A poster said
"Penfolds wines, especially their Bin 389 Cab-Shiraz and their Bin 28
Kalimna Shiraz, so maybe try one if you haven't already."

I noticed at my supermarket this: 2004 (I think) & 2005 - same price
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=66nofpf
Koonunga Shiraz $9.15 for both years.

Here's something I read about it.
http://www.winorama.com.au/?p=1097

Regarding the poster's posting re Bin 389, I suppose this would be
worth a try? If so, would 2004 or 2005 be best. I have been leaning
toward buying 2005 vs 2004 -- don't know why except that: is it
supposed to be a "good year"?

Thanks.
Dee

"Dee Dee" wrote .....
>
> "Penfolds wines, especially their Bin 389 Cab-Shiraz and their
> Bin 28 Kalimna Shiraz, so maybe try one if you haven't already."
>
> I noticed at my supermarket this: 2004 (I think) & 2005 - same price
> http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=66nofpf
> Koonunga Shiraz $9.15 for both years.
>
> Regarding the poster's posting re Bin 389, I suppose this would be
> worth a try? If so, would 2004 or 2005 be best. I have been leaning
> toward buying 2005 vs 2004 -- don't know why except that: is it
> supposed to be a "good year"?

Take a look at this Penfolds site to get a handle on their (complex at
times) range of wines - you will see where Koonunga lies against the Bin
range of wines.

http://www.penfolds.com/collection/

I must say that when I am faced with two different vintages on a shell, I
usually purchase one of each - and form my own opinion which is to my
taste.

This is an excellent way of seeing for oneself the subtle differences which
the differing growing seasons bring to a wine.

--

st.helier

On Jul 7, 6:22 pm, "st.helier" > wrote:
> "Dee Dee" wrote .....
>
> Take a look at this Penfolds site to get a handle on their (complex at
> times) range of wines - you will see where Koonunga lies against the Bin
> range of wines.
>
> http://www.penfolds.com/collection/

Thanks so much. Great site; I like it.

I can't figure out what the Bin refers to; I know that all wines can
be put into bins; but it just doesn't fit into my head yet what it
means. Is this a designator that many wines put on their wines, or
does it just apply to Australian wines, or specifically to Penfolds'?

Thanks.

"Dee Dee" wrote .......
>
> I can't figure out what the Bin refers to; I know that all wines can
> be put into bins; but it just doesn't fit into my head yet what it
> means. Is this a designator that many wines put on their wines, or
> does it just apply to Australian wines, or specifically to Penfolds'?
>


The use of the word Bin is common within (but not exclusive to) the
Australian industry.

Originally, a bin was a storage area in a wine cellar. Wines generally were
allocated the same bin with each successive vintage.

Over time the Bin number also became associated with the wine, for example;
a Shiraz stored in Bin 707, and a Chardonnay in Bin 65, became brand names
depicting a style of wine.

It is safe to say that, nowadays, the Bin Number is nothing to do with the
origin of the grapes or where the wine has been stored - it's just another
name used by marketers; and as you rightly note, Penfolds, Wyndham and
Lindemans particularly, used Bin numbers.

Why, even Penfolds Grange is also known as Bin 95 !

--

st.helier

Dee Dee wrote:
> A poster said
> "Penfolds wines, especially their Bin 389 Cab-Shiraz and their Bin 28
> Kalimna Shiraz, so maybe try one if you haven't already."

C'est moi, c'est moi, I'm forced to admit. 'Tis I, I humbly reply. ;-)


>
> I noticed at my supermarket this: 2004 (I think) & 2005 - same price
> http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=66nofpf
> Koonunga Shiraz $9.15 for both years.

As you've probably read by now, the Koonunga series from Penfolds lies a
rung down from the Bin-labeled wines. I don't have enough experience
with them to provide any intelligent comment.


> Regarding the poster's posting re Bin 389, I suppose this would be
> worth a try? If so, would 2004 or 2005 be best. I have been leaning
> toward buying 2005 vs 2004 -- don't know why except that: is it
> supposed to be a "good year"?

Keep in mind that the Bin 389 (in my experience) is a wine for aging.
It starts off life rather austere, so it may not be the best choice for
near-term drinking. However, regarding your question: 2005 is accounted
the superior year in S. Australia by Robert Parker. Whether your tastes
conform to his own is a separate question. BTW, his Vintage Chart is
free for the asking:

http://www.erobertparker.com/info/vintagechart1.asp

Since I offer this up, though, I must also offer the caveat that vintage
charts are far from Gospel truth. At best, they're gross
generalizations. At worst, they attempt to cram stylistic differences
into some sort of numerical ranking.

