This is a New Moon Aromas incense. And it's very pleasant. I've been burning the sticks steadily over the past three days, but finding it difficult to sit down and do a review. New Moon is a brand owned by the Shah family who operate the distribution company Wonder Incense in Australia and the UK. Navin Shah has been in touch regarding production, and says they have their own facility, though there is no address. Other people, such as the late Corey of Absolute Bliss, had sent Navin some Happy Hari sticks to see if he could make copies, but that deal didn't happen. Then some unlabelled Happy Hari incense appeared in the UK market, before quickly vanishing when people found out how inferior they were. Corey suspected that Navin was behind that, and also behind making incense in Mumbai on behalf of Nandita, Goloka, and Satya. A number of people over the years have been pointing out to me the inconsistent mess that is India incense production. Some companies operate under two different names - such as SAC (Sandesh) and GR International; and it is quite common for a company, such as Ranga Rao in Mysore, to have multiple brands (Flute, Cycle, Manmohak, Clove, etc). Some companies come together to share transportation and other facilities, such as Balaji and BIC. India's largest fast moving goods company, ITC (India Tobacco Company), decided to get into the incense game, and have quickly developed one of India's most successful incense brands, Mangaldeep, without making a single stick themselves - instead they commission several small incense houses to make the sticks on their behalf. Added to this is the number of "white-label" incense houses, such as
Haridas Madhavdas Sugandhi (HMS) and Fair Trade, who make incense for others - both inside and outside India. And I have been growing in my discomfort about the amount of rebranding that goes on - recently Irene of Rauchfahne (my favourite incense blog) had recommended Berks Ambrosia - an attractive incense, but it turned out to be a rebadged HMS Blue Lotus, which I'd already bought and reviewed under the Primo brand, so it was a waste of my time and money. I prefer when everything is clear and above board. I like that ITC, no doubt confident in their commercial strength, name on the packets who makes the sticks for them. I like even more when the company that sells the incense also makes the incense. I guess I'm just an old hippy who was excited and inspired by things like the Whole Earth Catalog, and forming a connection with the person who makes the product, rather than going through a series of middle-men, especially when the middle-men deliberately conceal who actually makes the product. Curiously, on a related side-note, when I reviewed Soul Sticks Aztec Aromas Copal, and discovered that Aztec Aromas is an Indian copy of the South American Inca Aromas, Irene - who makes her own incense, including the awesome Swiss Stone Pine, without a doubt the finest home made incense I've encountered, said she'd prefer her incense to be rebadged and sold under a different name than to have someone copy her incense. It's interesting to see the different perspectives that maker, retailer, and consumer have in regard to the marketing of products. Me, I'd rather have a copy, with all the exciting developments that entails (think of all those flora incenses that have copied and then developed on from Sri Sai Flora - the original). As a consumer I'd rather have all those copies and developments rather than 100 packets of the same stuff under different brand names. What is the appeal of that to the consumer? But I absolutely understand Irene's perspective because she retains artistic control over her product, plus gets the money from each of the sales of those 100 brands; while with the copies she gets no financial compensation, and sees her incense formula sometimes badly mangled.
Haridas Madhavdas Sugandhi (HMS) and Fair Trade, who make incense for others - both inside and outside India. And I have been growing in my discomfort about the amount of rebranding that goes on - recently Irene of Rauchfahne (my favourite incense blog) had recommended Berks Ambrosia - an attractive incense, but it turned out to be a rebadged HMS Blue Lotus, which I'd already bought and reviewed under the Primo brand, so it was a waste of my time and money. I prefer when everything is clear and above board. I like that ITC, no doubt confident in their commercial strength, name on the packets who makes the sticks for them. I like even more when the company that sells the incense also makes the incense. I guess I'm just an old hippy who was excited and inspired by things like the Whole Earth Catalog, and forming a connection with the person who makes the product, rather than going through a series of middle-men, especially when the middle-men deliberately conceal who actually makes the product. Curiously, on a related side-note, when I reviewed Soul Sticks Aztec Aromas Copal, and discovered that Aztec Aromas is an Indian copy of the South American Inca Aromas, Irene - who makes her own incense, including the awesome Swiss Stone Pine, without a doubt the finest home made incense I've encountered, said she'd prefer her incense to be rebadged and sold under a different name than to have someone copy her incense. It's interesting to see the different perspectives that maker, retailer, and consumer have in regard to the marketing of products. Me, I'd rather have a copy, with all the exciting developments that entails (think of all those flora incenses that have copied and then developed on from Sri Sai Flora - the original). As a consumer I'd rather have all those copies and developments rather than 100 packets of the same stuff under different brand names. What is the appeal of that to the consumer? But I absolutely understand Irene's perspective because she retains artistic control over her product, plus gets the money from each of the sales of those 100 brands; while with the copies she gets no financial compensation, and sees her incense formula sometimes badly mangled.
