Tag Archives: puerh tea

Puerh Update: Jade Mark

Posted on by Yang-chu
08 Feb

This Puerh Update is on the ’14 Jade Mark, Zhongcha.  This factory constantly merits reminding the reader that all Zhongcha after ’06 refers exclusively to the Kunming Tea Factory.  As a whole KMTF is more highly regarded for their bricks and ripe productions.  They do and have been making raw cakes but have been overshadowed by Xiaguan and Dayi.

KMTF has continued with producing “mark” category productions, though their recipes aren’t the same as back in the day, and experts will tell you that all the classic recipes are marked by periodicity, that is they change from time to time.  KMTF also added “marks” that never existed, such as the Jade Mark.

The Jade Mark has distinguished itself from most ZC productions in that it presented itself as a vivacious sweet and citrusy raw that was immediately drinkable.  Obviously, this raised the issue of whether they had succumbed to the bad practice of oolong processing, a sleight of hand that provides a certain immediate gratification to the drinker but possesses zero storage potential.

Jade Mark is aging properly.  It is lasting now for more infusions, meaning the sweetness lasts longer.  There is a sturdiness of character that comes with some bitterness; it strikes of good quality Bulang.  At the same time and especially in later infusions, the huigan is simultaneous with the liquor, along with an aftertaste of tangerine peel.  None of this is evident with oolong processed productions.

I’ve always liked the Jade Mark.  I like to see how it was never overly sweet but that as it ages the sweetness is deepening.  It speaks to the quality of the underlying organic material.  I’ll post some shot later.  At only six years old it still qualifies as a very young and green raw puerh.

 

Puerh Storage Horrors!

Posted on by Yang-chu
04 Feb

Puerh Storage Horrors– Realtime tales from the Puerh Junky Crypt

Last time we left our villain, the Puerh Junky, he was lamenting the performance of his totem-totaling icon ’04 Monkey, 6FTM.  That was in summer of ’20.  At the time it was removed from the box and placed in plastic upon the top-shelf of the somewhat controlled conditions of the unplugged refrigerator.

In the meantime, an entire stack of boxed cakes all ’04 and younger were getting the life sucked from them through those damn boxes.  Maybe if wrapped in plastic then enclosed in the box. . .  but otherwise a big thumbs down on boxing.  Certainly cardboard boxes.  If you had a nice clay box, that would be another story.  Cardboard is a horrible storage vessel.  It sucks moisture from the tea while imparting a deadening taste.

Using the boxes was conceived with keeping the fancier productions all nice and tidy.  You can write the name and year on the box and quickly identify what you want.  But it’s horrible.  It makes the tea horrible and robs it of qi.

Case:  I tasted three of my most powerful productions after finding my ’03 7532, DQZ turned horrible.  I put it in a plastic baggie and it’s now in the TTP.  The three from yesterday were not as wretched but that 7532 has been stored since ’15, where the others from around ’17.  Each of the three showed marked dimunition in expression, while being rather dead.

“8582” Blue Lable Big Qi, Root beer/Zen

One basis of direct comparison was between the ’03 Lily of the Valley,YPH, one stored in container and the other in a box in the fridge.  The former has gotten much more succulent and refined in its floral presentation, where the latter is muted and is flatter than it should be.

The final test was with the ’04 Monkey, which had been destroyed by the box but wrapped in plastic and kept on the top-shelf of fridge in an effort to resuscitate it.  It is now fine but quite different from what I ever remember it being, particularly in the later infusions where there is much more apple and sweetness.  The floral has definitely entered a different stage.  There’s still much bitterness if over brewed and drunk hot, but as it cools the bitterness mellows and the astringency is not worth mentioning.  After six months removed from the box much more life has returned to the cake, though its expression either much different due to age or what was removed by the time in the box.  None of the other lunar productions are expressing fruitiness of this order.

All of the box-abused have been placed in plastic and in a container.  In July I’ll test a few.  Fortunately, only the most unique of the generic label productions were affected.  I used to think plastic was a bad thing.  That’s much less a concern than protection of wrapper, conserving leaves that escape from the bag, and additional transformation capacity.  Some bags are lined in what in a waxier plastic than the plane cellophane but they all work far better than boxes.

Boxes are a horror for storage but it doesn’t spell the bloody end, only a few months in plastic with some likely changes in character.

