TeaForum.org

So… one thing I was thinking about and which after much browsing did not yet find(or overlooked) and answer is the following matter:

A lot of people seem to agree that most older Yixing clays are better than newer ones (putting aside possible pollution or mixing with other hazardous materials). So an Qing/ROC is better than green label clay, but still better than F2, and all the factory clay still better than the modern Yixing clay – you get the picture…

I am also aware that, craftsmanship and clay quality were never uniform and that each period will have examples of better and worse clay, as always there are no definites and everything depends.

But, all exceptions aside and generally speaking why is, for example, an ROC Hongni clay better than one from the F1 period? How exactly do we define it is better? Heat retention, less/more porosity? Other effects on the tea brewed?

Or is it because older clay had better properties to built a pot in a certain geometry and thickness? Craftsmanship might be an argument for the very early pots, but then just looking on what is on offer as new Yixing, from the simple esthetic viewpoint there are some really good craftsmen out there!

Or is it something more vague? I can compare it with another teaware with which I am more familiar: antique porcelain, which in my experience has a very subtle advantage to it. I notice the difference drinking from a new cup and an old Qing one quite clearly and it helps my tea enjoyment. In that case it might have to do with the glazes used, other than that the shapes and style still do exist in new wares, so it shouldn’t be that.

Anyways, excuse my long musing and if I did overlook a place where it has been discussed I apologise and am grateful for a hint where to find it!

Or to make the question really short:
What is good clay?

Bok wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 05, 2018 3:50 am

Or to make the question really short:
What is good clay?

Clay that makes tea better than it would be using another method!

Bok wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 05, 2018 3:48 am

...
Or is it something more vague? I can compare it with another teaware with which I am more familiar: antique porcelain, which in my experience has a very subtle advantage to it. I notice the difference drinking from a new cup and an old Qing one quite clearly and it helps my tea enjoyment. In that case it might have to do with the glazes used, other than that the shapes and style still do exist in new wares, so it shouldn’t be that.
...

Logically speaking, I would expect modern porcelain to be significantly better than antique, due to superior manufacturing technologies currently available and the knowledge and experience current artists have gained from the past.

In theory, the same should more or less hold true for unglazed clay, even if much of what is considered better quality clay has already been mined out.

Psyck wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 05, 2018 7:12 am

Logically speaking, I would expect modern porcelain to be significantly better than antique, due to superior manufacturing technologies currently available and the knowledge and experience current artists have gained from the past.

Not necessarily. Knowledge also has a tendency to get lost, especially in a country like China with lots of wars, regime changes and migrations. A good example is Damascene steel which to this day can not be reproduced in the same quality, even with all our technology.

Not to underestimate as well is the value of work done by hand, over and over for 1000 of times. Manual labouris expensive nowadys and machines can not always deliver the same thing - at least not yet.

tealifehk wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 05, 2018 4:37 am

Clay that makes tea better than it would be using another method!

Was hoping for more specific answers...

Better how? And how noticeable can the difference between an vintage and roughly the same clay from our days be?

Bok wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 05, 2018 8:02 am

Psyck wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 05, 2018 7:12 am

Logically speaking, I would expect modern porcelain to be significantly better than antique, due to superior manufacturing technologies currently available and the knowledge and experience current artists have gained from the past.

Not necessarily. Knowledge also has a tendency to get lost, especially in a country like China with lots of wars, regime changes and migrations. A good example is Damascene steel which to this day can not be reproduced in the same quality, even with all our technology.

Not to underestimate as well is the value of work done by hand, over and over for 1000 of times. Manual labouris expensive nowadys and machines can not always deliver the same thing - at least not yet.

Modern steel outperforms damascus steel, so it may not be the best example, but yes, I get your point.

Bok wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 05, 2018 8:06 am

tealifehk wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 05, 2018 4:37 am

Clay that makes tea better than it would be using another method!

Was hoping for more specific answers...

Better how? And how noticeable can the difference between an vintage and roughly the same clay from our days be?