So, all these thoughts came at me as I burned the incense, so reducing its purity and essence. There was a little block in the way of my simple pleasure. At the same time, Alok, maker of the excellent Malaan Gaudhoop Swarna Champa, was telling me that Nandita, an incense brand I have been exploring a lot recently, as some of the Nandita scents are absolutely gorgeous, was actually owned by Acharya Products, a retail chain store and major incense distributor in the Mumbai area, and that it is possible/likely that Acharya source their incense from white-label makers. Which is what Corey was telling me. And Corey was saying that it was Navin Shah, owner of the New Moon brand, who was likely behind the manufacture of Nandita incense. And then Alok was saying that, though Goloka have their own manufacturing premises, some production is done out of house. Which, again, is what Corey was saying a few years ago. And what Eugene of Bhagwan told me recently, and which shook me a bit, as I had some faith in that brand because of their charity work. So, a number of brands I like - Satya, Goloka, and Nandita, have some kind of connection or relationship with Navin Shah, who is the person behind New Moon.
Eugene then got involved in the conversation, and essentially was pointing out that companies like Bhagwan, who sell incense under their own brand, but don't make the incense themselves, are actually little different from companies like Nandita, Goloka, and Satya, which may have some of their incense made for them by, quite possibly, the same (or similar) white-label incense companies. Was that Spiritual Healing by Satya, which I reviewed recently, noting vanilla flavours, made by HMS? Probably not, but all this incestuous incense sharing puts doubts in the mind. I have tried to identify who makes what, and have classed companies who buy and commission separately from those who make themselves. But it's clearly more difficult than I thought to clearly and consistently say: this company makes their own incense if we can't even rely on Satya and Goloka - two of the biggest and most reliable masala incense houses.
The incense stick is a conventional modern perfumed masala. The thickness of the sticks varies considerably, and they are fairly crudely rolled. I kinda like the appearance of a crudely rolled stick. It feels more human and real. I suspect that most people who seriously like incense (rather than those who just want a convenient room freshener) would also warm to hand-made incense that shows signs of the human activity, so distancing it from the soulnessness of a machine made incense. The scent is perfumed, mildly volatile, woody, earthy, a little sharp, oily, resinous. It's quite warm and attractive, though the volatility pushes me away slightly.
Mysore sandalwood oil has a history and tradition which has given it an elevated position as a prized form of sandalwood. It was the first sandalwood oil produced in India, and access to the oil is controlled and restricted by the local government. Australian sandalwood is more economical to produce, so tends to have a lesser reputation (history and rarity often increase appeal). Difficult to know how much (if any) Mysore sandalwood oil has been used in this incense, or how much synthetic sandalwood oils has been used. From my reading on the subject, synthetic sandalwood oil has a good reputation, and it is widely considered best to combine synthetic and essential oils to give the best consumer experience, and I think that is the case here.
The scent on the burn is damn good. Bloody good. It is fairly fixed on sandalwood, and I'm generally one who prefers their scents to have a good range, with balances and counter-points, and interesting twiddles here and there. Essentially, I tend to prefer blends more than mono-scents. But this is bloody damn good. Ooooh. It's good. There is a range here - there are deep deep notes which reach down into the darkness and almost don't return - they give off the bitter singe of hell (or at least dark roasted coffee beans); and there are journeys and swirls through almonds and new leather up to quiet and sunlit moments of violets and pansies and fresh cut grass. It is a very calming and seductive and beautiful accord, moderately seductive - mostly reassuring and calming. This is a scent complex which is wonderfully relaxing. I love it. And all the turmoil regarding who made this, all the commercial nonsense just gets left behind in that sheer moment of bliss when enjoying a truly wonderful incense. Sigh. Yes, I loved this.
