Majority of you who guessed the age of this sheng put it in the 2003-2007 range but the
mysterious Squaretooth knew something that others didn't. Squaretooth
put a direct arrow on 1998 which is the vendor advertised age for this
CNNP 7542. Even if this cake was reverse-aging in the Gobi since 1998, I would put this cake no older than 2006. My house is extra dry storage so my cakes which have been with me since 2005 provide a reasonable comparison. I went through my entire collection and found a twin from 2006. Most of my 2006 cakes look much much darker than the 7542 but this little Jingmai Ancient Forest was a close match.
Actually in better light, even the Jingmai is a tad more aged than this 7542 but I don't have any sheng past 2006 to compare since my sheng buying stopped 7 years ago. This little mini-beeng should age relatively faster than my full size 2006 beengs but it is unexpectedly the least aged. This confirms my suspicion that silver tips will slow down aging. My 2003 Feng Hua Xue Yue Xiaguans which also has a generous inclusion of buds look younger than some of my non-budded 2005 Xiaguans which share that world famous Xiaguan iron compression which also slows down aging. Xiaguan leaves are compressed so tight even a North Korean agent would not be able to hide in it.
This tea tastes pleasant but is nothing special. Boring CNNP's from mid decade are hardly news to anyone. It's gets a bit sweetish- not surprising when you see a good smattering of furry silver tips. Would I buy this tea after tasting it for $68? No I wouldn't. There are definitely more interesting newer wild teas in this price range.
Why pay tuition of $68 on a cake that I already knew was a fake? I bought a full cake so I could share it with others and have an overwhelming consensus that this is definitively not a 1998. I'm doing a full vendor evaluation and have bought a wide range from budget tea to the most expensive offering. I still like this vendor despite this cake clearly not delivering. Why am I so nice all of the sudden? What happened to my ball-busting style that I used to good effect on Verdant Tea? I could have posted an incendiary "Vendor X is Selling Fakes". I'll have to explain why I'm holding off in another post after I finish the entire order.
In the world of pu-erh, your biggest risk is overpaying whether it's a fantastic cake, mediocre cake or a regretful sub-par cake. It's best not to have overpaid but it's better to have overpaid for a fantastic cake than anything less. Quality of tea is a separate issue from authenticity. The risk for fakes increases when you start paying for older or more expensive teas. You could have paid big bucks for an authentic premium cake or an authentic aged cake and it could turn out to be just "meh". If the tea doesn't deliver perceived value, does it matter that it was real if you purchased the cake strictly for your drinking pleasure?
Vendors can often be fooled by their middlemen and I have to think more about how to approach this case. Fakes don't have to end unhappily. I have another fake I got on ebay long ago- the 2002 Menghai Wild Tree which is one of the most interesting shengs in my collection and cost me ~$20. If this 7542 had been a little more lively and interesting, I would let all of this pass. But it is not dear reader so keep tuned or let me know what you think I should do.
Actually in better light, even the Jingmai is a tad more aged than this 7542 but I don't have any sheng past 2006 to compare since my sheng buying stopped 7 years ago. This little mini-beeng should age relatively faster than my full size 2006 beengs but it is unexpectedly the least aged. This confirms my suspicion that silver tips will slow down aging. My 2003 Feng Hua Xue Yue Xiaguans which also has a generous inclusion of buds look younger than some of my non-budded 2005 Xiaguans which share that world famous Xiaguan iron compression which also slows down aging. Xiaguan leaves are compressed so tight even a North Korean agent would not be able to hide in it.
This tea tastes pleasant but is nothing special. Boring CNNP's from mid decade are hardly news to anyone. It's gets a bit sweetish- not surprising when you see a good smattering of furry silver tips. Would I buy this tea after tasting it for $68? No I wouldn't. There are definitely more interesting newer wild teas in this price range.
Why pay tuition of $68 on a cake that I already knew was a fake? I bought a full cake so I could share it with others and have an overwhelming consensus that this is definitively not a 1998. I'm doing a full vendor evaluation and have bought a wide range from budget tea to the most expensive offering. I still like this vendor despite this cake clearly not delivering. Why am I so nice all of the sudden? What happened to my ball-busting style that I used to good effect on Verdant Tea? I could have posted an incendiary "Vendor X is Selling Fakes". I'll have to explain why I'm holding off in another post after I finish the entire order.
