Blind Oud Test - Results And Discussion

[Rai Munir]

None is a loser, none is a winner. Because the test was not oriented for the purpose to promote or demote some vendor or oil. So, it is not a big issue why BD and FHI couldn't be perceived superior.

Wild versus cultivated, hmmm. Again no issue at all. Wild oud has no divine and royal prerogative to always smell superior. A wild wood oil, but poorly managed and distilled, and a cultivated wood oil but artistically managed and distilled. This aspect can never be neglected, if at all wild is destined to be superior. (Though I myself vote for wild wood, but Assam Organic is there as well.) So, wild vs organic is no issue at all.

This is not quantification at all, if one thinks over the format of the test. Some point of reference is always needed to brush away the haziest notions of one's cancerous and overly personalistic reviews. If at all such blind tests are to quantify, Oud Review section is the best example of tumorous growth of subjective quality ridden cells. Deconstruction of Oud oil is an extreme and worst form of quantitative approach. Qualitative approach is not to relate something with some external agents that are mostly absent in oils. If, somehow or other, we could benefit from both quantitative and qualitative approaches, I am sure it will be a great achievement. Egalitarian approach is a lullaby to evade what can be worrisome and irksome.

I strongly hope that the suggestions being posted will be incorporated in Blind Test format. I am very pleased to read the posts in this thread, and am sure respected @powdernose would have saved these posts for further improvement. After all, the second phase is to be planned.

Peace and cheers!

 

[Joe King]

None is a loser, none is a winner. Because the test was not oriented for the purpose to promote or demote some vendor or oil. So, it is not a big issue why BD and FHI couldn't be perceived superior.

Wild versus cultivated, hmmm. Again no issue at all. Wild oud has no any divine and royal prerogative to always smell superior. A wild wood oil, but poorly managed and distilled, and a cultivated wood oil but artistically managed and distilled. This aspect can never be neglected, if at wild is destined to be superior. (Though I myself vote for wild wood, but Assam Organic is there as well.) So, wild vs organic is no issue at all.

This is not quantification at all, if one thinks over the format of the test. Some point of reference is always needed to brush away the haziest notions of one's cancerous and overly personalistic reviews. If at all such blind tests are to quantify, Oud Review section is the best example of tumorous growth of subjective quality ridden cells. Deconstruction of Oud oil is extreme and worst form of quantitative approach. Qualitative approach is not to relate something with some external agents that are mostly absent in oils. If, somehow or other, we could benefit from both quantitative and qualitative approaches, I am sure it will be a great achievement. Egalitarian approach is a lullaby to evade what can be worrisome and irksome.

I strongly hope that the suggestions being posted will be incorporated in Blind Test format. I am very pleased to read the posts in this thread. I am sure respected @powdernose save these posts for further improvement. After all, the second phase is to be planned.

Peace and cheers!

wise words

 

[powdernose]

The other side of the coin applies as well, as such I don't think that expressing the percentages or ratings as evidence of success is helpful either.

Sure, we can flip the coin
But either way, I think we should focus on relativity.
Also, I don't think we should have superhuman expectations of the nose.

I am not a proponent of objective oud nor would I prefer to tackle things in a purely objective manner. That is for those who want to reduce oud down to numbers and attempt to make nearly everything about oud objective. One man's microcarpa is another's cummingiana; one man's kyen is another's double triple. I am a proponent of subjectivity in oud and sharing experiences.

I mean in the context of trials,
I didn't expand beyond that.

As for the most expensive oils being perceived as such, I still don't see it. BD is actually $500/g with average perception of $212/g; FHI is actually $366/g with average perception is $173/g.

And those were the 2 highest averages across 14 oud oils. In the context of the test they were perceived as the most expensive oils of the bunch.
Relativity.
Why should perceived values perfectly match actual market values anyway?
Perceived values is also another way of looking at the price ranges Ouddicts are more comfortable in.

