Ouddict

Ouddict Co-Founder & Tech Support
Are you sure? According to this post by Kesiro it agreed with what Peter is saying.
"There has been a lot of speculation and controversy about purity of some oils. The KZ85 has been a hot potato for a while. I have never tried this oil but it certainly has a following.
There have been claims by some the oil is pure and others that it may not be. So recently, the GCMS result for this oil was posted on Basenotes.
http://www.basenotes.net/threads/445669-KZ85-THe-GCMS-results

The comments from the tester state "The sample did contain some authentic agarwood essential oil but the sample was also cut with a significant amount of non-volatile material as evidenced by the low TIC number, the unusual late eluting components and the combination with phthalates."

So, unless my reading comprehension is going bad, it appears the questions about it being a pure oud seem to be valid?"

As far as I know, that wasn’t ListenClosely’s conclusion and he had good reasons for his conclusion.

Anyway, as I said and I will repeat again, this whole circus was started by an individual who has nothing better to do than cast doubt on other products and vendors. Disgused under a fake account no less. To me, that is the real issue. Hence I couldn’t care less.
 

Ouddict

Ouddict Co-Founder & Tech Support
Are you sure? According to this post by Kesiro it agreed with what Peter is saying.
"There has been a lot of speculation and controversy about purity of some oils. The KZ85 has been a hot potato for a while. I have never tried this oil but it certainly has a following.
There have been claims by some the oil is pure and others that it may not be. So recently, the GCMS result for this oil was posted on Basenotes.
http://www.basenotes.net/threads/445669-KZ85-THe-GCMS-results

The comments from the tester state "The sample did contain some authentic agarwood essential oil but the sample was also cut with a significant amount of non-volatile material as evidenced by the low TIC number, the unusual late eluting components and the combination with phthalates."

So, unless my reading comprehension is going bad, it appears the questions about it being a pure oud seem to be valid?"

Why don’t you quote fully?

From Listen Closely on BN:

So finally, what of the tester's comments?

"The sample did contain some authentic agarwood essential oil but the sample was also cut with a significant amount of non-volatile material as evidenced by the very low TIC number, the unusual late-eluting components and the contamination with phthalates"

I had several email exchanges with the tester over his findings and was left unconvinced that his experience of agarwood extended to anything other than steam/hydro distilled agarwood oils, leaving open the reasonable explanation that this is an extraction using solvents. Personally, I believe that this would account for the observations that the tester made.


So to my own conclusions:
  • The test proves that the product at least contains a majority proportion of agarwood extract.
  • The test does not show proof or even evidence of a deliberate dilution with another specific compound, extract or raw ingredient.
  • I am personally convinced that it is a more-or-less pure agarwood extract that employed a solvent/CO2-type method.
 

peter4ptv

Member
Are you sure? According to this post by Kesiro it agreed with what Peter is saying.
"There has been a lot of speculation and controversy about purity of some oils. The KZ85 has been a hot potato for a while. I have never tried this oil but it certainly has a following.
There have been claims by some the oil is pure and others that it may not be. So recently, the GCMS result for this oil was posted on Basenotes.
http://www.basenotes.net/threads/445669-KZ85-THe-GCMS-results

The comments from the tester state "The sample did contain some authentic agarwood essential oil but the sample was also cut with a significant amount of non-volatile material as evidenced by the low TIC number, the unusual late eluting components and the combination with phthalates."

So, unless my reading comprehension is going bad, it appears the questions about it being a pure oud seem to be valid?"

I have try KZ85 and I personally do not think this is oud oil, I also sent my sample to a ouddict vendor (who likes to sty anonymous) and he also said this is not oud oil. well this was before the oud extraction had become popular I have never try any of the oud extractions and they may smell very different to what I am familiar your regular distillation oud oil.
 

MzM

Oud King
Why don’t you quote fully?

From Listen Closely on BN:

So finally, what of the tester's comments?

"The sample did contain some authentic agarwood essential oil but the sample was also cut with a significant amount of non-volatile material as evidenced by the very low TIC number, the unusual late-eluting components and the contamination with phthalates"

I had several email exchanges with the tester over his findings and was left unconvinced that his experience of agarwood extended to anything other than steam/hydro distilled agarwood oils, leaving open the reasonable explanation that this is an extraction using solvents. Personally, I believe that this would account for the observations that the tester made.


