It depends on the shape and size and what the artist wants the bottom to look and feel like.Mark-S wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 6:55 amThat's interesting. Could you please explain it?
That's what I believed so far:
(https://mudandleaves.com/blogs/teatime/ ... y-handmade)Half handmade teapots will have many small scratch/tool marks inside the teapot where it was shaped against the mould, whereas a fully handmade teapot will not.
Yixing
So you have to pay attention to multiple signs... right? The pot you asked me about has these lines on the inside and also a line on the spout. In my opinion, this means that it's a semi handmade pot... or could it also be handmade with this line on the spout? If yes, how could I determine if it's semi handmade or fully handmade?
This seems to be even harder than I thought...Because the spout and the handle are probably made by a mold too. That's a common practice for this more decorated and complex shapes.Mark-S wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 9:12 amSo you have to pay attention to multiple signs... right? The pot you asked me about has these lines on the inside and also a line on the spout. In my opinion, this means that it's a semi handmade pot... or could it also be handmade with this line on the spout? If yes, how could I determine if it's semi handmade or fully handmade?
For simple shapes, making the spout and handle is fairly easy compared to fully hand making these ones.
Handmade pots can have lines on the inside bottom.Mark-S wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 9:12 amSo you have to pay attention to multiple signs... right? The pot you asked me about has these lines on the inside and also a line on the spout. In my opinion, this means that it's a semi handmade pot... or could it also be handmade with this line on the spout? If yes, how could I determine if it's semi handmade or fully handmade?
Handmade pots can also have that line on the spout - if the spout shape is unusual or complex, they might make the spout with a mold, and the rest of the pot by hand. Some well known craftsmen did this in ROC.
@olivierd
This is more complicated to explain due to each era has a certain way of making pots, and there are different quality levels within the same era. I think 90s onward, the expectations are neat and clean on the outside and inside, and a certain smoothness/sheen on the outside. As results of those expectations, cleanliness is a criteria on most pots good or bad from 90s onward. Also, keep in mind that the tools to make pot have advanced with technology vs. 100 years ago potters used to use bamboo, horn, leather, etc. I remember @Bok once said some pots from LQER can meet the expectations and criteria of today (tight lid, strong water flow, smooth pouring, balanced, etc.), this is true, and those pots are highly valuable and collected.
I recently acquired a 1970s hong ni shui ping from Bok and tried it out this weekend. This pot blew away my perceptions about hong ni. I expected only that it might be more ‘sensitive’, picking up more nuances. This notion was based on my late ‘70’s-early ‘80s hong ni shui ping from the Mandarin’s Tea Room. It picks up a lot, both good and bad. So I thought that an older hong ni pot would be perhaos more sensitive but that’s about it.
Well not only did Bok’s teapot pick up all the nuances, but unexpectedly it balanced out teas that were imbalanced – i.e. where one or more characteristics dominated at the expense of others. So for example if a tea was overly smoky tannic, in the Mandarin’s pot it would reflect this. In Bok’s pot though, the imbalanced was corrected but without muting everything. For example a smoky tea might suddenly reveal or amplify others nuances previously covered, and the smoke would be more balanced and far less dominant.
Conversely in well made teas that either through processing or age, had already achieved a good balance, the teapot had a more subtle effect, bringing out maybe a tad more nuances but otherwise x closer to my Mandarin’s teapot.
All of the teas I used were sheng, comparing the hong ni teapot from Bok against that from the Mandarin’s Tea Room. The latter was my best teapot – and also my favorite for its sensitivity. I used the same parameters, drinking each steep side by side for comparison.
For comparison’s sake I will call Bok’s pot thusly -1970s hong ni pot
and other the Mandarin’s pot
2004 Early Spring Ji Xing/Lucky Brand commissioned by CNNP, produced by 6FTM – While this tea was already coming together nicely, the were tannins dominant in the middle steeps. The 1970s hong ni pot caused the tannins to recede a bit and the leaf hummus and brown sugar notes to come forward. It also revealed a faint buttery caramel note. This was the first tea tried and the results inspired me to pull out my Dirty Dozen of Imbalanced and Young Brash Teas.
2005 CNNP Big Yellow Mark (YS) – I really loved this tea when I first got it, but quickly it shut down becoming simpler and dominated by smoke. In the 1970s hong ni pot this tea came alive again, with lovely burly grains ,honey , and a faint brine note with the smoke firmly in the background rather than forefront. The huigan was much more noticeable and overall had more power yet seemed smoother. Like a different tea and one that I now wanted to drink. Previously I had been avoiding this tea assuming that it was going through a shut down awkward phase.
