Al Shareef Oudh
Master Perfumer
A friend has told me that some noise is being generated on the side walk to try and derail this discussion. I just want to make a kind request to all those who support Al Shareef, our dear clients, friends and supporters, please do not get dragged into the dirty games that have started over at Gaharu. Please continue this discussion constructively. Let them hate on us, it is always the same individuals, whenever we as a community get into a fruitful dialogue it is the same people who try to turn it into a fight to create a distraction. Informed consumers is what we want.
I also want to say, that whilst brother Shabby has opted not to post here, he has clarified in private what his intent was, he was very kind and polite may Allah bless him.
@Rasoul Salehi
I want to commend you for your professional approach to this topic. It can be very easy to turn away from the topic once it gets difficult and to aim at the individual. Bravo to you for maintaining the focus on the topic.
Yes and now, distillers will tell you that sometimes they have put the most resinous wood in the pot and the other end a horrible oil has been produced. I think the notes that you are talking about is not just the wood, rather the technique as well. This is why I mentioned earlier on, in the distillation process using terms like auxiliary are incorrect, because the process itself is applied to create those unique top notes. Otherwise we would just burn woods and not bother about the oils.
Apologies if my expression was not clear, and i will try to explain further, here is what I originally wrote;
As with the genres of oils, and the techniques employed, I think is a very interesting topic. I remember in one of the threads Respect @Rai Munir made some comments regarding the origin of the word oudh, and the physical origin of the wood oudh. I believe understanding those terms within their context, origins, the intent behind the word, the application of the word and substance will in fact help us now identify the correct genre for some of these oils.
I know some of the oils that we smell today in the market would not fit the genre of oudh as a smell in the classical context. Yes they maybe distilled from oudh, yet they do not fit the genre of oudh in the context of where the word came from and the expected smell, within that tradition. So maybe we do need to define a perfumery genre for such oils and not an oudh genre. Here I am not referring to the oils you or Shabby mention, rather I am saying in more broader terms.
The examples you give are really helpful in explaining what I am trying to say. For example steaks have so many different cuts, cooking methods and how well the are done. The final cooked steak is defined specifically by a combination of those, and more broadly as steak. For example Ribeye Steak, is a steak however it is also known as Spencer, Delmonico, Scotch fillet and so forth. Further more depending on how it is cooked, there are some other additions to be more specific about the name.
Our context today is very different to the context of a few decades ago, let alone centuries. Therefore it should not be surprising that some of the oudhs in the market today would not be Oudh in the classical context. This is why I suggested that maybe we can define those oils outside of the classical genre with some perfumery genres, for example floral oudhs, ethereal oudhs. This is done more based on a region at present and less on a genre. Though you will see some vendors use such terminology intermittently.
You further mention
I don't think one can throw any oil that has that physical association to the oudh tree out from being a oudh oil. Rather what my view is that there is a classical understanding of Oudh as per those who it originated from. Then there is the evolution of oudh over time (this continues today) more so with the introduction of Organic and plantation oudh.. It is important that each phase of that journey from when it began to where it is today is understood by the parameters and merits that made it unique.
It is understandable that the proponents would do that, and say it is the best thing under the sun, as does Ferrari over Lamborghini, and Lamborghini, but there is a objective way to compare, list the pros and cons of each and weight they up.
I agree that such efforts by vendors to try and say OuD and not Oudh is another effort to be exclusive and only further confuse the market.
wish you luck with whatever you are doing and thank you for the engaging discussion. look forward to your response
I also want to say, that whilst brother Shabby has opted not to post here, he has clarified in private what his intent was, he was very kind and polite may Allah bless him.
@Rasoul Salehi
I want to commend you for your professional approach to this topic. It can be very easy to turn away from the topic once it gets difficult and to aim at the individual. Bravo to you for maintaining the focus on the topic.
Bingo. Now in your own experience and let's put cost aside for a moment. Let's assume we can pass that fully on to the consumer. Does such high resin wood (not most appropriate for oil be of economical reasons) yield amazing oil? I am not necessarily talking categorically as I am sure some do some don't but do some of these oils in your experience make it worth while purely from scent complexity point of view (not cost)?
Yes and now, distillers will tell you that sometimes they have put the most resinous wood in the pot and the other end a horrible oil has been produced. I think the notes that you are talking about is not just the wood, rather the technique as well. This is why I mentioned earlier on, in the distillation process using terms like auxiliary are incorrect, because the process itself is applied to create those unique top notes. Otherwise we would just burn woods and not bother about the oils.