As a fer instance: I think that '88 in Bordeaux is a year far more to my
liking than '90. Also, I feel that 2001 in the S. Rhone produced wines
more to my liking than either '98 or 2000 did. Yet, you'll see that in
all of those cases, Mr. Parker's vintage chart would tell you otherwise.
Why is that? I prefer wines more acidic than does Mr. Parker and I
also like the fruit to be ripe but not overripe. None of this, of
course, is reflected in the numbers shown in his chart. Caveat lector.

Good luck, Dee!
Mark Lipton



--
alt.food.wine FAQ: http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 00:47:20 -0400
Mark Lipton > wrote:

[]
> http://www.erobertparker.com/info/vintagechart1.asp
>
> Since I offer this up, though, I must also offer the caveat that vintage
> charts are far from Gospel truth. At best, they're gross
> generalizations. At worst, they attempt to cram stylistic differences
> into some sort of numerical ranking.
>
> As a fer instance: I think that '88 in Bordeaux is a year far more to my
> liking than '90. Also, I feel that 2001 in the S. Rhone produced wines
> more to my liking than either '98 or 2000 did. Yet, you'll see that in
> all of those cases, Mr. Parker's vintage chart would tell you otherwise.
> Why is that? I prefer wines more acidic than does Mr. Parker and I
> also like the fruit to be ripe but not overripe. None of this, of
> course, is reflected in the numbers shown in his chart. Caveat lector.
>

Yes indeed. And of course to reduce an entire vintage to gradations of
single percentage points is absurd (with all due respect to RP).

I have previously been bemused to note that Loire reds don't even get
a place on this list. How can that be? Must be the same excellence
year in and year out!

Also he tends to be rather extremist in his views... e.g. '02 in the Southern
Rhone he gives a 58C, which would lead one to think these wines should
be avoided at all costs. In fact there's plenty of good stuff there for those
willing to look (or who already know where to look!)

I was just about to post on RP's Napa vintage chart, appearing in a Business
Week that Adele picked up on a plane. (In this publication's language, the 02
Rhone vintage falls into the "unacceptable" category, as opposed to "appalling.")

Of 2002 -- 95 E (early maturing and accessible) -- RP writes:

"These are classic, super-ripe, powerful wines possessing low acidity and gorgeous
black current fruit intermixed with floral and spice notes. They are very flavorful,
but their opulence of fruit and magnificent concentration largely obscure some
high tannin levels. Such wines can be drunk young (because of their stunning
purity and texture) but they will age for 20 or 30 years, too."

Well.

A couple of points, I wonder if folks would care to express opinions.

1. Will these low acid wines really get better during 30 years? (That's why I
age my wine, if it's not getting better I'd rather drink it now.)

2. Aren't "super-ripe" wines less likely to age well?

3. Is it legitimate to qualify an entire vintage according to a flavor such as
"black current fruit?"

4. Is it misleading to call this an "early maturing" vintage, when lacking sufficient
acidity it is likely the tannins will dominate as the fruit fades over a few years?

I really do have a lot of respect for RP, but some over some of these reports
wafts a faint haze of hyperbole...

-E
--
Emery Davis
You can reply to ecom
by removing the well known companies
Questions about wine? Visit http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com

Emery Davis wrote:

> I have previously been bemused to note that Loire reds don't even get
> a place on this list. How can that be? Must be the same excellence
> year in and year out!

They get just as much attention in that vintage chart as they within the
pages of the WA ;-) I think that, in 20 years of reading the WA I've
seen reviews on Joguet's Chinons and that's been about it. With the
addition of a new reviewer (David Schildknecht) who's to cover Burgundy,
Beaujolais, the Loire, Alsace, Germany and Austria, we may see a change
in that attitude. BTW, Mr. Schildknecht's palate is quite highly
thought of in the circles within which I run, so soon we may be seeing
the era of 95-point Muscadets and Cour-Chevernys.


> Of 2002 -- 95 E (early maturing and accessible) -- RP writes:
>
> "These are classic, super-ripe, powerful wines possessing low acidity and gorgeous
> black current fruit intermixed with floral and spice notes. They are very flavorful,
> but their opulence of fruit and magnificent concentration largely obscure some
> high tannin levels. Such wines can be drunk young (because of their stunning
> purity and texture) but they will age for 20 or 30 years, too."
>
> Well.
>
> A couple of points, I wonder if folks would care to express opinions.
>
> 1. Will these low acid wines really get better during 30 years? (That's why I
> age my wine, if it's not getting better I'd rather drink it now.)