The test, as far as my little understanding of it's intent goes, was not conducted to declare any oil a winner

True, it wasn't. But one purpose was to see if opinions of the Panels could converge to give clear results.
That happened in three cases. Personally, I'm delighted that there were 3 oils that managed to unify the Panel,
and more so that one of them was such a surprise.
I was at all times fully aware of the possibility that the results (all of them) could have ended up being a mess.
They didn't and that is super cool.

anything else was a suggestion to make any other test conducted to actually have a point.

And I'm sure your suggestions will be welcomed.
I'm definitely interested in their specifics.
I just like to remind everybody that this is oud, and one has to keep in mind scale and financial feasibility.

Perhaps a joint two person or more of a committee approach for 2.0?

Believe it or not, I pitched that idea for version 1.0.
Quite a few people were more willing to stand back, let me go at it alone, and see if it could be done.
For those looking for purpose to this test, one purpose is just that, to show that it could be done.
And I don't mean that in a selfish way, but rather that it is possible to have such testing formats in the oud community.
That people are already discussing future formats, is evidence that this purpose was successfully fulfilled.

What is quickly starting to become evident is creating an ouddict oud guild or appreciation society with all members donating to at different capacities: money or oil donations and we get to do all sorts of tests etc on ongoing basis. Regular sub category blind tests etc. we can even give out scholarship like awards. Great keen noses and students of oud who don’t have the discretionary income of others but in my eyes deserve a chance to try some of the legendary oils

I like that idea.

Let’s draw up some call to actions and prepare for test 2.0.

Yes, that would be welcome.
I'd like to hear your specific suggestions for the parameters you'd like to introduce.

 

[Grega]

It comes to philosophy somewhat I guess. To me, it would be if a farmed salmon is considered superior to wild. Luckily this has not happened to date. Is like hydroponic tomato tasting better than heirloom field grown.

Is worrisome because if someone thinks McDonald Big Mac is a superior burger to a proper actual burger. Dear respected ASO in my humblest but strongest of opinions has failed with this oil that I haven’t even smelled. Why? Because the origin of the wood and the descriptors don’t point to Borneo. This means a full bag of tricks was unleashed on the oils. You may say so what? That shows the skill of the distiller. I would agree with you if the competition was who is the craftiest distiller but that is not the case. Is also worrisome because if a cultivated wood can beat the likes of fhi and ..... then what the hell are we doing here? We are wasting time and money.

Pls note that I am not here to force or sell my ideology to you or anyone. I am merely sharing something I am passionate about and have strict beleifs formed around. Live and let live

I completely understand your passion for wild wood. The idea of the wood growing somewhere deep in the jungle, where seldom man has been, indeed presents a very attractive image. But for me the idea of a properly cultivated wood from a farmer who loves what he/she does and is tending to the trees with care, respect and skill, in no way presents a less attractive image. Especially considering that such a plantation represents a safer and a much more stable source of income. Man is part of nature as well and the fruits of his stewardship of nature can indeed be great. So I don't get the McDonalds comparison. Or the tomato one. Heirloom tomatoes are the cultivated tomatoes.

 

[powdernose]

So very well put brother pearl. Quantifying a qualitative experience is just plain wrong. It can be helpful to a certain extent but it should not be taken to the bank like it truly powerful evidence.

And yet the practice is both prevalent and defining in the wine industry.
In coffee cupping too.
So you already live it.

Is worrisome because if someone thinks McDonald Big Mac is a superior burger to a proper actual burger. Dear respected ASO in my humblest but strongest of opinions has failed with this oil that I haven’t even smelled. Why?

Do you realise how unfair it is to critique an oil you've never tried?
I also think that is a supremely bad analogy.

Because the origin of the wood and the descriptors don’t point to Borneo. This means a full bag of tricks was unleashed on the oils. You may say so what? That shows the skill of the distiller.

Perhaps you should smell it. It does smell like a Borneo.
And when you try it, you shouldn't feel pressured into liking it, perhaps you wont.
Another purpose of this test was to show that we shouldn't be bound by such peer pressure,
just because 5 other Ouddicts really liked it, doesn't mean that you should too.

