05/06/2018
FvSpee
246 Reviews
Translated
Show original
FvSpee
Top Review
26
A truly peculiar wood!
What's clear is I like singular oud. He again bears the signature of his creator: Unexpected, unusual and special, but perfectly balanced, unagitated and sovereign. Vitality and noblesse. Lacy and resting in peace.
To describe the fragrance with words, to get an idea of it beforehand, to locate it on the sensual, mental and spiritual map, that is the much more difficult task for me. There is little analytic (individual scents, clear adjectives) or pictorial (metaphors, memories) that is urgently pushed into my pen.
That's a dark scent, sometimes a very dark one. There is the darkness of dark wood and the darkness of a dense, vast, immeasurable forest: mostly a boreal coniferous forest, but sometimes also a jungle. But this fragrance is just as unthreatening as it would be to cosy and homey.
That's an enormous, almost excessive woody scent! Sometimes smooth polished wood with a very fine polish, sometimes lively creaky wood from the trunk, from which fresh, sticky resin still emerges. But there's nothing stinging about it, there's nothing excessively hard about it, which normally pushes me back at very woody scents.
It's a very, very fresh fragrance, but what freshness is it, how can I put this? Now she reminds of mint, soon of fir oil, then of ambergris, and finally of fresh, ozone-rich cool air after the rain.
Is Singular Oud a fruity fragrance? Once you want to say (I would definitely not have felt the fig without help, but there is certainly something fruity) "what else?", and then you find this label completely absurd. And can the scent be called "sweet"? Most of the time I would say: "by no means!", but sometimes you can feel a gentle sweetness flowing out of him, of which you think she is the real core and magic of this fragrance, how can you deny the?
I feel saffron very, very clearly (which I like), but still I don't feel the note to be overdosed. It seems rather as if it must be absolutely compelling - and exactly in this strength - exactly there. Does the singular oud somehow make a gourmand? Not at all. I didn't feel incense at all during the first test, it's there at the third one, reserved but clear.
Does this fragrance have a strong development, or is it linear? To the eagle with it, I don't know myself! Maybe he can do magic too, that scent. Sometimes the clouds that rise from the neck smell quite different from those from the wrist. There is something humorous and mystical about him, as if Gandalf had brought him to the Shire for pleasure. I translate the "singular" from the name with "peculiar, strange", because that can also mean "singular".
Attempt at a conclusion: A wood scent. A fresh, rich, strong, deep dark, luminous, very vegetable, seriously sweet and calmly spicy wood scent, which is powerful and well visible and yet refuses any labelling. And again, as in the beginning: a good, strong and beautiful, a moderate, a human scent.
P.S. 1: At the first two tests "Singular Oud" seemed to me to be hardly durable. At the third attempt I can report a persistence of quite six hours (very close at any rate).
P.S. 2: By the way, my first thought at the first test was: Leather. That's not true. There's no one on it, and I don't think there is. The woody-vegetable dark spice is not far away from a leather aroma. But perhaps the association with me also came from the fact that "Singular Oud" intuitively reminded me of "Tuscan Leather". The two are certainly not twins, but a certain kinship already exists. Both fragrances contain woods, incense and saffron; the fruit aroma is introduced in TL by the raspberry, in "Singular Oud" by the green fig, which reminds other commentators here of raspberry! I was almost tempted to write pointedly: Just as "Vild" is a TL without wood, "Singular Oud" is one without leather (although both are better than TL, which I'm not a fan of). But with this aggravation I would have done Singular Oud wrong, it is much too independent for that, according to the notes used (patchouli, musk), but also according to the overall character.
To describe the fragrance with words, to get an idea of it beforehand, to locate it on the sensual, mental and spiritual map, that is the much more difficult task for me. There is little analytic (individual scents, clear adjectives) or pictorial (metaphors, memories) that is urgently pushed into my pen.
That's a dark scent, sometimes a very dark one. There is the darkness of dark wood and the darkness of a dense, vast, immeasurable forest: mostly a boreal coniferous forest, but sometimes also a jungle. But this fragrance is just as unthreatening as it would be to cosy and homey.
That's an enormous, almost excessive woody scent! Sometimes smooth polished wood with a very fine polish, sometimes lively creaky wood from the trunk, from which fresh, sticky resin still emerges. But there's nothing stinging about it, there's nothing excessively hard about it, which normally pushes me back at very woody scents.
It's a very, very fresh fragrance, but what freshness is it, how can I put this? Now she reminds of mint, soon of fir oil, then of ambergris, and finally of fresh, ozone-rich cool air after the rain.
Is Singular Oud a fruity fragrance? Once you want to say (I would definitely not have felt the fig without help, but there is certainly something fruity) "what else?", and then you find this label completely absurd. And can the scent be called "sweet"? Most of the time I would say: "by no means!", but sometimes you can feel a gentle sweetness flowing out of him, of which you think she is the real core and magic of this fragrance, how can you deny the?
I feel saffron very, very clearly (which I like), but still I don't feel the note to be overdosed. It seems rather as if it must be absolutely compelling - and exactly in this strength - exactly there. Does the singular oud somehow make a gourmand? Not at all. I didn't feel incense at all during the first test, it's there at the third one, reserved but clear.
Does this fragrance have a strong development, or is it linear? To the eagle with it, I don't know myself! Maybe he can do magic too, that scent. Sometimes the clouds that rise from the neck smell quite different from those from the wrist. There is something humorous and mystical about him, as if Gandalf had brought him to the Shire for pleasure. I translate the "singular" from the name with "peculiar, strange", because that can also mean "singular".
Attempt at a conclusion: A wood scent. A fresh, rich, strong, deep dark, luminous, very vegetable, seriously sweet and calmly spicy wood scent, which is powerful and well visible and yet refuses any labelling. And again, as in the beginning: a good, strong and beautiful, a moderate, a human scent.
P.S. 1: At the first two tests "Singular Oud" seemed to me to be hardly durable. At the third attempt I can report a persistence of quite six hours (very close at any rate).
P.S. 2: By the way, my first thought at the first test was: Leather. That's not true. There's no one on it, and I don't think there is. The woody-vegetable dark spice is not far away from a leather aroma. But perhaps the association with me also came from the fact that "Singular Oud" intuitively reminded me of "Tuscan Leather". The two are certainly not twins, but a certain kinship already exists. Both fragrances contain woods, incense and saffron; the fruit aroma is introduced in TL by the raspberry, in "Singular Oud" by the green fig, which reminds other commentators here of raspberry! I was almost tempted to write pointedly: Just as "Vild" is a TL without wood, "Singular Oud" is one without leather (although both are better than TL, which I'm not a fan of). But with this aggravation I would have done Singular Oud wrong, it is much too independent for that, according to the notes used (patchouli, musk), but also according to the overall character.
12 Replies
Emorandeira
Hermesh