2004 EOT Smokey Spring Buds - As the name and EOT’s description suggests this fella is quite smoky yet has sublime sweet flavors underneath begging to be allowed to shine. Previously I had found the smoke too distracting in the Mandarin’s hong ni. Putting it in an F2 Zini muted the smoke but also muted the nuanced sweet spring bud flavors. Modern Duanni had an even more muting effect, rendering the tea too simple. The 1970s hong ni pot transformed this tea into brown sugar soft caramel sweet crystallized honey rock candy with only suggestion of fall leaves and smoke. It gave me a glimpse at what this tea will probably be with some more time for the smoke to recede.
2017 EOT Spring Nancai – This is a very savory herbal fellow with a kick but also a lovely roasted squash sweetness. My problem is that from the third to the fifth or sixth steeps this tea becomes almost excessively herbal and the almost peppery kick a tad too strong, masking the other savory notes. Also there is a cooling mint feel on the tongue that sometimes dominates. Using less leaf helps the middle steeps but then causes the tea to lose endurance with it dropping off more quickly in later steeps. The dry cake has always had a wonderful sweet aroma almost wild Wuliang buried under the more savory aromas yet I have never found it in the cup. 1970s hong ni pot really tamed the herbal kick in the middle steeps and revealed the missing sweet Wuliang like sweetness. This tea went from almost being too savory herbal kick becoming much more balanced in the middle steeps with an unexpected white grape sweetness revealed.
Moving on from the Dirty Dozen – or Dirty Three in my case to some other sheng:
2006 Liming Factory 0432 (Puerh iunky) – This is a powerful old school tea meant for aging with a strong Bulang type profile of saddle leather, tobacco, vanilla, with a lovely sweet underneath. This is a tea that can easily get too strong even with a small amount of leaf. In 1970s hong ni pot this gained even more sweetness and vanilla plus now parchment and honey notes. The strength was retained yet refined but never muted.
2003 Fuhai 7536 (Puerh Junky) – This tea is in a nice spot so there wasn’t much of a change brewed in the 1970s hong ni pot except for a thicker slightly glycerol texture and a more prominent coco butter note but otherwise unchanged.
2004 6FTM JiXing/Lucky Brand (Puerh Junky) – This tea is already perfection (in my opinion) and the only real difference the 1970s hong ni pot revealed was more tolerance when I either overleafed or pushed the steeping parameters.
The experience of having the teapot balance an imbalanced flavor profile is completely new to me. My only experience in that area is modern relatively hihg fired zinis and duannis that mute bitterness or smoke, but also like a veil, mute the other flavors as well. Even more intriguing is the concept of older zini or duanni pots that do not mute flavors but rather compliment certain profiles.
My experience with modern high fired (80’s onward) hong ni is picks up everything as is. So while wonderful for drinking teas whose profile’s are balanced, it can be bad for teas whose profiles are lopsided , too smoky or too astringent for in a modern hong ni those imbalances if anything can become amplified during the session as the tea opens up.
Since I am still relatively new in my teapot journey, my discovery is probably old news to the more experienced members of this forum. I am curious to try older teapots in different clays, especially those that I had always assumed had only muting qualities. Looking back, do I regret getting my other newer teapots? No they are teachers without whom I would not be able to appreciate my 1970s hong ni pot.. I will probably continue to use my Mandarin’s Tea Room hong ni for it is a lovely sensitive pot. However there are teas that I will only drink with the 1970s hong ni pot because of the tea’s imbalanced profile or other issues. I will probably continue to drink through my teas, comparing the influence of both teapots.
As for my other teapots, I may use them occasionally comparison’s sake. I am glad that I always tried to pick well made teapots from trustworthy sources…as opposed to cheap junk sold. Having said that I am glad that I did not spend thousands of dollars on modern pots…and then discover that there were older teapots waiting to be discovered. A big thank you to Bok for this lovely teapot which has been an education in its short time with me. I did not get picture but will do so this week for this is a beautiful teapot.
I would love to hear from those of you have had both modern and older Yixing, especially in regards to these pots influence the tea.
Well not only did Bok’s teapot pick up all the nuances, but unexpectedly it balanced out teas that were imbalanced – i.e. where one or more characteristics dominated at the expense of others. So for example if a tea was overly smoky tannic, in the Mandarin’s pot it would reflect this. In Bok’s pot though, the imbalanced was corrected but without muting everything. For example a smoky tea might suddenly reveal or amplify others nuances previously covered, and the smoke would be more balanced and far less dominant.
Conversely in well made teas that either through processing or age, had already achieved a good balance, the teapot had a more subtle effect, bringing out maybe a tad more nuances but otherwise x closer to my Mandarin’s teapot.
All of the teas I used were sheng, comparing the hong ni teapot from Bok against that from the Mandarin’s Tea Room. The latter was my best teapot – and also my favorite for its sensitivity. I used the same parameters, drinking each steep side by side for comparison.