But did they? I mean Borneo diesel and fhi both fell just slightly below fajr in overall scoring. But in my eyes they are the winner as they should have been because of two reasons:
1) fajr got no marks for an oil people like to spend more time studying where was both fhi and BD did
2) no one even remotely guessed its origin right.

You're applying double standards here.
Most region votes for FHI were Vietnam.
And for Borneo Diesel, most votes were for Merauke, Gyrinops (what I thought too), so according to your reasoning, it is not true to its type.
Also, only Aleata guessed Borneo for BD, but he also said Purple Kinam, i.e. Malaysian. I gave the full point because I thought it was close enough, but actually it is only half a point.

 

[Woodland Note]

Yes, the plan was always to have at least one nose per panel that was newer to oud.
That intention was made clear in the origin thread.
If you recall, we discussed 'virgin' noses. In a way I'm a bit regretful I didn't get Woodland Note earlier

Yes, my nose is no longer virgin to oud thanks to this beautiful community and the kindness of some of its members.

To be honest, at first I was thinking I would like to be a reviewer, probably because I just craved to try more ouds. But now since I have really a decent number of samples, and plenty still to be discovered... Well, I still crave more but at the same time I would just feel bad giving them points and judging. I don't feel experienced enough nor qualified in any way to do such thing. And for me each one is different, unique and very beautiful.
Well, I’ve already tried 2 very similar ouds from the same region of Thailand province. Kind of like twins with minor differences. But still it would be difficult to make a choice between them.
I don't compare the beauty of most beautiful girls. I don't compare which german shepherd puppy is more cute. I have preferences but some things are just not meant to be compared for me. So... That is that.

Besides... I'm already part of some kind of blind testings of oud oils. I've been gifted 13 samples by certain kind fellow and almost half of them is labeled only with a letter. And I like this idea more, I’m not pressured in any way, I will just post my various thoughts about them as I like after oudy sessions that will happen when the time is right.
But thank you for considering me for the reviewer role, I truly appreciate it!

I feel very honored to have been given the referee role, perhaps small but still responsible and involving some level of trust.

 

[Rasoul Salehi]

I completely understand your passion for wild wood. The idea of the wood growing somewhere deep in the jungle, where seldom man has been, indeed presents a very attractive image. But for me the idea of a properly cultivated wood from a farmer who loves what he/she does and is tending to the trees with care, respect and skill, in no way presents a less attractive image. Especially considering that such a plantation represents a safer and a much more stable source of income. Man is part of nature as well and the fruits of his stewardship of nature can indeed be great. So I don't get the McDonalds comparison. Or the tomato one. Heirloom tomatoes are the cultivated tomatoes.

i shoulda taken a few law and more English classes. i dont think i am successfully communicating my point. my thinking is not necessarily solely logical but romantic and emotional as well. is best we hear from ASO on the method of cultivation, quality of the wood, etc.

jist of my point is on "made" vs "realized". manipulated vs captured. tasting, smelling, looking natural vs "worked".

 

[Rasoul Salehi]

Thank you!
And thank you for participating.








Why?
Think of it another way, is it not disrespectful to mother nature to indiscriminately chop down wild trees to the point of extinction?
Do you know the provenance of your wild ouds?



FHI and Borneo Diesel had very good results.
Rakhawah unfortunately was seriously handicapped by 3 leakages. Maybe the result would have been different if all samples were intact.
On the other hand, I think we should recognise that Rakhawah may not have one of the profiles that has easier universal appeal.



Well yes! It is a big ask.
If we consider this trial a success though, it could be easier next time to ask for more



Uhmmm that already happened



I think you answered your own question there
Intensity, Longevity and Complexity were meant to be the most objective measures, to see if reviewers could agree on such values.
There should be some correlation between Complexity, Oudiness and the Rating though...



I understand your point, but in fairness, I don't think typicity is as big a factor for other ouddicts as it is for you.
At least, I've not seen other ouddicts express this concern.



I think it's just you



I'm certain nobody assigned ratings, willy nilly.



With two groups doing the same oils, it's a good idea!
Otherwise, less so.



