@Chris and @Chadrinkincat: which period of zini is that, if I may ask? (and apologies if I missed it earlier)
My 80s green label pot makes lovely old liu bao for me, even if it isn't particularly fine craftsmanship, and even if it's likely adulterated with a few extra compounds than 70s clay.
I think that 'bad clay' will make bad tea, but it's not necessary to get 'good clay' to make good tea. So long as the clay isn't terrible, there'll be something that it pairs well with. Part of the fun is finding out what that tea might be, and learning from how it affects it. I'm sure that there's no perfect clay out there, at least from a tea-drinking perspective.
Andrew
Yixing
That’s the way to go, I have the same view. A bit like the German saying: there’s no bad weather, only insufficient clothing.Andrew S wrote: ↑Fri Jul 09, 2021 11:58 pmI think that 'bad clay' will make bad tea, but it's not necessary to get 'good clay' to make good tea. So long as the clay isn't terrible, there'll be something that it pairs well with. Part of the fun is finding out what that tea might be, and learning from how it affects it. I'm sure that there's no perfect clay out there, at least from a tea-drinking perspective.
Smth... "The Teapot Chooses the Tea" Smth smthAndrew S wrote: ↑Fri Jul 09, 2021 11:58 pmChris and Chadrinkincat: which period of zini is that, if I may ask? (and apologies if I missed it earlier)
My 80s green label pot makes lovely old liu bao for me, even if it isn't particularly fine craftsmanship, and even if it's likely adulterated with a few extra compounds than 70s clay.
I think that 'bad clay' will make bad tea, but it's not necessary to get 'good clay' to make good tea. So long as the clay isn't terrible, there'll be something that it pairs well with. Part of the fun is finding out what that tea might be, and learning from how it affects it. I'm sure that there's no perfect clay out there, at least from a tea-drinking perspective.
Andrew
Out of all my teapots, this is one of my best. Best as in it has the finest workmanship I have ever owned in a Zini kind of clay, wall of the lid skirt are almost Zhuni thin, less than 1mm. Impeccably done in all details.
The clay is superb, it reminds me of modern Dicaoqing, although the name of this clay did not exist yet when this pot was made. Deep purple brown, fired very high. I’ve encountered this kind of outstanding Zini a few times and without exception only on very high quality, well made pots. The pictures show it when I cleaned it, now it’s gathered a lovely patina in very short time, again rivalling the Zhuni pots next to it…
Granted it is tiny at 45ml, but it punches above its weight rivalling it’s Zhuni cousins… ideal as well for aforementioned expensive teas. It does make roasted or highly oxidised premium Oolongs shine, even quality Yancha is not wasted on it.
A true gem for me, the kind of pot you look for excuses to use… not like what tea do I want, it’s what tea I could make in it now?
The clay is superb, it reminds me of modern Dicaoqing, although the name of this clay did not exist yet when this pot was made. Deep purple brown, fired very high. I’ve encountered this kind of outstanding Zini a few times and without exception only on very high quality, well made pots. The pictures show it when I cleaned it, now it’s gathered a lovely patina in very short time, again rivalling the Zhuni pots next to it…
Granted it is tiny at 45ml, but it punches above its weight rivalling it’s Zhuni cousins… ideal as well for aforementioned expensive teas. It does make roasted or highly oxidised premium Oolongs shine, even quality Yancha is not wasted on it.
A true gem for me, the kind of pot you look for excuses to use… not like what tea do I want, it’s what tea I could make in it now?
- Attachments
-
- 59BC59F0-0A20-47E5-92F8-3D29B16CEE22.jpeg (182.38 KiB) Viewed 6599 times
-
- 0008726E-C7D4-405D-849C-4ACBD589A029.jpeg (183.81 KiB) Viewed 6599 times
-
- 7693FFC7-4487-49A4-B1F6-078CE32DBEF2.jpeg (179.69 KiB) Viewed 6599 times
-
- 95EA7C3C-80E9-4325-9663-10F2E728D6DA.jpeg (86.8 KiB) Viewed 6599 times
P.S. ZAG has one on offer just now, which looks like it’s from the same workshop/batch. 2K and it’s yours hearsay has it…
Below mine with recent patina development
Below mine with recent patina development
- Attachments
-
- 515598D0-9FF8-4D9A-8170-1433686AC8A2.jpeg (133.15 KiB) Viewed 6597 times
@Baisao: Sometimes it it wiser to let a dead discussion lie dead, rather than awakening it though an after-the-fact "hobby psychological" analysis about other people spending "too much of their ego" on their hobbies and warning of this leading to "a very unhappy life". That's probably the finest (and most sneaky) ad hominem posted here so far.
I think it takes a good amount of hubris to basically state that the view of our modern "creative professionals" is the correct one on this (if only the broadly trained masters of the past knew what these people do regarding composition). The context this criticism came in is also not irrelevant, not much humility in responding in such a way to someone who is helping you out by providing an answer to your question supplemented with documentation (which the pictures of the pots were part of). Perhaps this is a case of the written format striking again, making the comments seem more harsh than was intended.
I'm also not gonna post any more about this now. And I hope both Bok and steanze stick around as before, as they're some of the most knowledgeable and sharing people on here.