So to my own conclusions:
  • The test proves that the product at least contains a majority proportion of agarwood extract.
  • The test does not show proof or even evidence of a deliberate dilution with another specific compound, extract or raw ingredient.
  • I am personally convinced that it is a more-or-less pure agarwood extract that employed a solvent/CO2-type method.
What do you mean why don't you quote fully?? I did quote fully, I pasted the whole post by Kesiro that's where I had read about this. See screenshot attached.
Screenshot_20180806-103041.png
 

Ouddict

Ouddict Co-Founder & Tech Support
I have try KZ85 and I personally do not think this is oud oil, I also sent my sample to a ouddict vendor (who likes to sty anonymous) and he also said this is not oud oil. well this was before the oud extraction had become popular I have never try any of the oud extractions and they may smell very different to what I am familiar your regular distillation oud oil.

@peter4ptv, while I have no real skin in this, KZ85 was never distilled to be used as a scent. It was distilled by the Chinese for medicinal use, so it’s reasonable to expect that it will not be similar to oils distilled for the specific use as scents. At least that is what I read on the issue on BN.
 

Ouddict

Ouddict Co-Founder & Tech Support
What do you mean why don't you quote fully?? I did quote fully, I pasted the whole post by Kesiro that's where I had read about this. See screenshot attached. View attachment 4937

Ah... lol that makes sense. I thought you posted from the original. That’s Kesiro posting selectively as you can see from my cut and paste of the original post on the matter by ListenClosely. You’d have to ask Kesiro why he didn’t include the rest of the quote.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MzM

powdernose

Oud Sprite
Nope... go and read the BN posts. I think, apart from @powdernose, everyone concurred that the oil is pure. I haven’t really looked into the issue in depth as I believe it was brought up by a mysterious Ali Senjefi on Basenotes for his own ends (presumably Albanian given the name and I know of only one other Albanian in the world of Oud). Therefore not worth wasting my time chasing a red herring.

No,
actually @peter4ptv is correct, the tester concluded the oil is not pure.
Perhaps I'm the only one that didn't dismiss the testers findings, but I'm not alone in my view as I share the testers conclusion.
And if I were alone I wouldn't mind.
My thoughts are clearly stated in the thread @Basenotes which @MzM linked to.
If anyone is up to posting a rebuttal or discussing the issue, I am open to that.

I only read the Ali Senjefi posts after looking at the GC results and after posting my own thoughts. I found them when you pointed them out to me.
I had my doubts regarding 1985 before Senjefi ever appeared.
I have no association with Senjefi or with Ensar. Nor does the tester for that matter. Just to be clear about that.
It is true that the word 'labdanum' was thrown around by Ensar, and has floated around ever since,
but I wasn't aware that the rumour mill had reached the point where people were saying 1985 didn't contain any oud at all.
One may definitely make a case that such rumours are either 'baseless' or 'nasty',
but to dismiss the eventual science out of hand just because of the peripheral motivations, seems foolish.

The way I see it,
because the findings of the report showed that the oil a. contained agarwood markers, and b. didn't seem to contain any labdanum,
people were happy to let things rest there, completely disregarding the fact that the tester concluded the oil was impure.
 

F4R1d0uX

Resident Artisan
I smelt both kz and oud sultani at uk oud fayre they are both nice ouds !

KZ is a super extract and sultani is a terrific bright perfumey malay and has nothing suspect in it.

Problems start when naive customers send competitor X oils to competitor Z and expect Z to say : woooow it's a terrific oil !

If you dont want this to happen, then please don't send someone's oil to another vendor who would be too tempted to spread problem (will stay polite).

Recently I red a gaharu post in wich a seller said that he received a sample of rare cambodi profile, next line was something like : its far lower than what my product has to offer.
 

Ouddict

Ouddict Co-Founder & Tech Support
No,
actually @peter4ptv is correct, the tester concluded the oil is not pure.
Perhaps I'm the only one that didn't dismiss the testers findings, but I'm not alone in my view as I share the testers conclusion.
And if I were alone I wouldn't mind.
My thoughts are clearly stated in the thread @Basenotes which @MzM linked to.
If anyone is up to posting a rebuttal or discussing the issue, I am open to that.