Actually, since you mention it. Most reviewers missed the point of the 'time factor' field.
The question was: If you had more time, which oil would you like to spend more time with evaluating?
Not which oil you'd like to spend more time with, but if you had more time to evaluate, which oil would you choose to further evaluate. Not that it couldn't be your favourite. But it was more about which oil do you think you may not have fully unlocked, and given more time, would be more likely to re-evaluate or further discover complexities.
Only a couple of reviewers got it right.



I did

Thanks for all the feedback

typicity is very important, otherwise, why bother selling oils after regional, subregional and even at times down to specific sub-variety within a sub region. it is these regional unique traits that has turned many of us into oud aficionados. oud begs us to give it our time and study it for each region and cultivar has its own unique set of traits.

let me be very clear what is in my manifesto of a great oil:
1) is a textbook example of its region and sub cultivar
2) has the unique signature of the distiller but one that is like a thin frame around a beautiful painting, not something that overshadows the work itself and worse obliterates it

time factor field regardless of how its perceived can be said to connote the same thing: a desire to study it further which in my eye points out to a complexity and or intrigue in the oil that begs the student to check back again and again.

by willy nilly i mean, the overall score should be a direct tally up of the values entered in criteria fields, not a number that jumps into our head for what we feel is fair evaluation of that oil. i am going to give this lots of thought and time and see what i can come up with. i know there wont be a perfect system and the criteria at the end of the day entirely depend on the main agenda of a test. ill share my findings when they present themselves to me. at the moment i am in discovery mode. pls dont expect a quick answer. this may take a while...


TBC

 

[Rasoul Salehi]

And yet the practice is both prevalent and defining in the wine industry.
In coffee cupping too.
So you already live it.

yes it is but doesn't mean i agree with it. we in fact beleive in the #pointless system. no numerical value is given to a wine as it reduces a complex whole that is alive and changes to a snapshot.

Do you realise how unfair it is to critique an oil you've never tried?
I also think that is a supremely bad analogy.

i acknowledged that and have asked ASO to share with us their 2 cents on the wood and the method of make, but my argument is a birds eye view. is a macro matter not micro. it is NOT about this oil, but the idea of a cultivated wood that most (everyone but you?) didnt see as a borneo and to make matters worse is from cultivated wood. good for the oil. great for the distiller. sad for purists and those who value regionality. i dont want a broneo oil that is seen as maroke or a hindi that is maluku or a malinau that is walla. if you or anyone else is fine with that and excited by it, no problem, pls enjoy and ignore me and my idealist and romantic views. the hell with me and my kind.

Let me try giving other layman examples on the off chance i havent been able to get my view across. how do you feel if a chef cooks a chicken in a way that it smells, tastes and has the texture of a duck? is a neat trick. is cool, but is it valuable? is it admirable? is it the kinda world you wana live in? my answer is a no. i am not here to convince anyone, but merely share my way of thinking and to open someone else's mind to a different way of value and belief system. whether they agree or not, everyone does or no one, wont change anything for me. this is my opinion, not facts and not how everyone should view things. i stand by my analogy, b/c a big mac is "made" to taste good, yet we all know is not a real burger. an oil can be accessorized to death to smell good, but it doesnt do what a real authentic one will do to you. at the end of the day i receive a far emotional, spiritual, intellectual pleasure from a super simple but well-prepared dish that shows the integrity of the ingredients used than i will ever get from a pot of chili or a complex molecular gastronomic creation. it is why what @Taha does to mute or rid of any and all other notes but the oleoresin int he wood is so admirable and finds a soft cozy dear spot in ones heart and mind. one again to each their own. i am not going to rehash this any further. i said what i had to say. my point is a philosophical one, that is dear to me. in some ways one can say natural wine with imperfections winning over a highly manipulated wine via techniques of all kinds that was made to taste superior. i could care less for the latter wine that is seemingly perfect, but fabricated and overworked.

once again dear ASO pls pls forgive me as i have no issues with you what so ever, i am not here to single you out and based on one example question all your other fine work, just like i wont brush taha's great oils with the bad taste an oil like kencana has left in my mouth or ensar's oils with the haroon, or oud emerald or...