I think that the jury's out on that. Certainly, as California Cabernets
have moved to a more fruit-forward, low-acid style since '80 or so,
many people have noted a decline in ageworthiness, too. Time will tell
if that same trend in Bordeaux since '90 produces the same results. I
won't be betting the farm against it.

>
> 2. Aren't "super-ripe" wines less likely to age well?

That too is subject to debate. Mr. Parker's "super-ripe" is many people
surmaturité, and there's a lot of feeling that those wines have too few
acids for proper aging. Again, time will tell.

>
> 3. Is it legitimate to qualify an entire vintage according to a flavor such as
> "black current fruit?"

Doubtful.

>
> 4. Is it misleading to call this an "early maturing" vintage, when lacking sufficient
> acidity it is likely the tannins will dominate as the fruit fades over a few years?

That will likely depend on the kind of tannins. If they are soft now,
then probably it will be an early-maturing year. This falls under the
category of "phenolic ripeness." I would imaging that Mr. Parker's use
of "early maturing" is proxy for "soft tannins"
>
> I really do have a lot of respect for RP, but some over some of these reports
> wafts a faint haze of hyperbole...

His language does tend to be overblown. I once saw a lexical analysis
of his metaphors: "liquid Viagra" and "molten blueberries" were
frequently encountered and far from the most egregious examples.

Mark Lipton
--
alt.food.wine FAQ: http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com

On Jul 8, 11:26?pm, Mark Lipton > wrote:
> Emery Davis wrote:
> > I have previously been bemused to note that Loire reds don't even get
> > a place on this list. How can that be? Must be the same excellence
> > year in and year out!
>
> They get just as much attention in that vintage chart as they within the
> pages of the WA ;-) I think that, in 20 years of reading the WA I've
> seen reviews on Joguet's Chinons and that's been about it. With the
> addition of a new reviewer (David Schildknecht) who's to cover Burgundy,
> Beaujolais, the Loire, Alsace, Germany and Austria, we may see a change
> in that attitude. BTW, Mr. Schildknecht's palate is quite highly
> thought of in the circles within which I run, so soon we may be seeing
> the era of 95-point Muscadets and Cour-Chevernys.
>
> > Of 2002 -- 95 E (early maturing and accessible) -- RP writes:
>
> > "These are classic, super-ripe, powerful wines possessing low acidity and gorgeous
> > black current fruit intermixed with floral and spice notes. They are very flavorful,
> > but their opulence of fruit and magnificent concentration largely obscure some
> > high tannin levels. Such wines can be drunk young (because of their stunning
> > purity and texture) but they will age for 20 or 30 years, too."
>
> > Well.
>
> > A couple of points, I wonder if folks would care to express opinions.
>
> > 1. Will these low acid wines really get better during 30 years? (That's why I
> > age my wine, if it's not getting better I'd rather drink it now.)
>
> I think that the jury's out on that. Certainly, as California Cabernets
> have moved to a more fruit-forward, low-acid style since '80 or so,
> many people have noted a decline in ageworthiness, too. Time will tell
> if that same trend in Bordeaux since '90 produces the same results. I
> won't be betting the farm against it.
>
>
>
> > 2. Aren't "super-ripe" wines less likely to age well?
>
> That too is subject to debate. Mr. Parker's "super-ripe" is many people
> surmaturit , and there's a lot of feeling that those wines have too few
> acids for proper aging. Again, time will tell.
>
>
>
> > 3. Is it legitimate to qualify an entire vintage according to a flavor such as
> > "black current fruit?"
>
> Doubtful.
>
>
>
> > 4. Is it misleading to call this an "early maturing" vintage, when lacking sufficient
> > acidity it is likely the tannins will dominate as the fruit fades over a few years?
>
> That will likely depend on the kind of tannins. If they are soft now,
> then probably it will be an early-maturing year. This falls under the
> category of "phenolic ripeness." I would imaging that Mr. Parker's use
> of "early maturing" is proxy for "soft tannins"
>
>
>
> > I really do have a lot of respect for RP, but some over some of these reports
> > wafts a faint haze of hyperbole...
>
> His language does tend to be overblown. I once saw a lexical analysis
> of his metaphors: "liquid Viagra" and "molten blueberries" were
> frequently encountered and far from the most egregious examples.
>
> Mark Lipton
> --
> alt.food.wine FAQ: http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com

He once used the term "filagreed steel" to describe Trimbach Clos St
Hune. How wold the taste of filagreed steel differ from steel?

