The new Oud Royale is a worthy heir of the nomen, boasting gargantuan oudiness that never turns anemic on the skin but rather lasts and lasts until you feel it's never going to wear off; and it boasts the regal incensey profile that has characterized all predecessors, beginning with OR1, OR2 (the first oud from the Philippines), and OR3.
Some quick categorization would help dispel a whole lot of confusion that is widespread due to the 'identity crisis' oud is facing. You've got ouds that are unabashedly 'oudy' and full-bodied. These are old school through and through; oils that we saw as the epitome of OUD before the whole condenser condundrum got everyone going into unitone anemics as a prevalent 'style'. Oud Royale is Oud with a capital O. It is proud to be Oud, and doesn't need to pretend to be something else (like a flower or seed oil). I don't believe in making another type of oil than this kind.
Then you have the 'perfumes' as some have called them. Oils where you're not sure if you're smelling agarwood or olive or argan oil, due to the insane fractionation that has gone into crafting the oil. Such oils start off smelling like an interesting botanical (decisively NOT oud) and then within ten minutes either disappear from the skin altogether or lose so much steam that you feel inclined to take a second swipe so that you can get the initial 'high' all over again.
Some will say I am condescending. That I'm ostracizing my competition and 'bashing' their products. From where I sit, if there were no film critics we wouldn't have any quality films to watch. It is a necessary role that someone's got to fill in each science and every art. Scientists are the most ruthless critics of each other's research, and that is what keeps science moving forward. Complacency has no place in art. If you don't like my criticism, make mightier Ouds. Or come back with an elaborate criticism of my style that is based on sound argument, and I'll tip my hat off to ya.
For now, Oud Royale is OUD Royale. Contenders may need to go back to boarding school.
Some quick categorization would help dispel a whole lot of confusion that is widespread due to the 'identity crisis' oud is facing. You've got ouds that are unabashedly 'oudy' and full-bodied. These are old school through and through; oils that we saw as the epitome of OUD before the whole condenser condundrum got everyone going into unitone anemics as a prevalent 'style'. Oud Royale is Oud with a capital O. It is proud to be Oud, and doesn't need to pretend to be something else (like a flower or seed oil). I don't believe in making another type of oil than this kind.
Then you have the 'perfumes' as some have called them. Oils where you're not sure if you're smelling agarwood or olive or argan oil, due to the insane fractionation that has gone into crafting the oil. Such oils start off smelling like an interesting botanical (decisively NOT oud) and then within ten minutes either disappear from the skin altogether or lose so much steam that you feel inclined to take a second swipe so that you can get the initial 'high' all over again.
Some will say I am condescending. That I'm ostracizing my competition and 'bashing' their products. From where I sit, if there were no film critics we wouldn't have any quality films to watch. It is a necessary role that someone's got to fill in each science and every art. Scientists are the most ruthless critics of each other's research, and that is what keeps science moving forward. Complacency has no place in art. If you don't like my criticism, make mightier Ouds. Or come back with an elaborate criticism of my style that is based on sound argument, and I'll tip my hat off to ya.
For now, Oud Royale is OUD Royale. Contenders may need to go back to boarding school.
