Oh, cool that's so good to know. Thank you! (I did see at a friend's a pretty large leaf yancha... Certainly not as large as Dan Congs I'm aware of (or a Tai Ping You Kui green I got the other day and got totally stumped with because it is almost twice as high as my gaiwan), but large enough to imagine putting it into a 60ml with a tiny mouth, for example. But yes, a relief to know there's a way.)Bok wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 4:52 am
Small pots and big leaves are not a big issue, it’s a question of technique. I just witnessed a friend fill a 50ml tall pot with very tiny opening with long leaves Dancong, poking out like a bush. Once added hot water it falls into place, literally.
So I wouldn’t worry too much about that. But please do worry if you see a big leaf Yancha
Looking to pair some pots. Ideas on where to begin?
Sorry, Bok, but my point with the second pic is that those dots are only visible in photos of the MudandLeaves Zhuni, so I am assuming they are either lens artifacts or perhaps fine mica bits that are invisible to the naked eye. (The jiangponi on the other hand, IS covered in yellow duanni bits).
Either way, clearly it was my bad for posting such crappy photos and not mention early on where I got them, because it set things up to have every single one of the pots dismissed in one sweep as artificial crap. Perhaps I should switch the first photos for more neutral ones...
@sporad if anything not mentioning where something comes from, gives you a more objective outcome than with preconceived notions In any case it’s circumstantial where they are from.
Do not quite follow the thing with the pictures though... both are taken by you and of your pot, no? If anything the naked eye would see more details than the camera, unless you’re using a macro lens.
The dots at the rim are quite big and obvious, no?
In any case it’s circumstantial where they are from. Do not quite follow the thing with the pictures though... both are taken by you and of your pot, no? If anything the naked eye would see more details than the camera, unless you’re using a macro lens.
The dots at the rim are quite big and obvious, no?
Bok wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 6:01 amsporad if anything not mentioning where something comes from, gives you a more objective outcome than with preconceived notions
Do not quite follow the thing with the pictures though... both are taken by you and of your pot, no? If anything the naked eye would see more details than the camera, unless you’re using a macro lens.
The dots at the rim are quite big and obvious, no?
Ok, I wholeheartedly agree that vendor's claims should not trump all other information that a pot can give us, for sure, but I am sure you would also agree that it is impossible to be a 100% percent sure of what something is based on a photograph and therefore it's unfair to give the stamp of disapproval based exclusively on a cell phone image. Experts such as yourself are constantly reminding us newbies that even seeing and touching a pot in person might not even be enough in some cases. Of course there are many clear signs when something is not "kosher", but short of chemical tests (and sometimes not even with them), sometimes the history of the vendor or even moreso the known set of practices of a particular studio, for example, might fill in some of the info that we cannot gather from a photo. (And btw, the naked eye does not necessarily see more details than a camera. It simply sees and records differently. Some cameras pick up things that we don't and even make up visual information called artifacts. It's all about calibration.)
But most importantly, where a pot comes from is not "merely circumstantial", especially not a case where there's potentially dozens of people around (i.e. in this forum) who own at least two of the exact model and the exact batch of clay as mine, and who could then share findings that I might be able to apply more directly. And just to clarify, I am not here waiting anybody to give me a formula on how to pair pots to teas. I have read enough to know that the variables are too many to count, even when using the same pot and the same tea. And even if someone would come in and say: "the sangbian is absolutely perfect for duckshit" and I would find that I agree wholeheartedly, I would definitely not stop experimenting and rush into dedicating the pot to that tea.
Plus, modern clays seem to be a whole different beast from pre-80s(?) factory ones, and so I wonder about judging a pot made in 2019 with for example 1970s clay purity standards. That said, I do now see with my naked eyes one clear big dot at the base and three on the rim like you suggested, so now my question is whether that means it's a mix, and therefore can be labeled either as a fake or of crap quality, or it's bits of mica or it simply contains some impurities(?) or stray bits of a different kind of ore that ultimately do not impact the performance and thus can easily be overlooked. I would be curious if Patrick or Siyan from @mudandleaves would be willing to further elaborate on what they stated on their blog about their zhuni pots in particular:
"Real zhuni used for teapots in the past and today, consists of clay that may be 1) zhuni ores from different mines mixed together (Huang Long Shan + Zhaozhuang + other mines), 2) processed zhuni mixed with unprocessed zhuni, 3) zhuni mixed with small amounts of other zisha (such as hongni). All of these processes are safe to use, however mixing with other kinds of zisha clay is perceived to have a negative effect on the texture, shine and character of a zhuni teapot.
The desirable and common way to mix zhuni is by using different sifters to sieve zhuni ore into different sized particles. Clay that is mixed in this way will show larger particles in the skin of the teapot (the different sized particles in the zhuni clay are referred to as “bones” and “meat”). If it is good quality zhuni, then no other mixing is necessary.
The zhuni teapots we sell are 100% pure zhuni."
Well thought out reply and you make a lot of good points.
As you said a picture can be deceiving, so we have to work with what we got. And it can be tricky in some cases like that Zhuni to determine what is what. I am by no means saying that said pot is definitely fake or bad clay, just that there are question marks and it is not a like see-it-it's-clearly-that kind of case. As the pots on ML website look like they are what they purport to be, it's likely a photo issue...
Other cases like those two dark ones, are more obvious to be something artificially coloured, as those tones simply do not exist in a natural form in Yixing. If it is safe to use is a whole other story I would not dare to discuss.
The whole point from my side was also not to discredit your pots, just that they might mislead you if you have preconceived notions due to the clay names when using them. Just test them as Octo suggested and you'll see, that is clearly the best way forward.
I hope there are no hard feelings, if my comments came across as such!