The incense stick is a conventional modern perfumed masala. The thickness of the sticks varies considerably, and they are fairly crudely rolled. I kinda like the appearance of a crudely rolled stick. It feels more human and real. I suspect that most people who seriously like incense (rather than those who just want a convenient room freshener) would also warm to hand-made incense that shows signs of the human activity, so distancing it from the soulnessness of a machine made incense. The scent is perfumed, mildly volatile, woody, earthy, a little sharp, oily, resinous. It's quite warm and attractive, though the volatility pushes me away slightly.
Mysore sandalwood oil has a history and tradition which has given it an elevated position as a prized form of sandalwood. It was the first sandalwood oil produced in India, and access to the oil is controlled and restricted by the local government. Australian sandalwood is more economical to produce, so tends to have a lesser reputation (history and rarity often increase appeal). Difficult to know how much (if any) Mysore sandalwood oil has been used in this incense, or how much synthetic sandalwood oils has been used. From my reading on the subject, synthetic sandalwood oil has a good reputation, and it is widely considered best to combine synthetic and essential oils to give the best consumer experience, and I think that is the case here.
The scent on the burn is damn good. Bloody good. It is fairly fixed on sandalwood, and I'm generally one who prefers their scents to have a good range, with balances and counter-points, and interesting twiddles here and there. Essentially, I tend to prefer blends more than mono-scents. But this is bloody damn good. Ooooh. It's good. There is a range here - there are deep deep notes which reach down into the darkness and almost don't return - they give off the bitter singe of hell (or at least dark roasted coffee beans); and there are journeys and swirls through almonds and new leather up to quiet and sunlit moments of violets and pansies and fresh cut grass. It is a very calming and seductive and beautiful accord, moderately seductive - mostly reassuring and calming. This is a scent complex which is wonderfully relaxing. I love it. And all the turmoil regarding who made this, all the commercial nonsense just gets left behind in that sheer moment of bliss when enjoying a truly wonderful incense. Sigh. Yes, I loved this.
Very interesting! And this is sadly true for the Indian incense industry.
ReplyDeleteI'm forming a picture of the Indian incense industry.
DeleteThere are people who make the incense - mostly they make it in their homes, and they sell to retailers or incense companies. Some incense is made in incense factories of varying sizes - sometimes just a room at the back of a shop (I'm thinking HMS here, for example), and sometimes vast factories - such as those owned by Mysore Deep Perfumery House (Zed Black). These factories may make to retail themselves, or to sell to retailers and incense houses.
There are the incense houses - small and large - who make and sell incense under their own name. They make outsource a proportion of their incense to local women in their homes or to other factories.
And there are the retailers of all sizes, ranging from the B.G pooja store in Tiruvannamalai, where Eugene of Bhagwan bought the wonderful Nag Champa, to ITC / Mangaldeep, who all buy incense from makers, and then sell it with their brand. And Western retailers fit into this category.
And there will be cross-over between these groups, as sometimes a factory which makes incense for others, will sell incense under their own brand, and so on. So I guess I shouldn't be surprised that Satya and Goloka sometimes outsource. And I shouldn't be so harsh on those who sell rather than make, as it's all part of the same industry.
Yes, Steve. Your observation is accurate. This is how commercial consolidation is happening in this sector in India. Traditionally, incense business was associated with a few families in Mysore and Bangalore that had exposure. But soon, as the ready-to-use perfume supply increased in the market, many household and unorganized businesses mushroomed. The one factor that was game changing was the availability of cheap perfumes! In the last couple of years, I spoke to many people in the industry, and to my surprise, everyone knew everyone! hahaha. This is how sharing of expertise, production facilities, supply chains, and business collaboration happens. But as this market is evolving, especially after what Phool has done to the industry, there is a customer base ready with finer taste and deep pockets that cares. That is where I see hope.
DeletePhool stirred interest here with their reuse of temple flowers. What a brilliant idea. And the packaging and marketing is first class. Those two educated young men were approaching the incense market from a fresh direction.
DeleteSadly the quality of the aroma has not impressed. Meanwhile, others - with more experience in making incense - have taken up their ideas, and run with it. Ranga Rao's Pushkarini is particularly good.
yes, I agree. Sometimes I think that fragrance is not in their priority! It's about packaging and glitter! I get inspired by their campaigns; they are so good at marketing!
DeleteIf I recall, one of them has a degree in marketing.
DeleteYes, they are very smart and educated in premier colleges. I just wish they had opted for good fragrance consultants; money is not a concern for them in any case. I saw that they recently got invited by King Charles to the Palace in London because of the King's own interest in sustainable materials.
Delete