 

Puerh Rating: Orchid Vibe

Posted on by Yang-chu
19 Dec

The Puerh Junky Rating System (PJRS) takes on Orchid Vibe.  Offered in 2011, it represents LME’s continued reliable ripe puerh production style.  One overriding observation is a sweetness to LME’s ripe house style.  The Orchid Vibe is no exception.

After three rounds the total was as follows:

  • Aroma          11
  • Clarity          10
  • Sweetness   13
  • Viscosity       15
  • Astringency  14
  • Huigan         13
  • Qi                  8

Reflections on Orchid Vibe

Marshmallow and milk chocolate.  There’s a very interesting squinch of sour at the back end that makes it cheeky.  In later infusions the vanilla marshmallow fades into dark wood terrain that has a faint evocation of rubber bands.   There’s also a pervasive blanket of talcum throughout.

Conclusions

Orchid Vibe is a solid everyday drinker for those who like their ripes with a darker edge.  It shares attributes with the “55” in terms of sweetness and woodiness, but Orchid Vibe starts out with much more vanilla and marshmallow before expressing wood.  “55” is woody throughout with more camphor and tannins.  The sour element in this ripe makes it unsuitable for pushing, as previously noted.  It nonetheless strikes the Puerh Junky as being exceedingly well executed.  The qi on this is a super creeper, 15m later the effects were going stronger than during the session, headiness and started feeling hungry.  Puerh Rating:  Orchid Vibe

83/105, B

 

 

Puerh Readiness

Posted on by Yang-chu
16 Oct

The Puerh Junky in me got to pondering the determinants of Puerh Readiness.  Surely, this is not a construct.  There must be objective standards upon which to base puerh readiness.  Puerh Readiness is sought after by middle-aged and old puerh drinkers.

So, the Puerh Junky sits to have a second PJRS of Fu.  It is infusion four after two hours.  The infusion is two or one in clarity.  He sits to write notes.  His mouth is full of flowers but pronounces the cake: “NOT READY.”  The taste is good.  It will please the ruffians, but the Puerh Junky is not rough.  There was a time it was quite ready.

Gold Ribbon

Zhongcha ’07 “9611” Peacock Gold Ribbon Cake

After two hours it is evident that Fu is exquisitely good but dreadfully young.  Lack of clarity in a standard Zhongcha production is highly irregular.  Any ugliness in the broth points to the youth of tea.  Clarity is one parameter that the Puerh Junky uses in evaluating the readiness of ripes.  The same can be applied to raws and in cases of Zhongcha the benefit of doubt should be extended because unlike Xiaguan, they specialize in tea clarity.

“9611” Clarity and Beauty

As mentioned, the young tea drinker may be entirely adrift regarding puerh readiness.  The fact is many young puerhs are “ready.”  If they’re oolong processed and sold as “gushu“, then maybe a little too ready.

Puerh Transformation

Puerh readiness is expressed in the fundamental transformation of the raw material under particular storage conditions.  It is a trans-annual phenomenon.  Productions can be initially quite drinkable only to descend to the depths of unreadiness, as the Fu case demonstrates.

Part of readiness is also usually conveyed in the colour.  Light coloured liquor is indicative of young tea or relatively dry storage older stuff.  They won’t taste anywhere the same.  The latter may bear attributes of readiness but reflect a different curing style.

Some productions may be able to progress from one stage to the next without hiccoughs but the hiccoughs are quite common and it often has to do with the tea’s own personality.  For some drinkers these quirks however ephemeral prove charming.  Just because a production dips into a period of unreadiness doesn’t mean you’re doing anything wrong, particularly if you’re not finding the same problem among the rest of your stash.

A whole treatise could be written on Puerh Readiness.  The Puerh Junky experienced a moment of panic regarding the ’19 Crouching Tiger, but it simply wasn’t ready.  It needed a year, which is hardly atypical.  There is something about mouthfeel that is an indicator.  It is most certainly not astringency.  In fact, too much astringency is dead give away of poor brewing or just not being ready.  The ready mouthfeel is fizzy or like a magic blanket tiny sparkles.  It’s the benchmark of the root beer class.

