Perhaps. I'm a stickler for good analogies.
Now that you've explained more, I get you too.
The point is, that whether you go to some street food dive or the to the best of fine dining, you're always provided with a list of ingredients and the basic preparation process.
I think that should translate to oud oil too. I shouldn't have to ask what the grade of the feedstock was, I shouldn't have to ask if it was steam distilled or water distilled or whatever. I shouldn't have to ask the date of distillation, or wonder what the species of the plant was, or where it was harvested. Quite frankly, these details should be on the label, on every label.
That's a better analogy.
But I disagree with that line of thinking. One of the biggest issues I see within the oud world is how over-romanticised distillation is.
The bottom line is that pure oud, as I believe the majority of us see it and seek it, is an essential oil (and if it is not a 100% pure essential oil, that really needs to be stated).
So to forego all analogies, how would you source a lavender essential oil?
As a natural perfumer and someone who uses essential oils in their therapeutic capacity I'm sure you have certain demands regarding the details of any essential oil you source.
I'm sure that you'd like to know whether the feedstock is lavender from some random outback garden, or if it is organically high grown and hand picked in Provence, would you not? Perhaps you'd even seek a specific standard in the chemical makeup? Or a purity test?
I hardly think you set aside all the details and rely simply on the aroma and trust.
So, what are your informational demands when sourcing a new essential oil?
And why should we have any less demands when sourcing oud, as a pure essential oil?
I think the emphasis is on knowing what is actually going into the distilling pot.
And no, we are not just paying for the raw materials, I think that much is clear to most of us.
But on the other hand, the cost of the final product should be relative to the cost of the first material. Why should we be oblivious to the costs of the first materials?
To put forward a purely theoretical example: if the production costs per ml are 10$ and the final product is priced at 1000$ per ml, would that be fair? Shouldn't there be some balance to that equation? And why should we be completely in the dark with regard to production costs?
I completely sympathise with you on this point.
My own answer to that question would be along the lines of: "Well you are free to try and source the materials yourself and create your own version".
This, I believe, is where your painting analogy best applies; creating a perfume involves artistry, the canvas and paint on their own are of no value without the creativity of the perfumer to bring these elements into an artistic whole.
That being said, as you are a perfume industry insider, I'm sure you'd admit that the secrecy and lack of transparency in that industry is excessive.
That's a shame.
Secrecy to that level only does disservice to knowledge and progress.
And yet chefs do! They do it all the time, share to every minutiae!
Why? Because they know that as
@peter4ptv says, not everybody is going to set up shop in their living rooms and kitchens and stop going out to restaurants.
Beside the details of the process, you still need the equipment, the ability to source everything, the right connections sometimes, the skill set to execute, the time and application to to actually get through the process...etc. When we are buying the final product, we are not just buying the first materials, but also all the effort and expertise aforementioned.
And regarding the fear of competition you and
@F4R1d0uX mention, there will always be little trade secrets that might be omitted, but staying with the food analogy, I feel chef's have realised that they are not re-inventing the wheel, and they can not stop copy cats,
that the only way to stay ahead is to be the best when it comes to execution.
Maybe it is just me, but I find the true masters of their trade are always sharing and always progressing.
I agree, and get your gist and understand all your points.
But I'd like to make the clarification that I don't expect 100% of the information.
95% would be amazing.
Some producers share more than others, regardless of the product. If I'm getting stonewalled, I use
@PEARL's strategy and walk away (unless the end product speaks volumes on its own),
if I find a producer that is more open, I'm more willing to stick around and discover.
Before publication, and you're still sharing, just selectively.
The secrecy here has an expiration date
Definitely agree. But there is a big difference between spoon feeding and taking someone by the hand to assist or lead him through a process.
It is one thing to brush off people unwilling to do any of the leg work,
and another to limit one's help to simply saying: "Read that book, it has the answers".
The second form of help, especially when delivered with the typical attitude it typically comes with, really annoys me.