For comparison’s sake I will call Bok’s pot thusly -1970s hong ni pot
and other the Mandarin’s pot
2004 Early Spring Ji Xing/Lucky Brand commissioned by CNNP, produced by 6FTM – While this tea was already coming together nicely, the were tannins dominant in the middle steeps. The 1970s hong ni pot caused the tannins to recede a bit and the leaf hummus and brown sugar notes to come forward. It also revealed a faint buttery caramel note. This was the first tea tried and the results inspired me to pull out my Dirty Dozen of Imbalanced and Young Brash Teas.
2005 CNNP Big Yellow Mark (YS) – I really loved this tea when I first got it, but quickly it shut down becoming simpler and dominated by smoke. In the 1970s hong ni pot this tea came alive again, with lovely burly grains ,honey , and a faint brine note with the smoke firmly in the background rather than forefront. The huigan was much more noticeable and overall had more power yet seemed smoother. Like a different tea and one that I now wanted to drink. Previously I had been avoiding this tea assuming that it was going through a shut down awkward phase.
2004 EOT Smokey Spring Buds - As the name and EOT’s description suggests this fella is quite smoky yet has sublime sweet flavors underneath begging to be allowed to shine. Previously I had found the smoke too distracting in the Mandarin’s hong ni. Putting it in an F2 Zini muted the smoke but also muted the nuanced sweet spring bud flavors. Modern Duanni had an even more muting effect, rendering the tea too simple. The 1970s hong ni pot transformed this tea into brown sugar soft caramel sweet crystallized honey rock candy with only suggestion of fall leaves and smoke. It gave me a glimpse at what this tea will probably be with some more time for the smoke to recede.
2017 EOT Spring Nancai – This is a very savory herbal fellow with a kick but also a lovely roasted squash sweetness. My problem is that from the third to the fifth or sixth steeps this tea becomes almost excessively herbal and the almost peppery kick a tad too strong, masking the other savory notes. Also there is a cooling mint feel on the tongue that sometimes dominates. Using less leaf helps the middle steeps but then causes the tea to lose endurance with it dropping off more quickly in later steeps. The dry cake has always had a wonderful sweet aroma almost wild Wuliang buried under the more savory aromas yet I have never found it in the cup. 1970s hong ni pot really tamed the herbal kick in the middle steeps and revealed the missing sweet Wuliang like sweetness. This tea went from almost being too savory herbal kick becoming much more balanced in the middle steeps with an unexpected white grape sweetness revealed.
Moving on from the Dirty Dozen – or Dirty Three in my case to some other sheng:
2006 Liming Factory 0432 (Puerh iunky) – This is a powerful old school tea meant for aging with a strong Bulang type profile of saddle leather, tobacco, vanilla, with a lovely sweet underneath. This is a tea that can easily get too strong even with a small amount of leaf. In 1970s hong ni pot this gained even more sweetness and vanilla plus now parchment and honey notes. The strength was retained yet refined but never muted.
2003 Fuhai 7536 (Puerh Junky) – This tea is in a nice spot so there wasn’t much of a change brewed in the 1970s hong ni pot except for a thicker slightly glycerol texture and a more prominent coco butter note but otherwise unchanged.
2004 6FTM JiXing/Lucky Brand (Puerh Junky) – This tea is already perfection (in my opinion) and the only real difference the 1970s hong ni pot revealed was more tolerance when I either overleafed or pushed the steeping parameters.
The experience of having the teapot balance an imbalanced flavor profile is completely new to me. My only experience in that area is modern relatively hihg fired zinis and duannis that mute bitterness or smoke, but also like a veil, mute the other flavors as well. Even more intriguing is the concept of older zini or duanni pots that do not mute flavors but rather compliment certain profiles.
My experience with modern high fired (80’s onward) hong ni is picks up everything as is. So while wonderful for drinking teas whose profile’s are balanced, it can be bad for teas whose profiles are lopsided , too smoky or too astringent for in a modern hong ni those imbalances if anything can become amplified during the session as the tea opens up.
Since I am still relatively new in my teapot journey, my discovery is probably old news to the more experienced members of this forum. I am curious to try older teapots in different clays, especially those that I had always assumed had only muting qualities. Looking back, do I regret getting my other newer teapots? No they are teachers without whom I would not be able to appreciate my 1970s hong ni pot.. I will probably continue to use my Mandarin’s Tea Room hong ni for it is a lovely sensitive pot. However there are teas that I will only drink with the 1970s hong ni pot because of the tea’s imbalanced profile or other issues. I will probably continue to drink through my teas, comparing the influence of both teapots.