In the world of pu-erh, your biggest risk is overpaying whether it's a fantastic cake, mediocre cake or a regretful sub-par cake. It's best not to have overpaid but it's better to have overpaid for a fantastic cake than anything less. Quality of tea is a separate issue from authenticity. The risk for fakes increases when you start paying for older or more expensive teas. You could have paid big bucks for an authentic premium cake or an authentic aged cake and it could turn out to be just "meh". If the tea doesn't deliver perceived value, does it matter that it was real if you purchased the cake strictly for your drinking pleasure?
Vendors can often be fooled by their middlemen and I have to think more about how to approach this case. Fakes don't have to end unhappily. I have another fake I got on ebay long ago- the 2002 Menghai Wild Tree which is one of the most interesting shengs in my collection and cost me ~$20. If this 7542 had been a little more lively and interesting, I would let all of this pass. But it is not dear reader so keep tuned or let me know what you think I should do.
I actually bought the same cake and recognized it immediately when you posted. :-) Didn't meant so come across so mysteriously.
ReplyDeleteI've purchased from this merchant before, most recently the 2010 Guafengzhai Ancient Tree. So the only thing I can think is the merchant was fooled into buying a lot of this and is passing it off. I chatted with Scott at YS and he confirmed it as a fake immediately, just based on price alone.
ReplyDeleteSquaretooth,
DeleteIf a merchant cannot be trusted to accurately depict a cake, would you want to buy from them? I personally feel uncomfortable buying from a vendor who would advertise a cake falsely and knowingly especially when their blog is filled with entries about detecting fakes. Did you talk to the vendor?
hster
I haven't been in contact with the vendor at all on this. the CNNP cake I bought was my most recent purchase with the only previous purchase being the one mentioned. I basically am chalking this up to experience with the thought that if it looks too good to be true, it probably is.
DeleteThat said, I would have been wise to purchase a sample as Emmett. That's how I normally operated and it's served me well in doing so. However, this one time I didn't and this is the result.
I have been ordering from this vendor also and always start with samples first that way I can just pick the ones I like. the sample of this tea I just did not like from the beginning so did not buy, but some of the others have been very good and I still keep buying. Even after knowing some are not good you kind of have to scramble thru the samples to find what you like. and for me living in chicago area the shipping prices are great. I also order from the other vendors but not as often because of the shipping prices.
ReplyDeleteI bought from Jim because he had the Dingxing cakes, which are pretty good.
ReplyDeleteI was also duped on this cake. I actually was able to return two unopened bings of this rubbish and exchanged them for some of the SongPin that he had at the time, which I like.
There was a thread at teachat awhile back highlighting some of Jim's questionable practices. It was pulled due to a technicality of the poster. Jim showed his true colors there, and I understand has done so in the past as well. He also knows and deals with vendors with a shady reputation.
While I enjoy the SongPin and Dingxing, I will never buy anything from Jim or his Puerh Shop ever again. Fool me twice, shame on me!
My 0.02.
Idiot Piquant,
DeleteI am completely baffled as to why such a large vendor would risk his reputation and customer backlash to sell such a cake. I don't see how he can not know that this is a fake.
hster
I have received your package today - thanks a lot!
ReplyDeleteI took a sample of this tea first... It is difficult to admit it, but I am afraid it is not really impossible for it to be 98's 7542. The leaves do look (in shape) like 7542. Some aspects of taste point to 7542 too.
I think that even in dry storage, this would be a 2002-2006 edition, but using super-dry storage, it might be even 98.
Such a dry storage does not do too well to the tea - it has not aged much. On the other hand, the frequent fault of too dry stored tea - nasty sourness, is present only in several first brews and it is not that bad. If someone likes dry stored tea, he might enjoy this. It is definitely an "aged tea" - but I do not think it is too bad either.
Jakub
Jakub,
DeleteWhat exactly do you find that makes this cake taste aged? I've got some dry stored cakes from around 2000 but this cake tastes much more like a 2006 cake anything from earlier.
If that some one who definitely enjoys extra extra dry storage tea, they are most welcome to trade me for it!
h
Heji
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHello hster,
ReplyDeleteuff, it's difficult to describe - basically, all five or so extra dry cakes I have had (and they generally were from good sources, I don't think they'd be all fakes) had something in common and the aspect is here too. I find it difficult to describe the aspect. I'll have a bit of the tea in the afternoon (or tomorrow) and try to convert the feeling into words.
I think it's a bit like japanese women - in their 40s, they may look a lot younger than some european women in their late twenties, but there is something difficult to describe which makes you know they actually are not 20 years old.
