(02-20-2016 8:11 PM)dorfmeister Wrote:  So is the "Manimal" oil that is now in the test kitchen related to this?

The current kitchen version is a bit different than the first 2 batches I made a year ago.
First was a 1 : 1 : 1
Second was more close to the original made by Crowley. I did a bit of reading and figured out the ratios were different. It was more akin to 1 part ambergris, 2 parts musk, 3 parts civet.

This second ratio was too much civet. Crowley may have been able to get away with that much civet back in the day when people were a bit more smelly in general.. but by today's standards of hygiene it smelled like I just finished a jiu jitsu tourney held on the floor of a kennel. It was way too ripe and wearing a cover kinda defeated the purpose. I also speculated that one part of the "musk" used was 3-hydroxyestra-1,3,5,7-tetraen-17-one (equilin). This would make sense and was birthed from my reading that Crowley not only seduced women with his mix but he also documented that his perfume affected horses as well.

So that led me to think that perhaps the second part of the musk was similar to androstenone. It would make sense that he could have tempered this with equilin much like EST is used today in mixes.

This third version I focused on the e.none heavy pheromone portion first and decided to only add the synthetic civet and ambroxan. I would imagine natural sourced musks would have a more broad range of effects but until I can age more ambergris and humanely source the civet, the synthetics will have to suffice for now.
I left out the equilin until I could do some more work with it and decide if it would enhance or hinder the formula. Still testing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abelmoschus_moschatus

I get intriguing reactions when wearing a EO's only perfume fixed enhanced with ambrette seed absolue. It's attention-grabbing, also on it's own.

I've worn "Luna Rossa" by Prada numerous times last summer, and while it quickly lost it's appeal to me, it was very well received by females. There is ambrette-seed absolue in it, as well as lavender absolue, lots of ambroxan and clary sage. All are supposed to have pheromincal effects - I would rate Luna Rossa as a very female-attractive mainstream designer fragrance.

(02-28-2015 3:34 AM)dorfmeister Wrote:  Curious about this.

http://www.sorcerers-apprentice.co.uk/ruthvah.htm

---

http://www.witchcraftsartisanalchemy.com...ry=ruthvah

This is interesting...I found it on sorcerers-apprentice a while ago but short after the link has gone dead. Does anyone has the working one? The owner of the site states that links changes often. The site has also contact us page...which also gives 404error...

Are the ones they sell on the witch...alchemy same that is/was on sorcerers?
Has anyone tested the ones in http://www.witchcraftsartisanalchemy.com...ry=ruthvah , what are your experiences?

(03-22-2016 1:39 AM)thundr Wrote:  The current kitchen version is a bit different than the first 2 batches I made a year ago.
First was a 1 : 1 : 1
Second was more close to the original made by Crowley. I did a bit of reading and figured out the ratios were different. It was more akin to 1 part ambergris, 2 parts musk, 3 parts civet.

This second ratio was too much civet. Crowley may have been able to get away with that much civet back in the day when people were a bit more smelly in general.. but by today's standards of hygiene it smelled like I just finished a jiu jitsu tourney held on the floor of a kennel. It was way too ripe and wearing a cover kinda defeated the purpose. I also speculated that one part of the "musk" used was 3-hydroxyestra-1,3,5,7-tetraen-17-one (equilin). This would make sense and was birthed from my reading that Crowley not only seduced women with his mix but he also documented that his perfume affected horses as well.

So that led me to think that perhaps the second part of the musk was similar to androstenone. It would make sense that he could have tempered this with equilin much like EST is used today in mixes.

This third version I focused on the e.none heavy pheromone portion first and decided to only add the synthetic civet and ambroxan. I would imagine natural sourced musks would have a more broad range of effects but until I can age more ambergris and humanely source the civet, the synthetics will have to suffice for now.
I left out the equilin until I could do some more work with it and decide if it would enhance or hinder the formula. Still testing.

Hi,
I am bit confused...so is the Manimal in your kitchen scented similar to Ruthav...or the effects are similar? What is the link with Ruthav and the current version of Manimal that you are selling, if any? I see on dropdown box on Manimal oil purchase page your usual scent options.

Manimal uses aromachemicals, so while it may have somewhat similar effects, it won't be exactly the same. From an olfactory standpoint, it'll fall well short. Even the best synthetic renditions of civet, musk and ambergris fall well short of the real thing.

Wasn't Ruthvah just a 32 of civet, deer musk and ambergris? It may be a better option just to make your own, albeit a more expensive one at that. I doubt the musk and ambergris in these Ruthvah reproductions are real, and if they are they're extremely low-grade. The price is far too low for such rare materials.

What is the intended effect of Solomon's Attar (modeled after Ruthvah)? Androstenetrione is the only listed pheromone, which is suspected or confirmed to be P86, which is supposed to have beautifying and sedating effects, and encourage kino. From my understanding, animalics are supposed to have a polarizing sexual appeal...off-putting to some, but an intense draw for others. I'm imagining this is better at night, on the prowl and such...not one you would wear at the office. One you would wear with intent (to escalate, have sex). I'm obviously going to test it solo and see what the results are, but wondering if its intended to be more of a standalone sexual attraction product, or more of an 'enhanced' cover?

My concern really is strength, I'm sure it will work great on its own. But hints or wafts of cat urine and feces sounds intense, to put it one way lol. I certainly don't want to OD on this and at 5ml, I also don't want to waste it. Aside from today's test run, I'm thinking its best to wear this when I'm going for the lay. Sounds like it creates a seductive aura with an intense/overt pull when it hits but knowing thundr's other mixes, perhaps there is more subtlety to this.

Civet isn't exactly like wearing androstenone. It's more balanced than that, and the responses to the scent (though not the scent itself) are less polarizing.

(03-22-2016 1:39 AM)thundr Wrote:  The current kitchen version is a bit different than the first 2 batches I made a year ago.
First was a 1 : 1 : 1
Second was more close to the original made by Crowley. I did a bit of reading and figured out the ratios were different. It was more akin to 1 part ambergris, 2 parts musk, 3 parts civet.

This second ratio was too much civet. Crowley may have been able to get away with that much civet back in the day when people were a bit more smelly in general.. but by today's standards of hygiene it smelled like I just finished a jiu jitsu tourney held on the floor of a kennel. It was way too ripe and wearing a cover kinda defeated the purpose. I also speculated that one part of the "musk" used was 3-hydroxyestra-1,3,5,7-tetraen-17-one (equilin). This would make sense and was birthed from my reading that Crowley not only seduced women with his mix but he also documented that his perfume affected horses as well.

So that led me to think that perhaps the second part of the musk was similar to androstenone. It would make sense that he could have tempered this with equilin much like EST is used today in mixes.

This third version I focused on the e.none heavy pheromone portion first and decided to only add the synthetic civet and ambroxan. I would imagine natural sourced musks would have a more broad range of effects but until I can age more ambergris and humanely source the civet, the synthetics will have to suffice for now.
I left out the equilin until I could do some more work with it and decide if it would enhance or hinder the formula. Still testing.

Didn't you say that Manimal is a tweaked oil version of M3X? So M3X also has musk, civet and ambergris in it?

(05-21-2016 10:40 AM)Vincent_Vega Wrote:  Didn't you say that Manimal is a tweaked oil version of M3X? So M3X also has musk, civet and ambergris in it?

There is no musk, civet or ambergris in either. As stated above, thundr included aromachemicals designed to emulate some aspect of the scent, but they're a far cry from the real deal. Fortunately, thundr is working with these materials now.