On Jul 8, 11:26?pm, Mark Lipton > wrote:
> Emery Davis wrote:
> > I have previously been bemused to note that Loire reds don't even get
> > a place on this list. How can that be? Must be the same excellence
> > year in and year out!
>
> They get just as much attention in that vintage chart as they within the
> pages of the WA ;-) I think that, in 20 years of reading the WA I've
> seen reviews on Joguet's Chinons and that's been about it. With the
> addition of a new reviewer (David Schildknecht) who's to cover Burgundy,
> Beaujolais, the Loire, Alsace, Germany and Austria, we may see a change
> in that attitude. BTW, Mr. Schildknecht's palate is quite highly
> thought of in the circles within which I run, so soon we may be seeing
> the era of 95-point Muscadets and Cour-Chevernys.
>
> > Of 2002 -- 95 E (early maturing and accessible) -- RP writes:
>
> > "These are classic, super-ripe, powerful wines possessing low acidity and gorgeous
> > black current fruit intermixed with floral and spice notes. They are very flavorful,
> > but their opulence of fruit and magnificent concentration largely obscure some
> > high tannin levels. Such wines can be drunk young (because of their stunning
> > purity and texture) but they will age for 20 or 30 years, too."
>
> > Well.
>
> > A couple of points, I wonder if folks would care to express opinions.
>
> > 1. Will these low acid wines really get better during 30 years? (That's why I
> > age my wine, if it's not getting better I'd rather drink it now.)
>
> I think that the jury's out on that. Certainly, as California Cabernets
> have moved to a more fruit-forward, low-acid style since '80 or so,
> many people have noted a decline in ageworthiness, too. Time will tell
> if that same trend in Bordeaux since '90 produces the same results. I
> won't be betting the farm against it.
>
>
>
> > 2. Aren't "super-ripe" wines less likely to age well?
>
> That too is subject to debate. Mr. Parker's "super-ripe" is many people
> surmaturit , and there's a lot of feeling that those wines have too few
> acids for proper aging. Again, time will tell.
>
>
>
> > 3. Is it legitimate to qualify an entire vintage according to a flavor such as
> > "black current fruit?"
>
> Doubtful.
>
>
>
> > 4. Is it misleading to call this an "early maturing" vintage, when lacking sufficient
> > acidity it is likely the tannins will dominate as the fruit fades over a few years?
>
> That will likely depend on the kind of tannins. If they are soft now,
> then probably it will be an early-maturing year. This falls under the
> category of "phenolic ripeness." I would imaging that Mr. Parker's use
> of "early maturing" is proxy for "soft tannins"
>
>
>
> > I really do have a lot of respect for RP, but some over some of these reports
> > wafts a faint haze of hyperbole...
>
> His language does tend to be overblown. I once saw a lexical analysis
> of his metaphors: "liquid Viagra" and "molten blueberries" were
> frequently encountered and far from the most egregious examples.
>
> Mark Lipton
> --
> alt.food.wine FAQ: http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com

I know David Schildknecht as he from Cinci and has been in the retail/
wholesale side of the wine business for years in the Ohio market. His
knowledge of German, Austrian and Alsatian wine is formidable and he
is a wine geek's wine geek. He has a good if not eclectic palate. I
mean no disrespect and this is an observation not a criticism but I
think that he sometimes is more enamoured with the makers of wine than
the wines themselves which can happen when you have to form personal
relationships with winery personnel in order to ensure a supply as a
whoelsaler/ retailer.

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 23:26:27 -0400
Mark Lipton > wrote:

> Emery Davis wrote:
>
> > I have previously been bemused to note that Loire reds don't even get
> > a place on this list. How can that be? Must be the same excellence
> > year in and year out!
>
> They get just as much attention in that vintage chart as they within the
> pages of the WA ;-) I think that, in 20 years of reading the WA I've
> seen reviews on Joguet's Chinons and that's been about it. With the
> addition of a new reviewer (David Schildknecht) who's to cover Burgundy,
> Beaujolais, the Loire, Alsace, Germany and Austria, we may see a change
> in that attitude. BTW, Mr. Schildknecht's palate is quite highly
> thought of in the circles within which I run, so soon we may be seeing
> the era of 95-point Muscadets and Cour-Chevernys.
>

I guess I think that would be a "bad thing" from our point of view... On the
other hand can't help but cheer for some of the Loire makers, forced to sell
really brilliant wine in the under 10 category.