Perhaps you should smell it. It does smell like a Borneo.
And when you try it, you shouldn't feel pressured into liking it, perhaps you wont.
Another purpose of this test was to show that we shouldn't be bound by such peer pressure,
just because 5 other Ouddicts really liked it, doesn't mean that you should too.

no doubt. but when experienced wearers i hold their views and takes at high levels see a broneo as maroke, we have a problem.


You're applying double standards here.
Most region votes for FHI were Vietnam. (i respectfully dont think so. maroke vs borneo are totally different beats, different geography and species. HK vietnam the genus is the same (sinesis), proximity of the area is also closer and most importantly i know of NO other HK material oil, so people wont really knowwhat HK oil is. you need to have smelled the HK sinesis (rarer and similarly priced as best of kinams) on low heater to have that light bulb go off and aha moment. so unique that once you have it registered to your brain, that note will not be mistaken for another).
And for Borneo Diesel, most votes were for Merauke, Gyrinops (what I thought too), so according to your reasoning, it is not true to its type.
Also, only Aleata guessed Borneo for BD (100% correct. borneo diesel is not at first clear textbook malinau, but the unqiue malinau character is still there. this oil is a funny one for me, it sits just on the tipping point edge of my tolerance for deviation from regionality. it is for that reason that taha's royal malinau for me is the better oil, for it has the oomph and pwoer but also 100% typical of the subregion signature) , but he also said Purple Kinam (side note, the legendary purple kinam too would be a fail in my eyes if it didnt have that distinct malay note in it along with the extra terrestrial foreign notes. many oils recall facets of purple kinam and all are classic malay: kedah thaqeel, ayu, sultan suleyman,...) i.e. Malaysian. I gave the full point because I thought it was close enough, but actually it is only half a point.

above in bold. with much respect. my points are personal opinions. strong opinions but something that is dear to me and may be 100% useless and garbage talk to others.

 

[Rai Munir]

with much respect. my points are personal opinions. strong opinions but something that is dear to me

Dearest Rasoul, you are dear to us all, and of course, your views as well.

 

[Rasoul Salehi]

The big picture is this thing we call oud is so special so revered that has us dedicating valuable time and energy to not to mention finances. It brings out the passion in us and liveliness. Long live oud, variety in it and democracy in how we each come to enjoy its many facets. Respect and love to all.

 

[PersonelHigh]

@powdernose, IMO the blind test was fun. However, I am still unsure of the thesis, what the blind test intended to elucidate, and what it actually demonstrates.

Maybe it's not the thesis but for me what I gained was a recognition of what I have an affinity for and what I don't. And in that, I've noticed that my tastes have amended themselves. So for me it's been a personal refinement of my own preferences. So in essence I agree with you that basically I'm not sure what this proves. Would a different group of people have had similar results? How about more people participating in testing?

 

[PersonelHigh]

credit is due where credit is due. this was no small undertaking and given the time frame and how quickly it came together to not lose momentum is highly admirable. i cant imagine anyone doing a better job for the first round. much respect to everyone at any capacity for the work did and contributions they made. major admiration and respect to powder nose for his approach, for his open mind, for him staying on point and pushing the ship forward.

i have many things to say. the spirit in which I make this post is positive and constructive. I hope it comes across as such and the message captures the spirit in which i write it. i am not pointing fingers. only trying to build upon what i learned and looking back in hindsight.

before i go on to specific points, i believe the main goal, secondary, tertiary goal of any exercise like this should be laid out before the test commences. i may have failed to see this, but wasn't able to find out beforehand what is the main purpsoe. there are many aspects and many goals for a test like this. this test has proven helpful in many aspects, yet not really helpful if you look at it from a different lens. "cool" and "interesting" for sure, but i dont think thats why we are here for.

