Steeping tea in milk
 

Hello all,

Does anyone know if steeping your tea directly in heated milk (i.e. no
water involved in the process) will affect it's infusion? Will using
milk only decrease the amount of "goodstuffs" (for lack of a better
word... and knowledge) that's extracted from the tea leaves?

Thanks.

Steeping tea in milk
 

wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Does anyone know if steeping your tea directly in heated milk (i.e. no
> water involved in the process) will affect it's infusion? Will using
> milk only decrease the amount of "goodstuffs" (for lack of a better
> word... and knowledge) that's extracted from the tea leaves?
>
> Thanks.

Let me preface this by saying I have never tried this and am not an
expert or chemistry-type person... but, I would think it would not
steep well. It would seem to me that the type of milk would be
important. Skim would most likely produce better results of all the
types of milk. I would think the fat content would inhibit steeping to
some degree.

The best I can say would be to try it out and report back. Good luck!

- Dominic

Steeping tea in milk
 

> wrote:
>
>Does anyone know if steeping your tea directly in heated milk (i.e. no
>water involved in the process) will affect it's infusion? Will using
>milk only decrease the amount of "goodstuffs" (for lack of a better
>word... and knowledge) that's extracted from the tea leaves?

Yes, it changes the way the tea tastes considerably, because you are now
doing an oil extraction as well. I think the result is rather unpleasant
but some folks like it for spiced masala teas.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Steeping tea in milk
 

The chemical reaction of the polyphenols in tea with proteins and fats
contained in milk has been scientifically researched. The latest
consensus I heard of (forgot the source) says that adding milk doesn´t
significantly "block" the polyphenols.

You might want to try a mix of 50% water/50% milk as it is widely
practised in India and Nepal. Bring to a boil, add tea (& chai spices),
steep, "enjoy".

Karsten

Steeping tea in milk
 

Agree. This is very very common in India and used this way for CTC tea.

The uppity sahibs who use the "teapot" and the "tea cozy" and brew
Darjeelings don't add milk till the tea is poured into the cup. The others
get the 50-50 mixture to boil, throw in the CTC, boil for 30 seconds and
simmer some more. In some households, more water+milk+CTC is added to this
during the day as more tea is needed.

--
Aloke
----
to reply by e-mail remove 123 and change invalid to com

> wrote in message
oups.com...
The chemical reaction of the polyphenols in tea with proteins and fats
contained in milk has been scientifically researched. The latest
consensus I heard of (forgot the source) says that adding milk doesn´t
significantly "block" the polyphenols.

You might want to try a mix of 50% water/50% milk as it is widely
practised in India and Nepal. Bring to a boil, add tea (& chai spices),
steep, "enjoy".

Karsten

Steeping tea in milk
 

Steeping tea in milk
 

Dominic 4/11/06


>
> wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> Does anyone know if steeping your tea directly in heated milk (i.e. no
>> water involved in the process) will affect it's infusion? Will using
>> milk only decrease the amount of "goodstuffs" (for lack of a better
>> word... and knowledge) that's extracted from the tea leaves?
>>
>> Thanks.
>
> Let me preface this by saying I have never tried this and am not an
> expert or chemistry-type person... but, I would think it would not
> steep well. It would seem to me that the type of milk would be
> important. Skim would most likely produce better results of all the
> types of milk. I would think the fat content would inhibit steeping to
> some degree.

Buffalo, and boil the shit out of it!

Steeping tea in milk
 

On 11 Apr 2006 15:06:24 -0700, wrote:

>You might want to try a mix of 50% water/50% milk as it is widely
>practised in India and Nepal. Bring to a boil, add tea (& chai spices),
>steep, "enjoy".

Did you not just forget something here? The sickly sweet taste!

Add 2 or 3 large spoonfuls of sugar, per glass of tea. Real chai
should always be served in glasses, unless of course you can have it
in a little handmade clay cup, disposable, out the railway window
along with banana peel and other leftovers.


Lars
Stockholm

Steeping tea in milk
 

>> You might want to try a mix of 50% water/50% milk as it is widely
>> practised in India and Nepal. Bring to a boil, add tea (& chai spices),
>> steep, "enjoy".
>
> Did you not just forget something here? The sickly sweet taste!

Rather negative description of proper chai, eh? Add processed
white sugar to anything, and you'll drive the life right out of it. For
chai, put in jagery, or however you spell it. That's a rough raw sugar that
adds flavor and sweetness to the brew. And for the love of God, don't under
any circumstances buy any product called "chai"; instead, make it up
yourself. I have spoken.

OP is of course correct on all counts.

Michael

Steeping tea in milk
 

Lars schrieb:
> Did you not just forget something here? The sickly sweet taste!

Not exactly forgotten, I still get the shivers when I just think of it,
yuk ...
My first words in Hindi some x years ago: "bi na chini" - no sugar
(please).

Karsten [12 yr old green Menghai in der Tasse]

Steeping tea in milk segue into Menghai
 

Steeping tea in milk segue into Menghai
 

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.
What I almost like most about this tea is the lovely color it develops
after around the 3rd steep, a vibrating salmon pink that tends toward
indian red.
My personal #1 in my humble collection, complexitywise it will serve as
a kind of touchstone during my next trip to Yunnan.

Karsten [next candidate: 2006 bio-organic FF Darjeeling Pouchong]

Steeping tea in milk segue into Menghai
 

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".

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

Steeping tea in milk segue into Menghai
 

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

Steeping tea in milk segue into Menghai
 

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

Steeping tea in milk segue into Menghai
 

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

Standardizing vocabulary (was: Steeping tea in milk segue into Menghai)
 

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

Steeping tea in milk segue into Menghai
 

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

Standardizing vocabulary (was: Steeping tea in milk segueinto Menghai)
 

>> [..."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

Steeping tea in milk segue into Menghai
 

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

Standardizing vocabulary (was: Steeping tea in milk segue into Menghai)
 

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

Steeping tea in milk segue into Menghai
 

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

Standardizing vocabulary (was: Steeping tea in milk segueinto Menghai)
 

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

Standardizing vocabulary (was: Steeping tea in milk segue into Menghai)
 

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

Standardizing vocabulary (was: Steeping tea in milk segueinto Menghai)
 

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.