[]
> > 1. Will these low acid wines really get better during 30 years? (That's why I
> > age my wine, if it's not getting better I'd rather drink it now.)
>
> I think that the jury's out on that. Certainly, as California Cabernets
> have moved to a more fruit-forward, low-acid style since '80 or so,
> many people have noted a decline in ageworthiness, too. Time will tell
> if that same trend in Bordeaux since '90 produces the same results. I
> won't be betting the farm against it.
>

I guess. My experience is clear but not definitive. For me it takes sufficient
acid to go the distance. Low acid wines just get flabby.

> >
> > 2. Aren't "super-ripe" wines less likely to age well?
>
> That too is subject to debate. Mr. Parker's "super-ripe" is many people
> surmaturité, and there's a lot of feeling that those wines have too few
> acids for proper aging. Again, time will tell.
>

Well, yes. But surely we agree that super-ripe borders (even if it avoids)
being over-ripe? Again only my experience, but I've found such wines tend
to develop "stewed fruit" characteristics that can resemble oxidization.

> >
> > 3. Is it legitimate to qualify an entire vintage according to a flavor such as
> > "black current fruit?"
>
> Doubtful.

Not if there was a toxic leak from the local perfume factory!

>
> >
> > 4. Is it misleading to call this an "early maturing" vintage, when lacking sufficient
> > acidity it is likely the tannins will dominate as the fruit fades over a few years?
>
> That will likely depend on the kind of tannins. If they are soft now,
> then probably it will be an early-maturing year. This falls under the
> category of "phenolic ripeness." I would imaging that Mr. Parker's use
> of "early maturing" is proxy for "soft tannins"

OK, I guess I've known wines with soft tannins to go the distance.

> >
> > I really do have a lot of respect for RP, but some over some of these reports
> > wafts a faint haze of hyperbole...
>
> His language does tend to be overblown. I once saw a lexical analysis
> of his metaphors: "liquid Viagra" and "molten blueberries" were
> frequently encountered and far from the most egregious examples.
>

I regret my own language above: it would have been far more poetic to write
"wafts a faint hyperbolic haze." Oh well.

Liquid Viagra, eh? That may tell me more than I want to know about Mr. Parker.
Anyway I imagine most men would agree that too much of the jammy high alcohol
juice that RP so adores tends rather to wilt the ardour...

-E

--
Emery Davis
You can reply to ecom
by removing the well known companies
Questions about wine? Visit http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com

On Jul 8, 12:47 am, Mark Lipton > wrote:
> Dee Dee wrote:
> > A poster said
> > "Penfolds wines, especially their Bin 389 Cab-Shiraz and their Bin 28
> > Kalimna Shiraz, so maybe try one if you haven't already."
>
> C'est moi, c'est moi, I'm forced to admit. 'Tis I, I humbly reply. ;-)
>

> > I noticed at my supermarket this: 2004 (I think) & 2005 - same price
> >http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=66nofpf
> > Koonunga Shiraz $9.15 for both years.
>
> As you've probably read by now, the Koonunga series from Penfolds lies a
> rung down from the Bin-labeled wines. I don't have enough experience
> with them to provide any intelligent comment.
>

> Keep in mind that the Bin 389 (in my experience) is a wine for aging.
> It starts off life rather austere, so it may not be the best choice for
> near-term drinking.
> Good luck, Dee!
> Mark Lipton

Thanks again, Mark. Today I bought Penfolds Bin 389 Cabernet Shiraz
2004 at Costco $18.99.
and thanks for the link to the vintage chart.
Dee

On Jul 8, 1:16 am, Dee Dee > wrote:
> A poster said
> "Penfolds wines, especially their Bin 389 Cab-Shiraz and their Bin 28
> Kalimna Shiraz, so maybe try one if you haven't already."
>
> I noticed at my supermarket this: 2004 (I think) & 2005 - same pricehttp://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=66nofpf
> Koonunga Shiraz $9.15 for both years.
>
> Here's something I read about it.http://www.winorama.com.au/?p=1097
>
> Regarding the poster's posting re Bin 389, I suppose this would be
> worth a try? If so, would 2004 or 2005 be best. I have been leaning
> toward buying 2005 vs 2004 -- don't know why except that: is it
> supposed to be a "good year"?
>
> Thanks.
> Dee

Regardless, if you open a bottle of this stuff, toss us some notes.
Here in southern China, basically the only AU brand that's acceptable
here is Penfolds. I thought about trying one of these after I hit the
lottery...that is, so I can afford the ridiculous mark-up designed for
the Chinese wine market.