It was helpful to see if the so-called signature of some distillers come across or not. the answer for me turned out to be somewhat yes, somewhat no. i immediately realized ASO signature in an oil i had never tried but i knew it had to be theirs. yet i mistakenly took surirankah senkoh for imperial oud ceylon royale. in my defense, the two oils are truly quite similar

it was also helpful to rid of one's influence from peer pressure, price point pressure, brand pressure... but there is a cost associated with that, as i believe every oil should be judged on its own set of merits. otherwise, we end up with apples and oranges and people's subjective likes come to play, instead of an objective approach. more on this below.

here is my summary of things in no specific order:

1) with all due respect to ASO, it is HIGHLY worrisome for cultivated oil to be a clear winner. it is disrespectful to mothernature, to the wild oud and also worrisome to see oud enthusiasts not being able to see the difference. for FHI, borneo diesel, Rakhawa... to not be recognized for what they are, is troubling. I wish I had a chance to try this oil and see for myself.

2) i wish the same set of oils would be sent to everyone. i guess it would have mean a big ask from donors to give up that much volume oil from one oil. i would personally wish for next round to limit the number of judges to ensure all get the same oils. on the same note, i would suggest tagging the oils differently. e.g oil X marked as A for some, B for others, and D for some... as to ensure no behind the scene chat and peer pressure etc. doesnt happen between judges.

3) when i was filling out the template, i didnt and still dont see a correlation of how one decides the best oil from the set of given criteria. stay with me. let me explain. if one takes the numerical number of the first four rows: intensity, longevity, complexity and oudiness it doesnt correlate with overall score. also the oil that scores higher or hits a higher mark for longevity, intensity, is not necessarily one that makes a wearer to wana spend more time with. i cant speak for others and wont, but i wonder which parameter is the most meaningful? i mean for me, certain days the oil that gets the vote as the only oil to spend more time with is the best oil of the bunch. yet another day a more intense oil is preferred, while majority of the time a given oil's poise or balance is the winner.

4) i strongly think a single blind test is more valuable than full blind and ill explain why. i humbly suggest the following idea next go around: the origin and age of oud is given but nothing more. price, maker, cultivated vs wild is kept blind. this is important in my opinion b/c tyicity and textbook qualities are important. imagine i go to a restuarant and order a bolognese pasta, but instead, i get served the most amazing carbonara pasta i have had. this is a major fail, b/c i didnt get what i was suppsoed to. if an oil is getting high marks for a hindi but turns out to be malay, then that is again a fail in my eyes. respectfully the interesting and somewhat enjoyable sumbawalla from JK had dead on microcarpa and malinau notes in it. it didnt and still doesnt ring in gyrinops from sumba, or sumbawa or walla. ditto the awesome oil that turned out to be cambodi vintage, is really an excellent agalocha. i fail to see anything cambodi in it. but maybe thats just me. i need to go and read other's take on this oil.

5) i humbly suggest having the overall score be an actual sum of the many criteria, rather than us willy nilly giving it a number.
e.g in my case oils that had more intensity, longevity, etc. didn't necessarily get a highest overall score.

6) perhaps price point shared or the bracket the price falls into if shared is very helpful b/c in reality price determines the expectation. we can then vote for Oil X meets the price point, falls below slightly or massively, or the opposite: ultra strong quality-price ratio. this can be done as two groups: one group given the price brackets and another not. would be more than just interesting to compare the results.

7) most of the work for round 2 in my opinion should be on setting up the criteria and refining it. as is in the first round, i personally see a major disadvantage to someone like taha, who's oils are not about intensity, longevity, complexity etc. they are about the medicinal aspects, the clean-ness, the pristine notes, the minimalism and less is more if you will. i am not saying all his oils are like that, but the generalization somewhat holds true. also intensity in an older oud is a different sign and apositive one vs in a young oil. at the same time, certain qualities if seen in an old oil are a bad sign vs if it was in a yougn oil, it can be forgiven.

my 2 cents for now

EEEK I find that very worrisome driving towards a score and winner. Perfumery and ouds are an art form. I fear this esstemed set of judges applying some particular numerical criteria and formula for a winner you are going to end up with oud makers all trying to make similar oils to please the palates of these blinded noses. PLEASE NO. This is not a science it's an art.