I've used a modern pot that blows away my older Factory 1 stuff! Much more flavor and aroma and just so beautifully crafted.

Bok wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 05, 2018 3:48 am

But, all exceptions aside and generally speaking why is, for example, an ROC Hongni clay better than one from the F1 period? How exactly do we define it is better? Heat retention, less/more porosity? Other effects on the tea brewed?

That's a good and difficult question. As tealifehk mentioned (and as you say yourself), it is not always the case that older clays are better. We cannot really put exceptions aside In my view, there is a combination of factors we need to take into account. First, there is a general appreciation of antiques that leads older pots to be more in demand, this has nothing to do with clay quality. Second, there is the issue of workmanship, pre F1 pots are often handmade, F1 pots are usually mould made, later pots it depends. Also, even pre F1, workmanship has its ups and down in history, with peaks (imo) in the Ming dynasty and in mid Qing (Mansheng-Pengnian-Youlan period).

After considering these factors, we can now look at clay quality. Here are some things I think are true:
1) there exist late Qing/ROC clays that perform better than most F1 clays (making the tea taste better), for example, lao zhuni and some kinds of lao duanni.
2) Most F1 clays perform better than modern clays.
3) the pre/post 1977 distinction is crucial for hongni. Hongni after 1977 (even in F1) is not as good as pre. Pre 1977 F1 hongni is much closer to ROC hongni, in terms of how it performs with the tea. They have more porosity than the niangaotu, and less than the nenni+iron oxide used in the 90s, and mostly the porosity feels different, making the tea "crisp".

Other than this, it's a world of exceptions: it's about recognizing the effects of different clays and their aesthetic value case by case. For example, I can think of F1 zini clays that are as good or better than most ROC zini, and of modern clays that are as good or better than other F1 clays, in terms of their effect on the tea, the aesthetics of the color/texture, and how they develop patina.

About workmanship, here are some things I think are true:
1) Many Qing dynasty pots are artistically more interesting than F1 pots
2) in late Qing/ROC the utilitarian, small pots with the best workmanship were made
3) F1 pots made in the 60s have better workmanship than those made in the 70s
4) F1 pots made in the 70s often have better workmanship than those made in the 80s

Thanks Steanze, that is pretty much the kind of answer I was hoping for!

So to sum it up in a more provocative way: Other than the hard to acquire / or pay for early pots, the more widely available later vintage F1-whatever pots are probably not really making a big difference to the tea – unless we find the needle in a haystack exception
(Although you said most F1 pots perform better than modern clay)

That aside, I personally like to "recycle” vintage ware instead of having something new that further depletes resources and partakes in its own way in pollution. So that for me is another reason to look out for older teaware. Tear and wear also do have their charm.

Bok wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 05, 2018 7:14 pm

So to sum it up in a more provocative way: Other than the hard to acquire / or pay for early pots, the more widely available later vintage F1-whatever pots are probably not really making a big difference to the tea – unless we find the needle in a haystack exception
(Although you said most F1 pots perform better than modern clay)

Well, that's not exactly what I said 80s and 90s F1 zini and qingshuini pots are fairly available and usually are much better than modern zini. It's the good hongni that is less available.

steanze wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 05, 2018 7:45 pm

Well, that's not exactly what I said 80s and 90s F1 zini and qingshuini pots are fairly available and usually are much better than modern zini. It's the good hongni that is less available.

True, sorry for missquoting!

So what does the not so good hongni do/or not do to the tea? Would it make the tea worse? Or just not better?
Is it more porous or are the heat retention properties different?

Bok wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 05, 2018 7:51 pm

True, sorry for missquoting!

No problem! for the effects of the not-so-good hongni, it depends on what not-so-good hongni we are talking about. Niangaotu is less porous, quite like porcelain. Nenni+iron oxide is a bit more porous, and can impart a little bit of mineral/iron taste to the water for some time when it's new.

I feel like much of the mid-range and better modern hongni is fine actually. It's the modern zini that is highly variable and you need to spend for good purple clay in today's market. There's a lot of crap purple clay made today!