Puerh Rating: Wild Jingmai

Posted on by Yang-chu
13 Oct

The Puerh Junky Rating System (PJRS) takes on Wild Jingmai.  Jingmai puerh is characterized by an orchid aroma.  Young, they are very bright, optimistic, and magical, while still expressing razor thinness, alertness, and astringent and bitter zing.  This cake, from ’14, is from an on-going series that GPE runs. Some of the earlier productions are associated with a famous tea master.

After three rounds the results were as follows:

  • Aroma        13
  • Clarity         11
  • Sweetness  11
  • Viscosity     13
  • Astringency 11
  • Huigan        13
  • Qi                 8

Reflections

The Puer Junky regards this Jingmai as far better than average.  At this stage it still expresses bright and clean notes.  Given the lineage of this production, it is not suspect in the least.  The viscosity, aroma, and huigan place it in rarefied aire.  It’s lowest mark is in qi about which the Puerh Junky can be particularly rigid.

This Wild Jingmai is an offering that has fantastic storage potential.  GPE is a factory that goes back to ’99.  They are known for their ripe squares (fangcha) and this particular Wild Jingmai production.  Their raw material centers around the Simao terrior, with a house style that is big on taste.  This is the best Jingmai cake that the Puerh Junky has tasted since 2013.

Conclusions

There is no need to be overly long winded about the Wild Jingmai.  It is a young puerh that is drinkable now but with at least 20 yrs history behind its production.  It is in the floral class of puerhs, not exactly Zen and maybe a little bit macho without smoke or tobacco notes.  This isn’t the piercing florality of first flush productions.  The word that came up was “fresca”.   Puerh Rating: Wild Jingmai

80/105, B

Puerh Rating: Fu

Posted on by Yang-chu
09 Oct

The Puerh Junky Rating System (PJRS) takes on Fu.  This is a ’12 Zhongcha/KMTF raw cake that has been storing in Los Angeles since ’15.  This cake harkens back to a simpler time in purchasing puerh.  Then Zhongcha offerings sold for easily one-third what they do now.  The “Fu” character on the wrapper is not the new year “fu” (福) but conveys a similar sense of fullness and richness through fragrance (香).

After three rounds the results were as follows:

  • Aroma        7
  • Clarity         9
  • Sweetness  8
  • Viscosity
  • Astringency 12
  • Huigan         10
  • Qi

Reflections

April 2016

Zhongcha‘s Fu rates highly in terms of viscosity and straight average in terms of sweetness and clarity.  The sweetness holds steady from one infusion to the next.  Clarity increases while viscosity wanes slightly.

Conversely, there isn’t much of a huigan.  This proves a poor trade-off because the astringency is fierce and greatly displeasing to the Puerh Junky.  It does have a noticeable qi that is steady and smooth.

The Kunming Tea Factory (KMTF) productions after ’11 seem to fall into the category of too young and undrinkable or young and soon-to-be undrinkable.  This is all in the evolution of raw puerh.  It is an unfolding mystery.  With Fu an interesting progression is noted in the lack of clarity of the broth at the third infusion.

Infusion #3

This lack of clarity is neither indicative of processing or material flaws, but rather of the tea itself being in the midst of cooking.  At an earlier stage, factors had yet coalesced to enter the cooking stage.  Now Fu is cooking and it tastes raw as raw can be.  It’s not exactly like a “recipe” formula but has many nods to the concept.

All attributes considered, this tastes its primarily comprised of Bulang material.

Conclusions

In 2020 Fu has entered it 8th year.  It is not the same joyous production that it was initially.  There is lots of fruit and sweetness in the liquor but a pronounced bitterness on top of astringency make this puerh cake enter the “too young” for drinking stage.  This is not a Zen category production but an anti-Zen.  I is not macho.  The tastes are too playful, the aroma floral and fruity.  There is no hint of smoke, petrol, or darker notes to suggest macho.  No.  Fu is that brat that needs to go to “time-out” (for five years).  Some people like bratty: bitter and astringent.  Those constantly drinking young tea might find appealing.  The Puerh Junky on this account must graciously defer and consider it nothing better than a gut buster.  At a minimum three years TTP.  Puerh Rating: Fu

56/105, C

Puerh Rating: Quincy

Posted on by Yang-chu
07 Oct

The Puerh Junky Rating System (PJRS) takes on Quincy.  This is another production from ’07 by the LME.  A fair amount has been said about this puerh factory.  The Puerh Junky carries a number of their productions.  They have a level of integrity, while being great everyday drinkers given the price.