Jakub
Ok, I'm drinking it right now and there are some hints of age:
ReplyDeletea)Dry storage sourness - all the 10-15 years old super-dry stored teas had the same kind of sourness - it is here too. Here, after I put the tea on the tongue, it came on the 4th second (I'm brewing it tester-style, 2g in 200ml, steeped for 2 minutes).
b) It has a rather strong mouthfeel post 2004 7542s seem weaker to me in that aspect. From pre-2004, sadly, the closest I have tasted is probably Taiwan-stored 7542 from 1996, also sour-ish, but being somewhat more aged anyway. The 97 7542 (both of these from thechineseteashop) had much more normal storage so it is really different.
c) After a minute or so (long-term aftertaste), fresh plums often make an appearance - this is, from what I have read, a typical feature of 7542, which becomes more pronounced with age.
d) The bitterness is rather different from bitterness in young 7542s - there is not much of the bitterness of youth, while there is some bitterness of dry storage.
e) There is some depth that young puerh does not have. It is quite subtle though.
Sort of similar is: http://www.chawangshop.com/index.php/1999-private-production-menghai-raw-puerh-brick-250g.html
-at least in the way of storage. It is similar year, similar color and all that. It was the first super-dry tea I had and at that time, I thought that it might have been younger. However, with two or three more super-dry stored teas, one does understand and recognize the features that I tried (badly, I am afraid) to describe above.
All of this said, I don't think it is an awesome tea, definitely not (on the other hand, I quite enjoy it whenever I taste it). But if you have someone in Hongkong, Guangzhou, Xishuanbanna or somewhere with similar weather, you may try sending the cake there "to the baths" - it could recover and be quite good (definitely better than young 7542 sent there).
All the best!
Jakub
Dear Jakub,
DeleteThank you for making me feel better about having an entire cake of this tea. It's not an outright bad tea- just very ho-hum compared to others in it's price range. That Chawangshop 1999 brick is only $26. And if this one was $35 instead $68, I might have not have cared.
I could accept that this tea is from 2003 but 1998 is still a stretch for me. Last week I drank two dry stored nineties sheng sent to me by Emmett and they match more closely my experience with other dry stored sheng- they carry what I would call a noticeable dry-aged taste. This 1998 has barely any. If you in particular call it "subtle", I think it must be imperceptible to most.
Perhaps there has to be a new category altogether called "super dry" or "extra dry". Last question would be- would you been happy if you had bought this for $68?
H
Hello hster!
DeleteYes, I agree, Chawangshop usually is very reasonable in its pricing and $26 reflects the quality well.
Also, I agree that 2002-3 is a possibility. What I ment to say was "I am not sure that it is from 98, although it is a possibility - I think it is most probably from 2002-4 - and on the other hand, I don't think it's entirely young".
I do agree that new category "super dry" is in order. There is a real terminological mix - some people calling "traditional" storage wet, some, used to super dry storage calling normal dry storage wet (e.g., Qing Bing) and all that...
To the last question - no, I would not be happy if I bought it for $68. I think it is a $40 cake for me at most - and $5-10 of that is the potential for rehabilitation - otherwise, it would be an even cheaper cake (as it is basically a reasonable young cake with some good stuff and some bad stuff imparted by the super dry storage).
On the other hand, I must say I find prices of 2010+ often quite ridiculous and becoming worse and worse every year. Why to buy the premium $80+ young cakes when one may have such a great tea as Shi Kun Mu's Yibang for $85. I do not believe that all of those fancy young things would age well. And there is a nontrivial number of 2003-6 cakes ranging from $30 to $50 which are much less risky in means of future development.
To get back to the original thought - thinking in context of today's recently produced teas where I'd often pay much less than a half of the asked price, the 40/68 of this 7542 is not that bad :)
Jakub
Hi,
Deleteafter drinking some more 7542s of surrounding years and drinking this "98" 7542 more times, I'd say it will be younger than 98. I had some more too dry stored teas from 98-2002 now and the sourness is noticeably more pronounced in them than in this one, although even this has some of it. And those older too dry stored things were much darker than this anyway.
Tasting other 7542s a lot these days, I think that this rather is a 7542, but quite definitely a post-2002-3 one. Could be 2005, I guess...
Still, I do like it, even though as we said, $68 is not that little. And the 2004 7542 from finepuerh costs about the same I guess and is a lot better overall.
All the best!
Jakub
Rest of the cake is all yours if you want it- perhaps I trade you for a chunk of the finepuerh 7542. I have no shortage of more vibrant teas from 2002-2006 and so don't see myself revisiting this too often. It's just tuition tea with bad karma for me...
DeleteH