.) Does anyone know if the
tea tasters reliably agree with each other about whether a given tea
is woody, etc.? Has this been studied at Tocklai or someplace?

If you are refering to the "Tippy Orange Pekoe" crowd, I'd say it's a total
crock of shit and worthy of the dustbin of tea history. If you mean Oleg's
taste without aroma system -- his Russian group's system, that is -- then we
might be on to something, at least for starters. (That was Tea Disc, I
think. Oleg of Russia suggests a system based on taste and mouth sensations
rather than aroma.

The tea taster jargon is just a *possible* starting place; there are
others out there, certainly in China.

Yup. (That's my contribution.)

Here's a possible comparison. I happen to care about music at least
as much as I do about tea. Music is pretty complex, too, not to
mention sensual. I find that I can glean a lot of useful information
- that is, bearing on whether I would actually *like* the music - from
reading music critics, often even those I dislike. I don't have the
same level of confidence reading what people write about tea, and it
bothers me.

Seriously, could you give an example of the kind of comment a music critic
might make that suggests to you how well you might like the music critiqued?
I think I see your point, but I'm not sure. I get a tremendous amount of
information form tea comments, but it is admittedly based on my (perceived)
knowledge of the speaker and his relationship to tea.

Finally, given the sole choice between a rigid standardization on the one
hand and "free and spontaeous association" on the other, I'd go with the
latter every time.

Michael

Michael Plant writes:

Lewis 4/13/06
[...pondy=musty?...]

Well, it isn't what *I* call "musty": a kind of mammalian scent, I'd
say. When I think of the mustiness of a nice young Pu'er, I think of
my cat Buster's fur. We aren't getting this thing standardized, are we?

No, we're not. But it's in the discussion of the words rather than the words
per se that get us there. Once we're standardized, we're boring. (Hey, some
of us perhaps accomplish that feat already.) I'll see if Jenny's fur works
as well as Buster's. I think perhaps that smell is "soupy."

I'm sure Buster would be interested in Jenny's fur. Shall we ask the
two of them if a tasting session would be agreeable?

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

Michael Plant writes:

[...Lew wondering...]
I wonder if the professional tea taster jargon might be a place to
*start* (with black teas only, I'd imagine.) Does anyone know if the
tea tasters reliably agree with each other about whether a given tea
is woody, etc.? Has this been studied at Tocklai or someplace?

If you are refering to the "Tippy Orange Pekoe" crowd, I'd say it's
a total crock of shit and worthy of the dustbin of tea history.

You mean you're sure that tea tasters, say, from two different
Calcutta brokers independently slurping the same DJ would describe it
in ways that don't overlap much? Or do you mean that, even if they
reliably agree, their vocabulary covers nothing that would be
interesting to refined palates like, uh, ours? Or what?

If you mean Oleg's taste without aroma system -- his Russian group's
system, that is -- then we might be on to something, at least for
starters. (That was Tea Disc, I think. Oleg of Russia suggests a
system based on taste and mouth sensations rather than aroma.

Do you have a pointer to this?

[...]
Here's a possible comparison. I happen to care about music at least
as much as I do about tea. Music is pretty complex, too, not to
mention sensual. I find that I can glean a lot of useful information
- that is, bearing on whether I would actually *like* the music - from
reading music critics, often even those I dislike. I don't have the
same level of confidence reading what people write about tea, and it
bothers me.

Seriously, could you give an example of the kind of comment a music
critic might make that suggests to you how well you might like the
music critiqued? I think I see your point, but I'm not sure.

I'd rather not. Why get into details of music and music criticism?
There are multiple approaches there, too, as you no doubt know.

I get a tremendous amount of information form tea comments, but it
is admittedly based on my (perceived) knowledge of the speaker and
his relationship to tea.

I didn't mean to say that I talk a lot here but find nothing worth
listening to; far from it. But the closer the conversation comes to
the actual experience of having tea in your mouth, the more opaque all
the words seem. (This is a first approximation, of course. Some of
us write evocatively about tastes and aromas, at least sometimes.)

Finally, given the sole choice between a rigid standardization on
the one hand and "free and spontaeous association" on the other, I'd
go with the latter every time.

Well, of course, but who's denying you the use of both? (Leaving
aside the question of whether standardization must be rigid.)

/Lew
4th steep of 10-year-old Hejiang/Ha Giang so-called Pu'er
---
Lew Perin /
http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html

Lewis 4/13/06

Michael Plant writes:

Lewis 4/13/06
[...pondy=musty?...]

Well, it isn't what *I* call "musty": a kind of mammalian scent, I'd
say. When I think of the mustiness of a nice young Pu'er, I think of
my cat Buster's fur. We aren't getting this thing standardized, are we?

No, we're not. But it's in the discussion of the words rather than the words
per se that get us there. Once we're standardized, we're boring. (Hey, some
of us perhaps accomplish that feat already.) I'll see if Jenny's fur works
as well as Buster's. I think perhaps that smell is "soupy."

I'm sure Buster would be interested in Jenny's fur. Shall we ask the
two of them if a tasting session would be agreeable?


I'll ask, but I guess we both know the answer. Unless Jenny's magnanimity
and trusting nature reach beyond reason, in which case I'll answer for her.
Michael

Lewis 4/13/06

Michael Plant writes:

[...Lew wondering...]
I wonder if the professional tea taster jargon might be a place to
*start* (with black teas only, I'd imagine.) Does anyone know if the
tea tasters reliably agree with each other about whether a given tea
is woody, etc.? Has this been studied at Tocklai or someplace?

If you are refering to the "Tippy Orange Pekoe" crowd, I'd say it's
a total crock of shit and worthy of the dustbin of tea history.

