Tea Studio
Explore official observations from repeated sessions with the Leave Blank collection.
44 logs
Tea ID LBT0028
Log TN00045
Formal retest after the 2026-09-21 casual screening. Steep 2 opened the tea and revealed its clearest layers. Lower temperatures weakened the body; returning to 100°C restored aroma and some presence. Black sesame and egg-yolk mooncake paired exceptionally well. The erroneous voice transcription 'Enshi Qi Tian Hong' is not an alias and has been discarded.
Tea ID LBT0027
Log TN00042
Second session, shared with two friends. The user reported the same tea, tools and water as the first session, with a different kettle as the main known change. The result was dramatically worse, but the kettle remains an unconfirmed cause.
Tea ID LBT0030
Log TN00043
The session started promisingly but became overwhelmingly bitter despite progressively cooler water. Some kombu aroma returned when steep 4 cooled, but the tea was effectively exhausted by the fourth steep.
Tea ID LBT0001
Log TN00038
2024 Special Grade benchmark. Liquor darkened toward the dark-roasted sample. Considered potentially suitable for Indonesian-style iced tea with sugar. Its slightly larger porcelain gaiwan was a confounder. The user described stock as nearly depleted, while the inventory quantity is materially higher and needs verification.
Tea ID LBT0032
Log TN00039
Replacement candidate from the recent shipment, lower than Special Grade. It produced the lightest liquor and retained creaminess and body after the break. Its vessel matched the dark sample but not the benchmark.
Tea ID LBT0040
Log TN00040
Dark or aged comparison sample. Aroma lasted better than body and the liquor stayed brown to reddish. The session called it aged Tie Guan Yin, but the package identifies Black Oolong (LBT0040); the exact tea identity remains unresolved.
Tea ID LBT0029
Log TN00036
Casual social screening, not a formal tasting. Promising enough to retest, but not yet convincing for Vol.01.
Tea ID LBT0028
Log TN00037
Casual social screening, not a formal tasting. The tea was described as not really being there and was rejected for Vol.01 unless a controlled retest changes the result.
Tea ID LBT0027
Log TN00041
First tasting. Lower temperatures with longer extraction were more successful than 100°C. Meaningful development continued through steep 6; steep 7 was subdued and steep 8 exhausted. Shared with the user's wife and son, who also recognized the distinctive savory-pepper character. Gaiwan working volume was approximately 100–110 ml; exact vessel, leaf dose and water source were not recorded.
Tea ID LBT0004
Log TN00034
Durable tea. It faded around steeps 4–5, recovered some floral character at steep 6, and still retained fragrance at steep 10 and flavor in the cold-steep extension.
Tea ID LBT0003
Log TN00033
Very positive session. Lowering to 90°C preserved the profile and made handling and cooling more comfortable. Effective water volume was approximately 80–90 ml.
Tea ID LBT0023
Log TN00027
The rinse or first steep was compromised by excess heat and handling time. Steeps 3–4 were the peak. Steep 5 declined; steep 6 collapsed despite retaining a thin body. A 100-second seventh steep revived leaf fragrance but not liquor flavor.
Tea ID LBT0022
Log TN00028
Matched the AB pottery cup in steep 2. By steep 3 it showed a clearer honey-like aroma, and by steep 4 it had fuller body and a smoother finish. The steep-5 comparison was not controlled because this vessel used about 80 ml for 30 seconds.
Tea ID LBT0022
Log TN00029
Matched the porcelain cup in steep 2. From steep 3 its aroma was less prominent, and by steep 4 its body and finish were lighter. A 40-second steep 5 made the aroma more pronounced.
Tea ID LBT0020
Log TN00032
Kedai Mugen Da Hong Pao retest. Steep 4 was best. Aroma and body dropped sharply by the combined fifth and sixth extractions, while the finish held.
Tea ID LBT0022
Log TN00025
Best across steeps 2–4, with steep 3 the best overall. Steep 5 weakened sharply; steep 6 partly recovered at 1.5 minutes but retained a dry finish.
Tea ID LBT0015
Log TN00026
The cup points more strongly to an unknown Chinese black tea than raw Pu'er. It may be aged or semi-aged, but the exact identity remains uncertain.