After three rounds the results were as follows:

  • Aroma        14
  • Clarity        12
  • Sweetness  7
  • Viscosity      7
  • Astringency 12
  • Huigan         10
  • Qi

Reflections

Sept 2020

For starters, Quincy takes a real hit in terms of qi.  For what is supposed to be old tree material, this production has never struck me as one for qi.  That can be a good thing if you’re just looking for a drink.  The sweetness and viscosity are also slightly below average.  Those preferring drier and lighter texture would find this appealing.

In terms of clarity, the final results don’t show that it starts out great then grows gradually cloudy.  This trend probably continues for another two infusions before getting pretty.  As far as astringency is concerned, it maintains an evenness a very mild astringency level throughout.  All of the ’07 LME offerings are decidedly smooth and not astringent.

The most outstanding feature of Quincy is its aroma, which still pops.  However, this is likely to be a somewhat unfamiliar aroma among drinkers of young tea.  This aroma only develops after the raw puerh has aged at least six year.  At least.  These are notes that are simply not present in young tea, malto meal, medicinal linaments your grand parents used.

Conclusions

There is no way around the unique flavour profile of Quincy.  The Puerh Junky has tasted a handful of such unique profiles.  To be honest, the closest association is with Raid lawn mosquito spray from a can, something I haven’t been exposed to since the mid 80s.  Associations like laundry soap or baby powder are far more common in puerh.  The petrol taste is a class in itself.  Here even though the taste has petrol elements, they are far more medicinal.  Puerh Rating: Quincy

62/105 C

 

Hawt Puerh: Monkey 6FTM

Posted on by Yang-chu
06 Oct

On Monday to mark Labor Day 2020, I decided on Hawt Puerh: Money 6FTM.  I didn’t subject it to the PJRS.  I just wanted to check in to see where it was, already having ascended to the top-self of Puerh Junkiedom by virtue of its collectability.

Monkey Closeup

The ’04 Monkey is the first in an extremely popular Lunar Series by 6FTM.  It’s made from early spring material.  The recipe has never changed.  It’s a punchy floral qi-heavy, mouth-blasting forbearance.  It expresses the quintessential Fengqing character.

This rascal has been aging in Los Angeles since ’14.  It probably is responsible for the wrapper fetish.  It has been stored between the controlled conditions of the fridge and hot/variable container.  Maybe two years ago, to baby the wrapper, I placed it in a cardboard box, one slightly different from the normal puerh boxes but one used for that very purpose nonetheless.

Untattered Wrapper

Reflections

First, that box has contaminated some of the taste.  I’ve placed the Monkey in plastic and back in the box and will check in on at end of year.  The taste isn’t particularly strong, but I don’t like it.  On writing this, I’m going to take it from the box and keep it in plastic and check at year’s end.

Second, it is simply not possible to drink this and not compare it to Poison.  Both are 6FTM Lunar productions.  Poison came into my possession in Jul 2020.  It is Kunming stored but by people who really know what they’re doing.  Poison is more aged and as active as Monkey.  Monkey has old-book (can you say cardboard) note with root beer, as the floral notes emerge with each infusion.  Poison is pure root beer and there isn’t any other layer.  It’s pure Poison.

Infusion 3

Third, the durability of the Monkey is a great disappointment.  I only goes five infusions before starting to fade and it actually bottoms out in the 7th or 8th.  Poison doesn’t bottom out, EVER.

Conclusion

The ’04 Monkey is a “hawt” puerh commodity.  It has a pleasing depth of flavor and dynamism in the mouthfeel.  Still, five infusions is a shade short for most productions, particularly of this age.  I don’t ever recall noticing such a short lifespan previously.  It was brewed in gaiwan and infusion times were the typical flash-10s.  In short, Poison casts such a shadow over Monkey that it is only possible to be mildly entertained by it, not floored.  If one is a committed wrapper junky or a collector it’s worth having, otherwise its price extreme for the judicious junky.

 

 

Puerh Rating: Water Blue Mark

Posted on by Yang-chu
04 Oct

The Puerh Junky Rating System (PJRS) takes on the Water Blue Mark.  This is the Kunming Tea Factory’s (KMTF) reproduction of a Menghai TF creation from, as early as I could tell, ’98.  The purpose of the PJRS is to objectively adjudge a production based on seven criteria, otherwise minimizing subjective preferences.  It comes in handy for an atrocity like the Water Blue Mark.