I only read the Ali Senjefi posts after looking at the GC results and after posting my own thoughts. I found them when you pointed them out to me.
I had my doubts regarding 1985 before Senjefi ever appeared.
I have no association with Senjefi or with Ensar. Nor does the tester for that matter. Just to be clear about that.
It is true that the word 'labdanum' was thrown around by Ensar, and has floated around ever since,
but I wasn't aware that the rumour mill had reached the point where people were saying 1985 didn't contain any oud at all.
One may definitely make a case that such rumours are either 'baseless' or 'nasty',
but to dismiss the eventual science out of hand just because of the peripheral motivations, seems foolish.

The way I see it,
because the findings of the report showed that the oil a. contained agarwood markers, and b. didn't seem to contain any labdanum,
people were happy to let things rest there, completely disregarding the fact that the tester concluded the oil was impure.

Please read what ListenClosely said about the tester. Any competent tester can reproduce the GCMS results, but interpretation is a totally different matter. Each to their own, but I think ListenClosely’s reasons to judge the oil as pure have merit and we can agree to differ.

As for Mr Senjefi, of who 99% people know the true identity of, his posts do not detract from the results of course, but leave a very bad taste.
 

peter4ptv

Member
It was pure at around 96% with average storage condition since 1986 or something like this, its still a very good score ...
I am not sure how you come up with 96%?
I just re-read the test and this is the exact conclusions from the lab:
<<<<<The sample did contain some authentic agarwood essential oil but the sample was also cut with a significant amount of non-volatile material as evidenced by the very low TIC number, the unusual late-eluting components and the contamination with phthalates>>>>>>
the way they say it: did contain some authentic agarwood essential oil
I understand that "some" is way much less than pure around 96%
 

powdernose

Oud Sprite
Please read what ListenClosely said about the tester.

I have spoken to ListensClosely many times over the years, and in fact sent him my thoughts before I posted on Basenotes.

I think ListenClosely’s reasons to judge the oil as pure have merit and we can agree to differ.

So you have disregarded what I have to say without even reading my post...
True, we needn't ever agree on the issue. But you could at least read my points.

As for Mr Senjefi, of who 99% people know the true identity of, his posts do not detract from the results of course, but leave a very bad taste.

You are probably right and definitely more informed on that issue.
I agree, if things are as you say they are, it is disgusting
In any case, if Senjefi's motives are not in question then his oud nose immediately comes into question.

By the way, I love exchanges like this... helps the post count immensely :Roflmao:

lol
 

powdernose

Oud Sprite
Sultani is a terrific bright perfumey malay and has nothing suspect in it.

Recently I red a gaharu post in wich a seller said that he received a sample of rare cambodi profile, next line was something like : its far lower than what my product has to offer.

Well I've not said anything regarding Sultani. Never tried the oil .
One would have to ask Mandeel why he selected that oil. Maybe it is just one of his favourites.
I am interested in ANY oud oil GC reports. I find it educational.

It seems like I've read that statement, in all its forms, many times over ...
 

F4R1d0uX

Resident Artisan
I am not sure how you come up with 96%?
I just re-read the test and this is the exact conclusions from the lab:
<<<<<The sample did contain some authentic agarwood essential oil but the sample was also cut with a significant amount of non-volatile material as evidenced by the very low TIC number, the unusual late-eluting components and the contamination with phthalates>>>>>>
the way they say it: did contain some authentic agarwood essential oil
I understand that "some" is way much less than pure around 96%

I get this score from earlier I did'nt red what has been posted today because I was still at work on my phone.

If this test is based on essential oil analysis, then results would be biased because a co2 extract (esp total) is certainely not an essential oil, it will contain yes but not only.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MzM

F4R1d0uX

Resident Artisan
Well I've not said anything regarding Sultani. Never tried the oil .
One would have to ask Mandeel why he selected that oil. Maybe it is just one of his favourites.
I am interested in ANY oud oil GC reports. I find it educational.

It seems like I've read that statement, in all its forms, many times over ...