On Jul 8, 4:16 am, Mydnight > wrote:

> Regardless, if you open a bottle of this stuff, toss us some notes.
> Here in southern China, basically the only AU brand that's acceptable
> here is Penfolds. I thought about trying one of these after I hit the
> lottery...that is, so I can afford the ridiculous mark-up designed for
> the Chinese wine market.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

First of all, many, many thanks Mark and Emery and St. Helier for your
thoughtful replies.

Mydnight, perhaps I've asked this before and you've answered and I've
forgotten, but I don't think so. What the H--- are you doing in
China? (Haven't I seen your postings about tea, food, etc. on another
site(s)?)

I'd like to say that I'll exchange the Penfolds 'notes' for the answer
to your location, but I can't in good conscience do that.

I have a fondness in my heart for China, having been there only once;
but this is slowing waning with all the publicity lately.

Don't be so mysterious, Mydnight.
Dee Dee

> Mydnight, perhaps I've asked this before and you've answered and I've
> forgotten, but I don't think so. What the H--- are you doing in
> China? (Haven't I seen your postings about tea, food, etc. on another
> site(s)?)
>
> I'd like to say that I'll exchange the Penfolds 'notes' for the answer
> to your location, but I can't in good conscience do that.
>
> I have a fondness in my heart for China, having been there only once;
> but this is slowing waning with all the publicity lately.
>
> Don't be so mysterious, Mydnight.
> Dee Dee

I am in Guangdong province, Dongguan city, Dongcheng district. If you
are a frequenter of RFDT (tea), you more than likely have seen my
posts and as of late they have been mainly warning people against
drinking too much "famous" tea. I have lived in China for a little
over 3 years.

Don't have a fondness for China anymore unless you are talking about
the inner, nicer provinces. I'm down here with the scum in
Guangdong. Here for business...that's all. Chinese fluency pretty
much takes away any mysterious aspect of China and replaces it
basically with the fact that there isn't much culturally going on
where I am; hasn't been for about 50 years.

Anyway, the only recognizable name in wine that I can see here is
Penfolds; the rest are supermarket grade rung stock wines with a 50
percent, sometimes more, mark-up on its being "foreign". Foreign dirt
is more expensive than domestic.

Sorry, I'm negative.

On Jul 9, 12:25 am, Mydnight > wrote:
>>
> I am in Guangdong province, Dongguan city, Dongcheng district. If you
> are a frequenter of RFDT (tea), you more than likely have seen my
> posts and as of late they have been mainly warning people against
> drinking too much "famous" tea. I have lived in China for a little
> over 3 years.
>
>
> Sorry, I'm negative.

Yes, I have seen your tea posts; and frankly took them very much to
heart. I threw out all of the Chinese tea. DH stopped drinking tea
completely (we had stopped drinking coffee [at home] several months
before.) The only reason I'm drinking tea now just a few days before
that, I found some Darjeeling (Tumsong Estate) tea that has a non-
biting mild taste. I bought 8 boxes of 100 packs (indivdual tea bags
completely vacuumed sealed). I hope it is not contaminated.

No problem with being negative; no apologies needed.
Dee

> Yes, I have seen your tea posts; and frankly took them very much to
> heart. I threw out all of the Chinese tea. DH stopped drinking tea
> completely (we had stopped drinking coffee [at home] several months
> before.) The only reason I'm drinking tea now just a few days before
> that, I found some Darjeeling (Tumsong Estate) tea that has a non-
> biting mild taste. I bought 8 boxes of 100 packs (indivdual tea bags
> completely vacuumed sealed). I hope it is not contaminated.
>
> No problem with being negative; no apologies needed.
> Dee

Chinese greens from the deep countryside, teas that you could never
get from "the market" (if you dare call it that), are quite good for
you. Cuts fat; reduces risk of cancer; all that. The market
stuff...LongJing, TieGuanYin...you think wine additives are bad? Tea
additives are like a million times better than freon or cooling fluid.

Taiwan still has clean tea. Insist your vendor peddles you stuff from
Taiwan.

I guess negativism is realism.