After three rounds the results were as follows:

  • Aroma        10
  • Clarity        10
  • Sweetness 12
  • Viscosity      9
  • Astringency 11
  • Huigan        11
  • Qi                 4

Reflections

Water Blue Mark: Cashed Leaves

The Water Blue Mark’s highest score was in sweetness.  It is surprisingly sweet.  This attribute says nothing about it’s taste profile however.  It is very, very heavy tobacco.  More on that in the conclusion.  All of the scores appear to be conservative, particularly the qi score.   Even the Puerh Junky has better qi days than others.  In assessing the score sheet, it is evident that the Blue Water Mark has staying power in terms of sweetness and viscosity, while the huigan and clarity improve.

Now the obligatory ’07 KMTF refrain. . .  The reputation all for 07 Zhongcha productions have been written off by the experts.  Another man’s trash is the Puerh Junky’s treasure.  The fact is that in ’07 KMTF went bankrupt but the factory kept churning, even more furiously.  In terms of its role in the development of ripes they deservedly hold their demarcation as Factory #1.  Almost all their other classic raw productions seem to have some history with Factory #2, Menghai, modern day Dayi.

In assessing a range of Zhongcha/KMTF productions from ’16-’06, Zen seems to predominate their house style.  The Puerh Junky associates this primarily with eastern Lincang material, Bangdong etc.  One would expect the Water Blue Mark to not deviate much with a name like Water Blue Mark.  Wrong. And herein lies the atrocity.

Conclusions

The Water Blue Mark comes at you more like the OG Gangsta or the Longevity Tuo.  Brewed in a gaiwan, this puerh exhibits NO mercy.  Perhaps this is what prevented detection of qi.  It is wicked strong, but not harsh and edgy.  Deep to medium notes, something that must be brewed in clay.  It has a petrolated and woody taste with the absence of rockiness that I most strongly associate with Dayi. It’s dry burning, hot wood, not foresty moist and minty. Yeah!  It’s dry-stored but not dried out.  It’s active as all getout.  There is nothing Watery or Blue about this offering.  It’s Green Mark, some iteration thereof, all the way.  Macho con tobacco. Puerh Rating: Water Blue Mark

67/105 B

Puerh Rating: OG Gangsta

Posted on by Yang-chu
puerh tea brick
03 Oct

The Puerh Junky Rating System (PJRS) takes on the OG Gangsta, an organic production from ’05.  The factory is Gu Puerh, which the Puerh Junky had erroneously associated with the Simao TF, evidently.  The long name of the factory is Simao Gu Puerh TF.  I’m not convinced they’re not the same.

After three rounds the results were as follows:

  • Aroma         9
  • Clarity        10
  • Sweetness  9
  • Viscosity      8
  • Astringency  4
  • Huigan        10
  • Qi                12

Reflections

The OG Gangsta introduces many nuances to brewing.  This tasting was brewed in gaiwan, contrary to the opening picture.  Second, the opening shot is of a selection that has been more transformed than the 2020 shot.  Let’s take up each matter.

Brewing old productions in gaiwan eventually has diminishing returns.  After eight years of age, irrespective of storage type one needs to consider the employ of a clay pot.  Before posting, I tried the OG Gangsta in the bell pepper pot pictured above.  The astringency turned to glass, what the Puerh Junky describes as a sublime smoothness.  Clay makes young productions rough, but it has a way to do the opposite with older puerhs.  In gaiwan, the Gangsta is noxiously astringent.  This is reflected accordingly in its astringency score.

The second picture shows a deeper progression into the 500g machine-pressed brick.  The material at deeper levels is obviously less transformed as evident from the second picture.  This will also translate into a rougher experience but so perplexed by the astringency experience, I retried within the month.

Conclusions

OG Gangsta is one puerh on its way to full root beer bliss.  Atomic compression spells more root beer at the edges than deeper in.  The ferocity of taste is matched by its qi, It shows a quality of selection that isn’t matched by its cost.  We’re talking a tobacco class selection on the road to root beer.  Qi-geeks who are just looking to get knocked on their you know what. . . This score is deceptively low.  Puerh Rating: OG Gangsta

62/105, C