 

[Rasoul Salehi]

EEEK I find that very worrisome driving towards a score and winner. Perfumery and ouds are an art form. I fear this esstemed set of judges applying some particular numerical criteria and formula for a winner you are going to end up with oud makers all trying to make similar oils to please the palates of these blinded noses. PLEASE NO. This is not a science it's an art.

Beautifully put.

 

[Ammar]

Brilliant job you did here @powdernose. Someone can get a lot of useful information from the sheet if they are willing to. Specifically, I found that the ability of the testers in truly identifying the highest priced oils (presumably true to their quality) to be impressive nonetheless, simply because it shows that the noses were able to identify the presumed highest quality oils distilled from the best grade wood. Guessing the "true" price tag set by vendor is a different story.

Congrats...

 

[Rai Munir]

Brilliant job you did here @powdernose. Someone can get a lot of useful information from the sheet if they are willing to. Specifically, I found that the ability of the testers in truly identifying the highest priced oils (presumably true to their quality) to be impressive nonetheless, simply because it shows that the noses were able to identify the presumed highest quality oils distilled from the best grade wood. Guessing the "true" price tag set by vendor is a different story.

Congrats...

Thanks, respected Ammar, for your post. I was anxiously waiting for your post. Your remarks really mean a lot. For a long time, I have been waiting to read your views about certain newly released oils. I learnt how to know Oud oils.

Your critical appreciation of the Blind Test would bring more accuracy, authenticity and beauty to the test.

 

[Ashfaque]

An excellent and noble project that only an addict would pursue that his/her peers will appreciate. Thanks a lot for sharing.

This could potentially be turned into an academic paper.

 

[powdernose]

above in bold. with much respect. my points are personal opinions. strong opinions but something that is dear to me and may be 100% useless and garbage talk to others.

>>Do you realise how unfair it is to critique an oil you've never tried?
>i acknowledged that

Yet you persist?
Whether the view is micro or macro, to critique an oil that someone hasn't even tried, and in such a fashion, is actually unacceptable!
I wonder how you would take to someone negatively reviewing one of your wines, without even trying it (!), simply by superimposing the general negative macro views he has regarding Canadian wine.

> i stand by my analogy, b/c a big mac is "made" to taste good, yet we all know is not a real burger.
> my point is a philosophical one

No, it is not philosophical, because you keep correlating back to the specific oil.
I find the analogy offensive, and I am just an average oud user. I can barely imagine what anyone who puts time, effort and money into furthering cultivated oud (so that it may one day provide a sustainable future) might feel when reading that analogy...
I almost feel obliged to aplogise to any oud cultivator out there that has read this...

>Most region votes for FHI were Vietnam. HK vietnam the genus is the same (sinesis)

Vietnam oud oils are primarily crassna. So, no, not closer.

>>no doubt. but when experienced wearers i hold their views and takes at high levels see a broneo as maroke, we have a problem.

The same reviewer that guessed Maroke for Fajr, guessed Papua for Borneo Diesel.
So yes, absolutely double standards.

Further, Panel A only had about a 20% success rate in pinpointing the region/profile.
Based on that, ouddicts are generally not adept at pinpointing region/profile simply by blind sniffing a sample.
If you recall, the field was optional and was meant to be a bit of fun as well.
Despite the objective numbers of the success rate, I still think the reviewers did quite well. Some better than others, some better with some regions, others better with other regions.
I am still impressed that @rojas picked up sinensis in Xue Jie!

Also, regarding typicity, as I recall, Al Shareef Oudh already provided a lengthy answer to you in the oud of the day thread:
http://www.ouddict.com/threads/oud-of-the-day-night.8/page-423#post-36203
I'm sure Al Shareef Oudh are more gracious than me, but if anybody compared my oud oil to McDonald's I'd not exactly be in a sharing mood...

i am going to give this lots of thought and time and see what i can come up with. i know there wont be a perfect system and the criteria at the end of the day entirely depend on the main agenda of a test. ill share my findings when they present themselves to me. at the moment i am in discovery mode. pls dont expect a quick answer. this may take a while...

Take your time,
I look forward to your input.

 

[powdernose]

MOCNITYSMNGI

?? What does that mean?