As you said a picture can be deceiving, so we have to work with what we got. And it can be tricky in some cases like that Zhuni to determine what is what. I am by no means saying that said pot is definitely fake or bad clay, just that there are question marks and it is not a like see-it-it's-clearly-that kind of case. As the pots on ML website look like they are what they purport to be, it's likely a photo issue...
Other cases like those two dark ones, are more obvious to be something artificially coloured, as those tones simply do not exist in a natural form in Yixing. If it is safe to use is a whole other story I would not dare to discuss.
The whole point from my side was also not to discredit your pots, just that they might mislead you if you have preconceived notions due to the clay names when using them. Just test them as Octo suggested and you'll see, that is clearly the best way forward.
I hope there are no hard feelings, if my comments came across as such!
@BokBok wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 8:53 amWell thought out reply and you make a lot of good points.
As you said a picture can be deceiving, so we have to work with what we got. And it can be tricky in some cases like that Zhuni to determine what is what. I am by no means saying that said pot is definitely fake or bad clay, just that there are question marks and it is not a like see-it-it's-clearly-that kind of case. As the pots on ML website look like they are what they purport to be, it's likely a photo issue...
Other cases like those two dark ones, are more obvious to be something artificially coloured, as those tones simply do not exist in a natural form in Yixing. If it is safe to use is a whole other story I would not dare to discuss.
The whole point from my side was also not to discredit your pots, just that they might mislead you if you have preconceived notions due to the clay names when using them. Just test them as Octo suggested and you'll see, that is clearly the best way forward.
I hope there are no hard feelings, if my comments came across as such!
++1
Oh, no, Bok, absolutely no hard feelings at all! I am very thankful that you are taking the time to dialogue with me. I know how much you know (it became obvious after only a few minutes looking around through the forum) and so I take what you say very seriously. And you are totally right to warn newcomers in particular about something that could potentially be dodgy and toxic. So thank you.Bok wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 8:53 amWell thought out reply and you make a lot of good points.
As you said a picture can be deceiving, so we have to work with what we got. And it can be tricky in some cases like that Zhuni to determine what is what. I am by no means saying that said pot is definitely fake or bad clay, just that there are question marks and it is not a like see-it-it's-clearly-that kind of case. As the pots on ML website look like they are what they purport to be, it's likely a photo issue...
Other cases like those two dark ones, are more obvious to be something artificially coloured, as those tones simply do not exist in a natural form in Yixing. If it is safe to use is a whole other story I would not dare to discuss.
The whole point from my side was also not to discredit your pots, just that they might mislead you if you have preconceived notions due to the clay names when using them. Just test them as Octo suggested and you'll see, that is clearly the best way forward.
I hope there are no hard feelings, if my comments came across as such!
For a bit more context, the dark Xi shi was my very first Yixing. As I mentioned, I purchased it from lukevecent, and when it arrived, I was actually surprised at how dark it is, and so I contacted him and he told me the maker told him it was "mantianxing". I have not being able to find any information online about it, so even though I decide to trust lukevecent (because people around here do), I am still approaching that pot (and the other very dark one) with a bit of extra care.
Which brings me to ask you about the mythical Hei Ni. I did come across an old pot with a very similar colouring at an acquaintance's home and he said that his is "definitely Hei Ni". I don't know anything about Hei Ni, and have no idea how the color is produced, but I do know a teeny bit about basic ceramics and I know that one way to make a red clay, for example, come out looking almost black is to mix ashes into the clay. There is also the technique used by Tokoname masters consisting in firing the pieces a second time in reduction at a lower temperature and buried in rice husks, which is what produces the smoke that turns them deep black.
I am told the maker of the little pear one is a young artisan making pots for more hipster audiences (rather than for the old guard, so to speak) which I think is obvious by the design. I mean, look at that the shape of that spout. At this point I can only hope is that s/he is also experimenting with different types of firing, instead of just adding artificial colourings, and whatever clay my pot is made out of, that it is completely is completely safe. So far, no funky smells or tastes at least...
You are not far off with the Japanese method
There is no Heini as an original clay in Yixing. What is called Heini is commonly the artificially coloured Zini of the later factory period, which is almost black, but actually a dark brown.
Antique pots, I have come across two things:
Wuni and Wuhuini, the exact method is not 100 percent verified, but most agree it has been achived by some sort of reduction firing, plus ash covering. No records exist that I know of, who offer more details. But the antiques exist and with patina they can look very black. But when clean they are either Blueish dark grey in the case of Wuni, or a greenish-olive-grey for Wuhuini. The latter has that added ash thing. Both use Zisha or Duanni underneath as base clay. Although difficult to be sure. Both are very beautiful with use, but tricky to match to their perfect tea... mine is very good with Sheng Puerh.
Oooh, thanks for this! So if I understood correctly, Wuni and Wuhuini are not clays, but the color achieved through different blackening techniques? Do you have a Wuni or a Wuhuini? Do you have a pic to share?Bok wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 9:45 amYou are not far off with the Japanese method
There is no Heini as an original clay in Yixing. What is called Heini is commonly the artificially coloured Zini of the later factory period, which is almost black, but actually a dark brown.
Antique pots, I have come across two things:
Wuni and Wuhuini, the exact method is not 100 percent verified, but most agree it has been achived by some sort of reduction firing, plus ash covering. No records exist that I know of, who offer more details. But the antiques exist and with patina they can look very black. But when clean they are either Blueish dark grey in the case of Wuni, or a greenish-olive-grey for Wuhuini. The latter has that added ash thing. Both use Zisha or Duanni underneath as base clay. Although difficult to be sure. Both are very beautiful with use, but tricky to match to their perfect tea... mine is very good with Sheng Puerh.