OK I rewinded the thread until I found out you bumped today :Thumbsup:
 
  • Like
Reactions: MzM

F4R1d0uX

Resident Artisan
Okay I came back home and watched carefully at the cgms result and my conclusion is : please don't believe a random client who goes to a non oud producing university to do a cgms test on a suposed perfumery essential oil whereas it's a +30 yo extract (many volatile compounds should have gone away) so his conclusion would be : it has some essential oil because of some volatile compounds but not only because of non volatile compounds

If you want to learn how to read a cgms test, there is a lot of documentation on internet from agarwood producing country university ...

As for the dibutyl phtalate, try to see how to react ethyl ester with fatty acids that can be found in agarwood extract ...

If you wonder about valerianol and valeranal (who really caught my attention) it's present on very few subspecies but i just found it it exists...

Now please just DEFENITELY move on on that subjet.
 

Kyarazen

Artisan
Hi all, hot topic again.. :p

with regards to the gcms of the 1985, i thought i would come make a posting again.. albeit a more intellectual one just incase more people get caught up in the spiral and fall into different "camps" with different motives/motivations.

chemical analysis of agarwood has been on going since the 1970s... and it is still on going i.e. every year or so you may find new scientific literature on new compounds found in agarwood etc..

i have attached below my analysis of the GCMS report, with each of the compounds present and its cross-references that validates them to be agarwood constituents.. some of these literature new.. some old. even rozi mohd has also written in his book that gcms of agw remains not fully optimized.. perhaps give the technology and demand a bit more time as most GCMS is still used for stronger volatiles.. and the result of a GCMS is strongly affected by the column used, the temperature, and the solvent used, for example dichloromethane vs acetone gives two different populations and GCMS profiles.

nevertheless, on the question of aristolene, valerianol, etc, these are quite major agarwood constituents ins ome species, i.e. crassna, malaccensis etc.

if the aim was to "dilute or cut" an agarwood extract as this is, you will not see high percentages of Eudesmol, Aristolene, Valerianol, Guaic acetate etc. you might see these markers fall down to very low percentages as the cutting agent is increased. but so far, there is no major cutting agent present, and no cistus/labdanum compounds present... if any of these labdanum, benzoin, etc resins are present, it would have been obvious in the GC.

pthlates etc are commonly known to use to cut oils, but in logical sense.. whom would want to cut an oil by adding 0.7% only to it?! it would be 7%.... 70% even... but not everyone may have the same logical view. btw i found a 1.2% in a famous oil from someone, and to me that was a hotter potato, and i still view that result as a dipstick contamination. a couple of people aware of this also deemed it to be vessel leaching, but when "someone" heard about this.. and contacted me, tried to ask me to generate posts/publicity to "attack" someone's brand/reputation etc, i immediately found this whole matter extremely distasteful. in my current olfactory journey to bring great scents to the world.. never was i interested in the political games people play with each other.. and i would also never want to be used as a "weapon" or a "pawn" in the agendas/games people have.

i personally flag out five of the components in red as they are not found in scientific literature to be known to be present in agarwood. in my opinion, either undiscovered yet or most probably a cross contamination from the facility especially without much standards/regulation in those days. it was known to be a chinese medicine/herb extraction facility.

the KZ1985 can be easily verified to be old. the medicinal hall owned by mr Lee Teng Kian, known as Chop Tye Ah (govt reg 00605700D 2nd generation partnership) has been operating in Singapore since 1934. Mr Lee's brother is still around, so are all his children. His two staff, one by name of Lan Hua, and the other called Yue Er both had worked for him for 45 and 42 years respectively. if you are resourceful enough in Singapore you might have been to this medicinal hall. i'm still in good contact with Yue Er, and although she's 70, if anyone in singapore or malaysia wants to hire her to work in a medicinal hall etc please let me know.. it sucks to be unemployed after working your life away with minimal retirement benefits...

Why did i not make a formal post on my site on this? i thought it could be good to give it a rest. at the same time, there is actually a whole FULL bottle of this in Mr Lee's estate, but contents unverified, i received photographs of it from his son. and another former business partner of mine has some 1985, probably tens of millilitres with his own crazed dream of making it rich from this oil. it makes no sense to me.. if you take on the journey of scent and artistry.. why must people turn it into investments.. and taint it with the scent of money??



1985analysis1.jpg
1985analysis2.jpg
1985analysis3.jpg
 
Top