FoodBanter.com - View Single Post

Michael Plant

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