I think it takes a good amount of hubris to basically state that the view of our modern "creative professionals" is the correct one on this (if only the broadly trained masters of the past knew what these people do regarding composition). The context this criticism came in is also not irrelevant, not much humility in responding in such a way to someone who is helping you out by providing an answer to your question supplemented with documentation (which the pictures of the pots were part of). Perhaps this is a case of the written format striking again, making the comments seem more harsh than was intended.
I'm also not gonna post any more about this now. And I hope both Bok and steanze stick around as before, as they're some of the most knowledgeable and sharing people on here.
@Balthazar I did not claim it’s the only, or even the correct one, but as far as designed objects go, they have a valid experience to judge it’s harmonious visual composition, possibly more so than other more distant unrelated professionals like a doctor for example. You wouldn’t ask a painter on his judgment of the result of a surgery would you?
That doesn’t exclude that anyone can judge anything due to their experience and preferences. And it ultimately comes down to taste.
As none of us here is a professional studied art historian with specialty on old Chinese pottery, it’s all just opinions.
And that’s hopefully the end of this unfortunate and revealing discussion.
That doesn’t exclude that anyone can judge anything due to their experience and preferences. And it ultimately comes down to taste.
As none of us here is a professional studied art historian with specialty on old Chinese pottery, it’s all just opinions.
And that’s hopefully the end of this unfortunate and revealing discussion.
Glad that I wasn't the only one to be irked by the multiple references to "creative professionals", which were ultimately the cause for me to not let this go in the earlier conversation. If you reread the threads, my "patronizing" came after bearing with several such similarly patronizing comments, point based ratings, and mocking faces. Sometimes training in aesthetics is worse than no training when judging objects created outside of the cultural discourse to which that training belongs: as the training may lead someone to bring along specific metrics of judgment, which might be very different from those that shaped the creation of the objects. Much like a classically trained composer in the 19th century might have dismissed some ethnic music for it's lack of polyphony, while disregarding its comparatively richer and more complex rhythm. In any case, these are discussions that some of us are passionate about, and it is good to have passionate conversations, but they should always happen with respect. Advocating for one's superiority based on one's profession and posting laughing faces is not respectful. One reaps what they sow. Anyway, the conversation is there for everyone to see. I will not add more here.Balthazar wrote: ↑Sat Jul 10, 2021 1:35 amBaisao: Sometimes it it wiser to let a dead discussion lie dead, rather than awakening it though an after-the-fact "hobby psychological" analysis about other people spending "too much of their ego" on their hobbies and warning of this leading to "a very unhappy life". That's probably the finest (and most sneaky) ad hominem posted here so far.
I think it takes a good amount of hubris to basically state that the view of our modern "creative professionals" is the correct one on this (if only the broadly trained masters of the past knew what these people do regarding composition). The context this criticism came in is also not irrelevant, not much humility in responding in such a way to someone who is helping you out by providing an answer to your question supplemented with documentation (which the pictures of the pots were part of). Perhaps this is a case of the written format striking again, making the comments seem more harsh than was intended.
I'm also not gonna post any more about this now. And I hope both Bok and steanze stick around as before, as they're some of the most knowledgeable and sharing people on here.
Last edited by steanze on Sat Jul 10, 2021 5:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
Not disagreeing, but more a reference for other newcomers in the future. That just because the name didn't exist. Doesn't mean that what we call DCQ today didn't exist either, or that this teapot doesn't contain high amount of DCQ ore. The ore was always there. It's just that the clay recipies (mixed or "pure") and then attention to details during selection, categorization of the ores changed through the years.
@Youzi we are on the same page, I probably wasn’t clear enough, what I meant is that it is indeed what we would call Dicaoqing today.
As far as I am aware, it’s less frequent in old times as it’s usually found deeper than the tools at the time permitted.
Some collectors argue it wasn’t used back then due to that, others say it’s been found occasionally. Looking at the evidence in terms of final teapots I do think it’s indeed Dicaoqing. But it would need some scientific testing to see if it indeed match. Visually and in terms of behaviour it does. With my limited scope of pots I’ve held and used.
As far as I am aware, it’s less frequent in old times as it’s usually found deeper than the tools at the time permitted.
Some collectors argue it wasn’t used back then due to that, others say it’s been found occasionally. Looking at the evidence in terms of final teapots I do think it’s indeed Dicaoqing. But it would need some scientific testing to see if it indeed match. Visually and in terms of behaviour it does. With my limited scope of pots I’ve held and used.
What people took issue with was the fact that you claimed calligraphers have often not been competent enough to integrate their calligraphy successfully onto a pot. That is, that calligraphers are the painters not able to judge the result of a surgery (the whole that is the pot and its inscription) in your analogy above. I think people thought you did injustice to calligraphers who have had to think very carefully about how their inscription is to harmonize with the whole.Bok wrote: ↑Sat Jul 10, 2021 1:53 amBalthazar I did not claim it’s the only, or even the correct one, but as far as designed objects go, they have a valid experience to judge it’s harmonious visual composition, possibly more so than other more distant unrelated professionals like a doctor for example. You wouldn’t ask a painter on his judgment of the result of a surgery would you?