I would like to digress briefly into the matter of oudy 'fumes in general. My introduction to them was thuswise: someone (an apothecary in some department store) passed me a 'fume to try, telling me there was oud in it. I sampled @ it, and realised immediately that there was an aroma-component of a quite extraordinary sort in it - something truly proper-perfume-y, like musk or amber, & yet different fræ these in detail. Also, I immediately & unequivocally loved it. Since then, I have been apprised of somewhat of the mythology & the culture devolvent on this substance, & of how exceedingly rare the higher grades of it are, & that what I intraspired if @ first was probably synthetic oud. I am ^taught^, sometimes, that my experience on that occasion was merely a delusion that I ought to despise; but this point of view does not abide logically. So what I experienced was merely the very bottom end of a very wide spectrum was it? But does that logically abrogate the experience per-se? I think not! Please do not misunderstand me: I am not °counter-despising° here; I do truly deem it surpassing wondrous that there exist aromata of the same sort but immensely more sublime. It is nothing but good that these supremely exalted aroma-substances exist; but why ought I now to deem that which I experienced @ first & loved so much merely some shabby wraith of what someone who is priviledged to have access to the °sinking-grade° wild agarwood oil calls ~the real thing~? I do not! It was what it was & remains what It was!
What I'm talking about, if it's not clear, is that if, when uw try a higher grade of something, the result is that it simply occupies the placeholder occupied by the thereto-best grade uw had tried, & the whole scale of uwr perception is °compressed° to °accomodate° the new experience, is not that an error, & ought it not to be rather that the scale hold it's proportion & be extended by whatever might be needful to accomodate the new? This applies to all art-forms.
I am taught that were I to have free access to the highest grades of oud, I would in time learn to distinguish the synthetic stuff, and that eventually it might even become hardly tolerable. But why would I aspire to doing that? If oud & it's derivatives are uwr life & love, then, I suppose, that is the way it is with uw; but as for myself, I can wear 'fumes made of the inferior grades, or even the synthetics, & find them thoroughly enjoyable. I have Malle÷Ropion's ~The Night~, which I am assured is quite replete with high-grade oud; & I doubt I shall wear it ^anywhere near^ often enough to coach myself into despising the inferior grades of oud; & I am quite happy for it to remain that way. Let there be a peaceful co-existence between all the grades & kinds of oud: each hath it's place; & even the worst is thoroughly gorgeous, if one permit it to be!
When I say ~worst~ , or course I mean the worst of the proper bona-fide ones!
The relevance of all this to the particular 'fume here is obvious. This is without doubt an oudy 'fume; and though it is quite a costly one, its price is below the watershed, such as I have been apprised of, above which a 'fume is likely to contain appreciable amounts of real oud. But it ^is^ an °oudy° 'fume, in that it has that certain note that has that certain distinction: and it is a ^thoroughly^ good 'fume. In it, the oudy note synergises with tuberose & jasmine - which is an unusual choice - rose &-or saffron are more usual - and the synergy is implemented ^consummately^ beautifully. The aroma, considered as an aroma, is actually quite a delicate one; but the delicacy is overruled in this 'fume in its capacity of ~performing-in-real-environment~ 'fume, in that it is as robust as might reasonably be hopen-for - ^seriously^ robust, like a powerful engine pumping-out its °delicate° issue relentlessly.
Yes, I am well-satisfied with this!