Sorry, Michael -

With all due respect, this is a legend. I have had such shitty coffee at SB
that you wouldn't believe.
And I am not talking about airport SB, which are all below standard, but
at-mall variety that are supposed to be better ones.

Sasha.

"Michael Plant" > wrote in message
...
> /6/04
>
>>
>> Actually, as an Asian who love tea, and who have been corresponding to
>> many
>> non-Asian tea lovers, I find the ones most quick to voice criticism on
>> tea
>> and its culture are non-Asians. Whether the criticism is borne out of
>> ignorance, misguided knowledge, or half-knowledge, I'm not certain, but I
>> often find their arguments leaning on personal preferences and partial
>> knowledge.
>>
>> If I were to drink a lousy Starbuck latte in one place, I don't think I
>> have
>> the right to dismiss that all Starbuck lattes are terrible.
>
> Actually, you probably do; because Starbucks prides itself on consistency
> from time to time and store to store.
>
>>Likewise with
>> Pu'er, some of us may have a bad experience with Pu'er, and readily
>> dismiss
>> the tea whenever it is mentioned. I believe we should give the tea more
>> opportunity to unravel itself to us before we judge it.
>
> Absolutely right, in my opinion. But, there is a "Pu-erh taste" that might
> just not be to everybody's liking. There are qualities that tie green
> Pu-erh, for example, together.
>>
>> I think the biggest misconception here is that people believe Pu'er must
>> come with mold. The truth is, classes of aspergillus niger, penicillium,
>> rhizopus, aspergillus gloucus, saccharomyces, and bacterium are active
>> only
>> during the Wo Dui process. Through a system of delicate balance, these
>> active 'agents' break down the phytochemical structure of the tea while
>> fighting to cross out each other. The tea leaves need to be baked again
>> at
>> high heat to kill the bacteria and Fungi. These loose leaves are then
>> either steamed once more before compressing or left as loose leaf.
>> Whichever the 'fate', Pu'er from this stage onwards does not neccesary
>> need
>> a host of fungi or bacteria, the oxidation and fermentation should wholly
>> take place within the leaves' phytochemical structure, hence the golden
>> rule
>> of storing Pu'er is to keep it in a area where it is airy and dry - to
>> prevent mold.
>
> OK so far.
>>
>> Reading over the records and books on Pu'er, I believe that this praise
>> over
>> 'moldy' Pu'er is stemmed from an earlier misconception, where the old
>> Pu'er
>> hunted down by early Taiwanese Pu'er fanatic fans were found in old
>> Hongkong
>> eateries, where the teas were not stored properly.
>
> Well, if it's in really bad condition, send it on to America and tell us
> its
> rare. That usually does it.
>>
>> Pu'er liquor should be amber and clear, and the steeping not too long
>> till
>> it yields a mucky black sludge. Dried cooked Pu'er should smell of clean
>> old libraries, not a fishery or warehouse.
>
> I love clean old libraries, but what about that clean earth/loam/peat/
> wet-leaves-beneath-my-feet smell that I find often in nice cooked Pu-erhs?
> I like that. As for old books, I am happily reading one, but steeping it
> would be another matter entirely. I'm trying to get a handle on your
> association here.
>
>>If you find mold on the Pu'er
>> cake, take a soft brush to brush it off. And when you brew, use very hot
>> water and discard the 1st round. A good cup of Pu'er is one where you
>> can
>> see the bottom of the cup through the amber liquor, if you see your own
>> reflection staring back on the dark surface, then your tea is probably
>> too
>> strong.
>
> I started out with Pu-erhs thinking that an opaque black liquor was
> proper.
> Now, I know better. Here's my question, though: Would a "good" Pu-erh,
> cooked or uncooked, ever become opaque? Would that opacity indicate
> something else, such as wet stored Pu-erh?
>
> Another Pu-erh question: There seems to be a common idea that adolescent
> Pu-erhs taste harsher than those that are either younger and older. That
> is
> to say, a 7 year old will be harsh, while a two year old or 20 year old
> will
> not. Trouble is, I've not found this to be so for the most part. Any
> ideas?
> Perhaps it's because "harsh" is too harsh a word, and these are relative
> qualities. Whatever.
>
> Michael
>
>