As for my other teapots, I may use them occasionally comparison’s sake. I am glad that I always tried to pick well made teapots from trustworthy sources…as opposed to cheap junk sold. Having said that I am glad that I did not spend thousands of dollars on modern pots…and then discover that there were older teapots waiting to be discovered. A big thank you to Bok for this lovely teapot which has been an education in its short time with me. I did not get picture but will do so this week for this is a beautiful teapot.
I would love to hear from those of you have had both modern and older Yixing, especially in regards to these pots influence the tea.
@oolongfan Congratulations and sounds like you had a blast with your latest acquisition! As usual, @Bok, mucho gracias for enlarging the circumference of the rabbit hole!!... Looking forward with much anticipation!.... 
@olivierd allow me to add, tool marks are a clear and definitive indicator on how the pot has been made. Having said that, it's also important to understand the tool marks that sets apart good workmanship from sloppy careless hands. Both will also leave tool marks, but they are very different.DailyTX wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 5:47 pmolivierd
This is more complicated to explain due to each era has a certain way of making pots, and there are different quality levels within the same era. I think 90s onward, the expectations are neat and clean on the outside and inside, and a certain smoothness/sheen on the outside. As results of those expectations, cleanliness is a criteria on most pots good or bad from 90s onward. Also, keep in mind that the tools to make pot have advanced with technology vs. 100 years ago potters used to use bamboo, horn, leather, etc. I remember Bok once said some pots from LQER can meet the expectations and criteria of today (tight lid, strong water flow, smooth pouring, balanced, etc.), this is true, and those pots are highly valuable and collected.
Agree with @DailyTX and @Bok. These pots are extremely rare and highly collectible. They also come with a price tag. Having a "tight lid, strong water flow, smooth pouring, balanced, etc." are attributes that are not seen from photos but experienced only when you're able to acquire one and have it in your hands. It's an EXPERIENCE. The onus falls back on the buyer, are you willing to pay double for what appears the same for half the price?.... hehehehe....
my 2cent.
Cheers!!
@steanze +1. It looks the same, but different to a trained eye.... hahahaha....steanze wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 11:02 amHandmade pots can have lines on the inside bottom.Mark-S wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 9:12 amSo you have to pay attention to multiple signs... right? The pot you asked me about has these lines on the inside and also a line on the spout. In my opinion, this means that it's a semi handmade pot... or could it also be handmade with this line on the spout? If yes, how could I determine if it's semi handmade or fully handmade?
Handmade pots can also have that line on the spout - if the spout shape is unusual or complex, they might make the spout with a mold, and the rest of the pot by hand. Some well known craftsmen did this in ROC.
Thanks. But for instance, I have never seen F1 pots with these very marked bottom lines, might simply be that I did not encounter them. 60s do not show it in what I saw either. Here they do look like "on purpose" marks, not much as if it was some kind of needed building technics.OCTO wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 10:05 pm
olivierd
This is more complicated to explain due to each era has a certain way of making pots, and there are different quality levels within the same era. I think 90s onward, the expectations are neat and clean on the outside and inside, and a certain smoothness/sheen on the outside. As results of those expectations, cleanliness is a criteria on most pots good or bad from 90s onward. Also, keep in mind that the tools to make pot have advanced with technology vs. 100 years ago potters used to use bamboo, horn, leather, etc. I remember Bok once said some pots from LQER can meet the expectations and criteria of today (tight lid, strong water flow, smooth pouring, balanced, etc.), this is true, and those pots are highly valuable and collected.
olivierd allow me to add, tool marks are a clear and definitive indicator on how the pot has been made. Having said that, it's also important to understand the tool marks that sets apart good workmanship from sloppy careless hands. Both will also leave tool marks, but they are very different.
From what I know, this depends on the size/shape and age of the pot. These two are F1 green label pots in my opinion (the second one was confirmed by experts). There are not as many lines as in the modern pot and the direction is a bit different... but not too far off. No idea, if the lines were made on purpose or not (I guess not). Sorry for the bad photos I only had little time to reply. I hope the lines are clear enough for you to see.
- Attachments
-
- IMG_20210617_181648-01.jpeg (380.51 KiB) Viewed 4802 times
-
- IMG_20210617_181541-01.jpeg (315.3 KiB) Viewed 4802 times
It is really quite easy to determine how this marks came to be if you look at how they make a pot. Bottom is "glued" to the body with the help of a wet clay gunk. What happens when you put glue between to pieces of harder something and press it together? Exactly, it will be pressed out and form an unsightly excess line of glue. What do handy craftsman all over the world do? The use some sort of appropriate tool to smooth it out...
In Yixing pots of certain periods and - when they decided it needs to look clean, often they did not - they smoothed it towards the center, tadaa, there you have it, case closed.