Dear raising Rising Phoenix
I believe Mr. Delapp, from Atlanta, GA if I’m not mistaken.tried your musk rose attar lovely work and talent.
First of all, thank you for your valuable input and objective reply obviously it’s coming from a man who is serious and knowledgeable enough to address things in a scientific and objective way.
As per your reply
Peak 24, which is 0.358% is likely not a synthetic additive - but is rather present due to leaching. No fault of yours.
- this is actually one of the most common issues we face since most of the oils we have are old (seriously old and not described as old through aging or other process)
Peak 61, which is DEHP @8.374%. This is a bit high for leaching. DEHP is often used as a thickening agent. I in no way do I suggest YOU added this. This was most likely a synthetic additive somewhere upstream to thicken the oil and make it feel more "oud-like".
- This was actually the first thoughts of the lab technicians, when we checked the date that the oils where made on and how many times it was transfer and long it was stores, we found that this is very normal for oils that’s been in containers or in Contact with some plastic parts for long time. Again, I’m sure you know that the more the oil is left the more is the leaching, and this is a very common problem (as our inhouse chemist explained to us) in the food industry and specifically with ketchup and mustard, thus the new production rules in many companies demanding those two items to be packed in glass bottles. This is actually something that confirm the age of the oil. Honestly, we are not very proud of it as if we make oud oisl now days this issue is easily avoided by using non-reactive lab glass for the containers and non-reactive plastic connectors for the dripper or the pods. I’m sure you know about that.
Peaks 1, 2, 3, and 4 are DPG. This would likely be due more to addition than to leaching, given the near 3% DPG of composition. Again - could be leaching...but given the overall composition - it would suggest it is not due to leaching.
Between peaks 1,2,3,4, 24 and 61 the total is 11.994% synthetic matter. This would suggest more than leaching - none of which are your fault or intention in being there. All likely added upstream.
- I agree and this is a possibility, again those oils were made long time ago in a Simi-primitive way and we simple received them (inherited them) they were not made by the current owner of the house who would easily avoided such issues being very common and obvious and that’s why we do a full lab test and publish it so we know what’s in it just like our customers should know what’s in it.
Now - on to the Oudiness...
As the remaining 88.006% does indeed look natural - my question about this would be a lack of some markers usually indicative of Oud being present. This composition looks a bit more like a composite creation, known in the industry as a "creation of perfumery". In other words - it is an oil created to smell Oud-like, with some plasticizers added as thickening agents.
Again - I don't think anyone here would question your intentions here, as I highly doubt you, yourself, added anything to this oil. I would, however, bring this to your supplier and show it to them that the test is indicative of a creation of perfumery - and also question the near 12% of the composition that is synthetic DGP, DEHP, etc.
- when those oils were made long time ago there were many elements and issue that could affected this still, if our house been always making natural oils, and never tried to mix or add synthetics the 12% synthetic DGP, DEHP, etc. will not really add any value to the oil or the composition on the contrary it would greatly risk destroying it, the oils are not promoted or listed as thick oils actually they are not so adding this percentage to thinking it is also pointless, finally every oil we list and sell go through a lab test so if we know that we will lab test this, why would we add 12% synthetic that won’t do anything. ( I know you didn’t accused us I’m just thinking load here)
In short this is a very common percentage for oils that’s been stored from long time and made through old ways and this is what multiple lab technicians agreed on. Anyway, it’s still there and we are not hiding it.
With this being said - I have no experience with your offerings, nor am I commenting on anything other than what this
GCMS shows. IF you have other oils from this particular supplier that you sourced this material from, I would suggest some extra scrutiny of their materials before purchasing more from them. I would also suggest taking this particular GC and presenting it to them, as the oil you have is shown to be roughly 88% natural and 12% synthetic. It also does not appear to contain any Oud - rather, it appears to be a composition meant to be Oud-like.
- As mentioned, those were inherited old oils that’s been made for our house or made by the father of current house owner and not something that we bought from a distillery or a whole seller. In current time not even an expert but any well-versed oud collector or perfumist know these things very well. As I’m sure you are very familiar with it.
Just my two cents, and not a critique of anything other than the GC presented.
To the Ouddict community - shit happens. Be patient, understanding, and let's not come down too hard on anyone when instances like his arise. We all know that oils are commonly messed with, it's usually not the direct fault of the vendor in question, and it is likely to happen to all of us vendors at one point or another. We are all small businesses and usually one unintentional misstep away from disaster. We are all fragile ecosystems. Tread lightly
- thank you for your message, I believe most of the people on this forum agree with that and I believe we all no matter how knowledgeable or experience we are we all can learn a new thing or two sometimes. Having an open mind and being able to communicate with others is what make us good humans.
Regards and respect to everyone