So, basically what you are doing by focusing on that one line and saying that $212 and $173 are the highest averages, then interpreting that to mean they were perceived as the most expensive, is totally ignoring their actual price.
you can not ignore their actual prices.

Yes.
And yes I can
I'm not obliged to use the retail prices in any one fashion; and I never posited that it was possible to accurately and consistently price oud oils simply by blindly sniffing them.
I think we can agree to disagree on this point.

I'm very happy you spoke of relativity, that's exactly what it is. The perceived price relative to the actual price of an individual oil, then that can be compared to others. Take BD for example, which was perceived on average as $212 and an actual price of $500. Perceived/actual=212/500, BD was perceived as being only 42.4% of it's actual price. Then take PO Sweet Trat which was perceived on average as $89 and an actual price of $26, perceived/actual=89/26, PO-ST was perceived as being 342% of its actual price.

I understood your point the first time.
I understand you are normalising the perceived values with the retail values, and the objective numbers lead to your earlier conclusion:

that ouddicts are generally not adept at relating what they smell/perceive to a value/price.

You are right!
It is not possible to accurately and consistently blindly sniff an oud oil's retail price. I don't think anybody ever realistically believed that possible in any case. I certainly never did.
Also, you are right, the more expensive ouds were typically undervalued, and the cheapest ones were overvalued.

 

[powdernose]

I feel very honored to have been given the referee role, perhaps small but still responsible and involving some level of trust.

Yes, it was an important role, and I thank you for fulfilling the role with the required secrecy and patience.
Thanks!

Maybe it's not the thesis but for me what I gained was a recognition of what I have an affinity for and what I don't. And in that, I've noticed that my tastes have amended themselves. So for me it's been a personal refinement of my own preferences.

100%, blind testing definitely involves self discovery, and that was always one of the objectives, bringing attention to this.

I also think that finding an oud oil that @PersonelHigh really likes was one of the wins

Brilliant job you did here @powdernose. Someone can get a lot of useful information from the sheet if they are willing to.

Thank you!
I think so! I had hoped that more people would look at the minutiae of the results.
Perhaps it is as @Rai Munir says, and we need time to digest and review:

Let the result of this Blind Test cure and then get aged, its functionality, appropriateness, benefit and even need will become clear. !

In the meantime, did anyone else notice that there seems to be a negative bias against fruity-floral-sweet oud oils? Some of the oils with that profile got absolutely killed! Some, unjustly so I believe.

I also noticed that some of the reviewers have a make or break reviewing style. Not much room for the middle ground in scoring.
I found that interesting, and it certainly was not something I expected before going into this test. I still think about it.
Perhaps, for future trials, it should be an aim to cover a greater percentage of the rating scale.

Specifically, I found that the ability of the testers in truly identifying the highest priced oils (presumably true to their quality) to be impressive nonetheless, simply because it shows that the noses were able to identify the presumed highest quality oils distilled from the best grade wood. Guessing the "true" price tag set by vendor is a different story.

Yes, good point. One should hardly expect the nose to be able to precisely sniff out any retail price, how could one adjust for each vendor's buying power, running costs, or markup strategies anyway?
If I were looking to more strictly correlate true prices to perceived values, I would like to compare with a more 'raw' value. If we had that kind of transparency, it might be interesting to see how well ouddict noses could be able to blindly perceive the quality of the source wood that went into the pot.
Still, as previously mentioned, I would probably be looking at thresholds; is there a value threshold that once surpassed, can be uniformly and blindly perceived by a panel as higher quality by sniffing the produced oil?

We should also not forget the failure of Hareer.
It was both grossly undervalued compared to its retail price, and also relatively undervalued within its blind group.
I had wondered if it is easier to discern quality within certain regions, and more difficult in others.

An excellent and noble project that only an addict would pursue that his/her peers will appreciate. Thanks a lot for sharing.
This could potentially be turned into an academic paper.

Thank you!
Let's not go overboard
@PEARL is right that it would take more defined hypotheses to have universal objective value.
And I mentioned that it would take far more, time, resources, and money!

I did try my best though, and I thank you for recognising the addict in me