Rasoul Salehi
True Ouddict
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
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
Last edited: