Yixing

[Justin]

Hi, would anyone be able to give me more info about this pot. My uncle bought it, and never used it:

Size: ~200ml
Clay type: according to @Youzi, its a "Qing Shui Ni"
Firing temperature: Low/Med/High fired? Doesnt sound high fired, maybe medium
If the pot is thin-walled, medium, or thick-walled: ~3mm, not sure what thin, medium, or thick mean
How long is the pour? ~16s

[Bok]

@Justin something modern and a bit rough in the workmanship. Don’t think there’s much more to it.

[Justin]

Justin something modern and a bit rough in the workmanship. Don’t think there’s much more to it.

Cool, thanks!

[wave_code]

question for those who have Yinchen pots and have spent a bit of time with them now - how do you feel about them? Have your initial impressions changed much?

also has anyone ever had anything made by them out of a purple clay?

[OCTO]

Got me-self a 50s Duan Ni pot with the size I like. Giving it a deep clean, removing all the stains, before I start brewing tea in it.

Cheers!!

IMG_5851.jpg (281.14 KiB) Viewed 8682 times

[Bok]

Got me-self a 50s Duan Ni pot with the size I like. Giving it a deep clean, removing all the stains, before I start brewing tea in it.

Cheers!!

yum yum, I like what is cooking in the pot

[alejandro2high]

question for those who have Yinchen pots and have spent a bit of time with them now - how do you feel about them? Have your initial impressions changed much?

also has anyone ever had anything made by them out of a purple clay?

I own more pots from Yinchen Studio than I care to admit. I love them. I consider them to be one of the best sources for modern teapots. I've tried clay pots from Mud and Leaves, Yann Studio, The Chinese Tea Shop, Yunnan Sourcing, and Chanting Pines. I think that for non certified potters, Yinchen is the way to go. Chanting Pines is a little more expensive but has clayss that are of higher caliber. Yann Studio is great for getting access to pots made my prominent potters even making research level pots available at times.

[Bok]

has clays that are of higher caliber.

How do you determine that?

[Balthazar]

My guess: By comparing them (or rather how they affect the tea they brew) to the other ones mentioned? How would you go about determening the relative quality of the clay of the pots you possess, Bok?

[Bok]

My guess: By comparing them (or rather how they affect the tea they brew) to the other ones mentioned? How would you go about determening the relative quality of the clay of the pots you possess, Bok?

First is visually of course, by inspecting the grain and texture of the clay some things can be deducted. Touching it will further reveal clues.

Then the firing which can be determined by clay tone, sound and weight (to a certain extent).

How does the clay change when coming in contact with hot water?

Last but not least, how does it brew which teas? With a porcelain vessel as a control element and with as many similar clay pots as ones arsenal allows. @OCTO had suggested a good method a while back.

I just mentioned it, because a lot of people keep throwing “good clay” judgements around, while I’m suspecting that most do so without any evidence. So I’m curious on individual’s reasoning as to why a clay is better than another.

In the end it’s all relative of course, as one bad clay can be very good in making a mediocre tea seem better - is that still a bad clay then?

[Youzi]

@Bok
@Balthazar

I'd try to define clay quality as objectively as possible.

Basically something like this:
Clay Quality = ( Type & Source of the Ore ) + ( processing ) + ( Firing ) + ( patina development speed )

Type / Source: Hongni, Zhuni, Zini, Lüni, Tuanni and where is it from, like Waishan or HLS or ZZ or HW etc.

Processing: the closer to traditional techniques, the better

Firing: not too low, not too high

Patina Development: how quickly the teapot develops natural patina. This depends on the thechnique of the potter, the processing of the clay and the firing.

I'd put effect of the teapot on the tea into a completely different category, from clay quality.

[Balthazar]

@Bok
@Youzi

Thanks, very interesting to see how people put different meaning into the same word.

I assumed a strictly utilitarian value where the "proof is in the pudding", the figurative pudding being the brew output. That's the quality element I'm most concerned with, but I can easily see that this is a very narrow view. Bok has a wider range of criteria (some of which I guess I too appreciate, although place less emphasis on, and probably have a less keen eye for evaluating), including how it brew's tea. Youzi considers the latter to not be connected to clay quality at all.

Eager to hear if @alejandro2high has completely different criteria

[Bok]

I'd put effect of the teapot on the tea into a completely different category, from clay quality.

I do not agree with this at all, on the contrary, the effect on tea is in my opinion the only one that really matters in the end.

A teapot's paramount function and purpose is to make tea. The material chosen is to aid this goal. So the best quality for this material, would be defined by the one that best serves this purpose.

We could probably make bricks out of Yixing clay and build houses with them, but it would not be considered the best quality clay for it. We could also make teapot out of other precious earths but if they are not suitable for making tea, they would not be considered the best quality for the task.

Clay by itself is just mud and rocks. By itself and without processing into something else one is not a higher quality than another, or a humble pebble in a river bed. All have their purpose.

Judging the quality of an objects material, without considering its effect on its destined function is pointless in my book. It's not art -although it can be considered as- it is an utilitarian craftsmanship.

[Bok]

I would also not agree on the importance of the ore itself. How the clay is processed is much more important in my view. Also mostly redundant as one can rarely follow a purchased pot from the ore to finished product. Afterwards it is impossible to deduct the ore from it.

[Youzi]

@Bok

The only problem is that what you describe is too subjective. Good for what tea? Brewed how? Good based who's opinion? Ofc the buyer, but then antique teapots could simply considered bad clay quality by some, and good by others and based on each sub type of tea, depending on what you wanna brew in it.

I have to disagree. How a teapot brews tea is not the attribute of the clay quality, but it's an attribute of the teapot.

And it's a subjective attribute, thus it should be separated from clay quality itself. And should be evaluated as part of the teapots tea brewing ability.

The only thing that effects the taste of tea, from the side of the clay, is the teapots porosity, and porous structure. Which depends on the ore composition, processing, how the teapot was built, and the way it was fired.

Other things that effect how the teapot brews tea is the heat retention/loss curve and stuff related to that.

So when you brew tea normally in a teapot, you cannot judge the quality and effect of the clay alone, because you are testing the whole teapot.
If you want to test the effect of the clay then you need specific controlled tests, which are really far from how you normally brew tea.

So I think it's not a good practice to mix objective attributes with subjective attributes. One should measure those separately and then make an overall personal judgment of the teapot.

Another thing to consider is what and how you define an yixing teapot?

You say the source or or the ore doesn't matter. I think the same, because the same rock is the same here and the same there if their composition is the same. However from a consumer perspective you want an "Yixing Teapot", which adheres to the long and unique traditions of Yixing processing and Teapot Making. Otherwise one could just get yixing shaped 100rmb teapots.

So if you buy an yixing teapot you'd want something that was made from local material, processed the traditional way and made with the traditional methods.

So I'm not really disagreeing with you, but I think that subjective qualities should be separated from objective qualities. And how a teapot brews tea should be the attribute of the teapot and not part of clay quality. After all quality of the clay is just part of the whole picture.