05/22/2025

ClaireV
731 Reviews

ClaireV
1
Salty, animalic tiger undercarriage funk
Tigerwood is so-called because of the densely resinated ‘tiger’ stripes of oleoresin that run through certain heritage stocks of wild Malaysian agarwood. The story behind this is that Ensar came across a distiller who had distilled these Tigerwood oils, one in 2001 (the Tigerwood Royale), and the other further back in 1995 (the Tigerwood 1995). I will review them both here.
Tigerwood Royale, although younger in age than the 1995, is actually a much deeper, more resinous scent than the 1995, thanks in part to the much higher grades of tigerwood that were used for the distillation. But both oils are roughly similar, sharing a certain evergreen freshness at their core, as well as a very classic Malaysian aroma profile. Both oils open up with a very medicinal scent, which remains remarkably intact despite many years of aging. The aroma that develops in both cases is robust, earthy, and oudy to the core, meaning a very classic profile of notes and nuances (leather, woods, greenery, incense). The texture of both oils is silky thanks to the many years of careful aging. However, the two tigerwoods diverge on some key points, and it is important to talk about them here.
First and foremost, Tigerwood Royale has a salty funk to it that makes me think of heavy deer musk or ambergris tinctures, whereas Tigerwood 1995 stays clean all the way through. Tigerwood Royale also has a furry sourness that carries a whiff of the barnyard more characteristic of Hindi oils than Malaysian oils. Tigerwood 1995, on the other hand, follows up on the medicinal brightness of its opening with a heart that is very green. It is heavy on the camphor, mint, and forest-like sappiness of some Borneos. Although the oils diverge in the heart, the drydowns bring them back together, united in an almost creamy oudy-leather drydown with nuances of camphoraceous woods peeking out every now and then. Personally, I find Tigerwood Royale too animalic to enjoy, and both Tigerwoods deeply masculine, so they are not my favorites from Ensar Oud. (Keep in mind that I am female and my tolerance for animalics is quite low compared to the average oudhead).
Tigerwood Royale, although younger in age than the 1995, is actually a much deeper, more resinous scent than the 1995, thanks in part to the much higher grades of tigerwood that were used for the distillation. But both oils are roughly similar, sharing a certain evergreen freshness at their core, as well as a very classic Malaysian aroma profile. Both oils open up with a very medicinal scent, which remains remarkably intact despite many years of aging. The aroma that develops in both cases is robust, earthy, and oudy to the core, meaning a very classic profile of notes and nuances (leather, woods, greenery, incense). The texture of both oils is silky thanks to the many years of careful aging. However, the two tigerwoods diverge on some key points, and it is important to talk about them here.
First and foremost, Tigerwood Royale has a salty funk to it that makes me think of heavy deer musk or ambergris tinctures, whereas Tigerwood 1995 stays clean all the way through. Tigerwood Royale also has a furry sourness that carries a whiff of the barnyard more characteristic of Hindi oils than Malaysian oils. Tigerwood 1995, on the other hand, follows up on the medicinal brightness of its opening with a heart that is very green. It is heavy on the camphor, mint, and forest-like sappiness of some Borneos. Although the oils diverge in the heart, the drydowns bring them back together, united in an almost creamy oudy-leather drydown with nuances of camphoraceous woods peeking out every now and then. Personally, I find Tigerwood Royale too animalic to enjoy, and both Tigerwoods deeply masculine, so they are not my favorites from Ensar Oud. (Keep in mind that I am female and my tolerance for animalics is quite low compared to the average oudhead).