You mean you're sure that tea tasters, say, from two different
Calcutta brokers independently slurping the same DJ would describe it
in ways that don't overlap much? Or do you mean that, even if they
reliably agree, their vocabulary covers nothing that would be
interesting to refined palates like, uh, ours? Or what?

Well, actually that system could conceivably tell us much about the physical
nature of the leaf that goes into the tea, but nothing about the aroma or
taste of that tea, right? We learn whether the leaf is small or large,
broken or unbroken, includes buds or doesn't, and the like. My gentle
comment above spoke more to the fact that one man's FTGFOP is another man's
something else. It's not standardized, but the words suggest that it is. Or
perhaps I'm all wet. I sense a touch of sarcasm in your question. (I should
say that from what I understand, and I could be wrong, please correct me if
that's the case, this nomenclature does not involve tasting, it involves
looking.)

Michael

If you mean Oleg's taste without aroma system -- his Russian group's
system, that is -- then we might be on to something, at least for
starters. (That was Tea Disc, I think. Oleg of Russia suggests a
system based on taste and mouth sensations rather than aroma.

Do you have a pointer to this?

[...]
Here's a possible comparison. I happen to care about music at least
as much as I do about tea. Music is pretty complex, too, not to
mention sensual. I find that I can glean a lot of useful information
- that is, bearing on whether I would actually *like* the music - from
reading music critics, often even those I dislike. I don't have the
same level of confidence reading what people write about tea, and it
bothers me.

Seriously, could you give an example of the kind of comment a music
critic might make that suggests to you how well you might like the
music critiqued? I think I see your point, but I'm not sure.

I'd rather not. Why get into details of music and music criticism?
There are multiple approaches there, too, as you no doubt know.

I get a tremendous amount of information form tea comments, but it
is admittedly based on my (perceived) knowledge of the speaker and
his relationship to tea.

I didn't mean to say that I talk a lot here but find nothing worth
listening to; far from it. But the closer the conversation comes to
the actual experience of having tea in your mouth, the more opaque all
the words seem. (This is a first approximation, of course. Some of
us write evocatively about tastes and aromas, at least sometimes.)

Finally, given the sole choice between a rigid standardization on
the one hand and "free and spontaeous association" on the other, I'd
go with the latter every time.

Well, of course, but who's denying you the use of both? (Leaving
aside the question of whether standardization must be rigid.)

/Lew
4th steep of 10-year-old Hejiang/Ha Giang so-called Pu'er
---
Lew Perin /
http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html

Michael Plant writes:

Lewis 4/13/06

Michael Plant writes:

[...Lew wondering...]
I wonder if the professional tea taster jargon might be a place to
*start* (with black teas only, I'd imagine.) Does anyone know if the
tea tasters reliably agree with each other about whether a given tea
is woody, etc.? Has this been studied at Tocklai or someplace?

If you are refering to the "Tippy Orange Pekoe" crowd, I'd say it's
a total crock of shit and worthy of the dustbin of tea history.

You mean you're sure that tea tasters, say, from two different
Calcutta brokers independently slurping the same DJ would describe it
in ways that don't overlap much? Or do you mean that, even if they
reliably agree, their vocabulary covers nothing that would be
interesting to refined palates like, uh, ours? Or what?

Well, actually that system could conceivably tell us much about the physical
nature of the leaf that goes into the tea, but nothing about the aroma or
taste of that tea, right? We learn whether the leaf is small or large,
broken or unbroken, includes buds or doesn't, and the like. My gentle
comment above spoke more to the fact that one man's FTGFOP is another man's
something else. It's not standardized, but the words suggest that it is. Or
perhaps I'm all wet. I sense a touch of sarcasm in your question. (I should
say that from what I understand, and I could be wrong, please correct me if
that's the case, this nomenclature does not involve tasting, it involves
looking.)

Oh, I see what you mean. I wasn't referring to those abbreviations
regarding *dry leaf* appearance, but to the tea tasters' adjectives
for *liquor*. So was Karsten, unless I miss my guess.

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

Lewis 4/14/06

Michael Plant writes:

Lewis 4/13/06

Michael Plant writes:

[...Lew wondering...]
I wonder if the professional tea taster jargon might be a place to
*start* (with black teas only, I'd imagine.) Does anyone know if the
tea tasters reliably agree with each other about whether a given tea
is woody, etc.? Has this been studied at Tocklai or someplace?

If you are refering to the "Tippy Orange Pekoe" crowd, I'd say it's
a total crock of shit and worthy of the dustbin of tea history.

You mean you're sure that tea tasters, say, from two different
Calcutta brokers independently slurping the same DJ would describe it
in ways that don't overlap much? Or do you mean that, even if they
reliably agree, their vocabulary covers nothing that would be
interesting to refined palates like, uh, ours? Or what?

Well, actually that system could conceivably tell us much about the physical
nature of the leaf that goes into the tea, but nothing about the aroma or
taste of that tea, right? We learn whether the leaf is small or large,
broken or unbroken, includes buds or doesn't, and the like. My gentle
comment above spoke more to the fact that one man's FTGFOP is another man's
something else. It's not standardized, but the words suggest that it is. Or
perhaps I'm all wet. I sense a touch of sarcasm in your question. (I should
say that from what I understand, and I could be wrong, please correct me if
that's the case, this nomenclature does not involve tasting, it involves
looking.)

Oh, I see what you mean. I wasn't referring to those abbreviations
regarding *dry leaf* appearance, but to the tea tasters' adjectives
for *liquor*. So was Karsten, unless I miss my guess.

Oh, did I shift meaning? Sorry.