Dear jawed @Al Shareef Oudh I find myself in disagreement with the part of your post that basically suggests if an oil is made from agarwood but doesn't follow the path of tradition or what oudh(with h) is known for then is not oudh and basically a different name or perfume should be replacing it. Pardon me for paraphrasing and maybe not 100% capturing your point but I think for the purposes of this discussion and to keep things simple and light and engaging for the entire community( things have gotten a bit too serious and dry, no?) here is my thought:
I would have loved to talk spirit and wine technique changes over decades and centuries (yet results are still called wine and whiskey or single malt despite changes) and compare this to oudh vs oud and basically classics (oils adhering to tradition) vs this whole genre of call it Gen 3 or oleo or whatever and I'll be happy to do this in private with you over email but For now I am going to use a different layman analogy: steak evolution or maybe you call it revolution.
On that note Pls watch the movie steak (r) evolution. Is on Netflix.
The way I see it, your argument is basically suggesting b/c for generations steak constituted of let's say casterated male cattle around the age of 2, and then the meat then had to be dry aged for 30-45 days and then cooked on charcoal and that was steak anywhere and everywhere you would have and if outside of it it shouldn't be called steak. if some dude cooks it sous vide and then pan fry it, it shouldn't be called steak and is a different thing. Or how about grill vs BBQ. Gas vs charcoal. Wet aged vs dry aged. Angus vs wagyu breed. Casterated vs non casterated. Veal vs beef. Age of cattle... where do we draw the line?
Apologies if my expression was not clear, and i will try to explain further, here is what I originally wrote;
As with the genres of oils, and the techniques employed, I think is a very interesting topic. I remember in one of the threads Respect @Rai Munir made some comments regarding the origin of the word oudh, and the physical origin of the wood oudh. I believe understanding those terms within their context, origins, the intent behind the word, the application of the word and substance will in fact help us now identify the correct genre for some of these oils.
I know some of the oils that we smell today in the market would not fit the genre of oudh as a smell in the classical context. Yes they maybe distilled from oudh, yet they do not fit the genre of oudh in the context of where the word came from and the expected smell, within that tradition. So maybe we do need to define a perfumery genre for such oils and not an oudh genre. Here I am not referring to the oils you or Shabby mention, rather I am saying in more broader terms.
The examples you give are really helpful in explaining what I am trying to say. For example steaks have so many different cuts, cooking methods and how well the are done. The final cooked steak is defined specifically by a combination of those, and more broadly as steak. For example Ribeye Steak, is a steak however it is also known as Spencer, Delmonico, Scotch fillet and so forth. Further more depending on how it is cooked, there are some other additions to be more specific about the name.
Our context today is very different to the context of a few decades ago, let alone centuries. Therefore it should not be surprising that some of the oudhs in the market today would not be Oudh in the classical context. This is why I suggested that maybe we can define those oils outside of the classical genre with some perfumery genres, for example floral oudhs, ethereal oudhs. This is done more based on a region at present and less on a genre. Though you will see some vendors use such terminology intermittently.
You further mention
Here is how I see it: these genre of oils still carry the signature And spirit of agarwood. If they had zero resemblance I could see your point but personally I still stay undecided if the community should accept them as Oudh or not. I haven't made up my mind on that yet. But so long as there is a resemblance and I can tell you out of all my samples all but one (and that is likely to my relative new exposure to oud) do, what is the issue? I am genuinely interested in your way of thinking As I have tremendous respect for you and your vast experience in this field.
I don't think one can throw any oil that has that physical association to the oudh tree out from being a oudh oil. Rather what my view is that there is a classical understanding of Oudh as per those who it originated from. Then there is the evolution of oudh over time (this continues today) more so with the introduction of Organic and plantation oudh.. It is important that each phase of that journey from when it began to where it is today is understood by the parameters and merits that made it unique.
Not only these oils have resemblance to classics( not ideal word but traditional isn't either. I am without appropriate word. Maybe status quo oils?) but In fact I think the proponents argue that they are delving deeper into capturing the truth and real essence of agarwood minus the other notes that can come about by various techniques (this has been called auxiliary. I now personally think the term is not the best and rather accessory notes is better).
It is understandable that the proponents would do that, and say it is the best thing under the sun, as does Ferrari over Lamborghini, and Lamborghini, but there is a objective way to compare, list the pros and cons of each and weight they up.
This whole movement in oud/oudh Is almost mirroring a movement started in the wine world called: natural wine. These are wines that the makers don't even believe putting in new or even 2-3 year old used oak barrels. The vessel the wine going to age in has to be neutral. Very many years used barrels. Stain steel. Concrete tanks. Clay amphora... they are about a minimalist pure less is more movement. I see many similarities in not only philosophy but actual end product of this genre of oils and these genre of wines.
I agree that such efforts by vendors to try and say OuD and not Oudh is another effort to be exclusive and only further confuse the market.
Pls note they are still called wine. Just referred to as natural wine. Like apple vs organic apple(bio) or biodynamic apple. All still apple.
I am not great with words today and in a rush to get this thought out as I have a long evening and few busy days ahead. I didn't want to delay in responding longer but not being as eloquent and to the point as I wanted to. Pardon me for that.
I hope the message came across even 90%.
wish you luck with whatever you are doing and thank you for the engaging discussion. look forward to your response