Tea ID LBT0021
Log TN00024
Very different from the Shanghai Jin Jun Mei, which is cereal, biscuit and cornflake-like. Interesting aroma but disappointing development.
Tea ID LBT0009
Log TN00022
Steep 3 was the best balance. Final concentrated steep used about 80 ml for 2–3 minutes and produced a caramel/toffee-like aftertaste.
Tea ID LBT0020
Log TN00023
Started at 100°C, then tested steep 4 at 95°C for about 30 seconds. Roast and smoke overwhelm the underlying leaf.
Tea ID LBT0010
Log TN00021
Old wood leads into medicinal or camphor-like aroma, a creamy-full body and a clean, pleasant bitter finish.
Tea ID LBT0013
Log TN00020
100°C for steeps 1–2, then 95°C. Easy to drink but simple and roast-dominant, with limited complexity.
Tea ID LBT0011
Log TN00019
I don't know what's wrong, I tried 100 short steep, 93, 90 steep variables at play but the flavor is just not there.
Tea ID LBT0018
Log TN00018
The vessel definitely plays a good role, the dry leaf is not as fragrant as the 2015 but the total flavor is nicer. The wet leafs and the smell of the lid is also not as fragrant.
Tea ID LBT0007
Log TN00030
Incomplete water/temperature experiment. The blend and execution did not reproduce the 13 Aug session; evidence is insufficient for a firm conclusion. A glass gaiwan was used, but the exact vessel was not confirmed.
Tea ID LBT0003
Log TN00031
Casual qualitative session with a champion tea brewer. Described as amazing and became a personal benchmark and favorite; no formal steep record or rating was captured.
Tea ID LBT0009
Log TN00015
grassy, light, silky and sweet
Tea ID LBT0003
Log TN00016
it's darker than the usual white tea due to the aging, it age shows with the raisin smells, and plum liquor like flavor
Tea ID LBT0003
Log TN00017
haven't got the same falvor produced using yixing on ade's breweing, despite of using the recommended water blend purelife:pristine 95:5
Tea ID LBT0007
Log TN00014
floral,sweet and light, with velvet body and clean finish
Tea ID LBT0004
Log TN00013
This is closer to the flavor I had when I tasted this tea at the store in Shanghai. Just need to remove the bitterness.
Tea ID LBT0014
Log TN00011
Tea has a velvety smooth mouthfeel, almost creamy. However the finish is clean and no aftertaste, giving out floral hint while the first note is more of dried fruits.
Tea ID LBT0004
Log TN00012
I think I used the wrong ratio, it gaves a slight bitter after taste, and it's sweetness are not rounded off. lowered to 92 and it becomes less bitter on the 4th steep but losing a bit of body. Lowered to 90 on the 5th brew, less bitter body is the same but aroma is diminished, maybe because it's 5th brew.
Tea ID LBT0001
Log TN00010
Suji 100 ml glass gaiwan testing
Tea ID LBT0002
Log TN00001
Grassy and medicinal taste, like typical ripe Pu'er.
Tea ID LBT0003
Log TN00002
Floral, sweet and light.
Tea ID LBT0004
Log TN00003
Very fragrant, floral and velvety.
Tea ID LBT0005
Log TN00004
Cereal, malt and honey flavor.
Tea ID LBT0006
Log TN00005
Strong jasmine fragrance; unusually strong for a green tea and easy to overbrew.
Tea ID LBT0007
Log TN00006
Sweet, velvety and somewhat creamy, with a hint of floral notes.
Tea ID LBT0008
Log TN00007
Very fragrant, very sweet and very velvety.
Tea ID LBT0009
Log TN00008
Grassy, slightly floral and sweet while fresh and green.
Tea ID LBT0014
Log TN00009
Needs another tasting.
Tea ID LBT0036
Log TN00035
Enjoyable daily white tea that needed about three steeps to open. The rinse record is contradictory: the live note called the first extraction a rinse, while the later corrected summary treated it as steep 1 with no rinse. A new gaiwan was used, but its exact identity was not confirmed.