Amouage originally released Ubar in 1995. It was meant to celebrate Oman’s Silver Jubilee year, and was named for the lost Omani city of Ubar, long believed to be an important center of the historical frankincense trade and re-discovered in 1992 with the aid of satellite imaging. The original bottle (see below) was by Pierre Dinand, and while it was a striking design, there was something about it that I always thought a poor fit with the juice.
Ubar has been relaunched this year (20091). It has new packaging (see image above), a new concentration (the original was an Eau de Toilette; now it's an Eau de Parfum) and a new price (much higher). The notes (bergamot, lemon, lily of the valley, Damascena rose, Bulgarian rose, jasmine, sandalwood, synthetic civet and vanilla) are reportedly the same. Here's what I had to say about the original Ubar when I reviewed it in 2005:
Ubar starts with a citrusy lily of the valley with a touch of civet. It gives way to a soft floral, mostly rose at first, but with the jasmine becoming considerably more pronounced as it dries down. The base is lovely: a very smooth sandalwood with a just a trace of vanilla. There is a muted note of musk, and I've been trying to decide if there is a bit of frankincense as well. The civet is noticeable but not overdone; this is not as animalic, or as heavy, as say, Shalimar, or yesterday's Gold Pour Homme.
Ubar is available as an Eau de Toilette only. The floral notes are not long lasting, but the sandalwood base (my favorite part anyway) lasts for hours. It is cheaper than some of the other Amouage scents, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it a bargain. A half ounce can be had for around $60.
Let me start by noting that fast forward to 2009, and that $60 sure looks like a bargain to me — I'm still kicking myself for not having bought it when I could have. But so be it, how does the new Ubar compare with the old? Well, first, I thought it was gorgeous in 2005, and it's still gorgeous in 2009, but the change in concentration (and obviously, the reformulation) is significant: the new Ubar is a much heavier scent, with considerably more emphasis on the floral notes in the heart and correspondingly less emphasis on the base. The original Ubar was, to me, a sandalwood fragrance decorated with a few flowers; the new Ubar is a floral fragrance, first and foremost, with a woody oriental base — it's now what Luca Turin recently called a "humongous floral" (see the latest quarterly update to Perfumes: The Guide2). Beyond that, if you strike the word "soft" from the first paragraph of my original review above, the rest can stand as an accurate description.
Ironically, the change gives it a more old-fashioned feel than the original. It's not the sort of fragrance that (most) women nowadays would spray on for a day at the office — it's more of a "big night out" scent — and while the base is probably not any more animalic than it ever was, with the higher concentration, it's more noticeable.
The new Ubar is arguably a better scent than the old, but it isn't one I'd be likely to reach for as often as I would have reached for the original. I suppose it isn't likely that we'll see an Ubar Eau Légère, but such a thing would be very welcome — especially in the original 15 ml.
Amouage Ubar is available in 50 ($250) and 100 ml ($285) Eau de Parfum. For buying information, see the listing for Amouage under Perfume Houses.
1. This article, which originally appeared on 5/19/2005, was rewritten on 5/14/2009.
2. And I should also note that he gave it 5 stars.
The Amouage scents have always scared me. There is usually a lot going on in them. This one sounds gorgeous, though. The only note that gives me pause is the civet.
It is pretty soft and smooth, and the civet is not that heavy, at least not to my nose. I am seriously thinking about buying this one but will give it another try first.
What an eerily QUIET day on the blog, heh? Since I have NOT smelled this concoction I'll simply comment: that's one ugly bottle! (at least via the photo). Something about it depresses me!
Apparently I have either bored everyone to tears or stunned everyone into silence with my brilliance, LOL! Or maybe that bottle is just so ugly that nobody will even read about the fragrance
I received a sample of this scent a couple of years ago, and actually found it to be very stunning. Pretty, soft, and unique, but not worth the hefty price-tag in my opinon. You are right about the jasmine description.
Thanks for the review and re-interst in this one, Robin.
The florals in this sound gorgeous, but like Merlot above, the civet scares me. I loathe animalic notes in perfume (I also wasn't aware that Shalimar contained civet – maybe thats why I can't handle it).
I'd also agree about the bottle – Wow, that's one ugly flacon! Surprising they'd turn out something so unattractive when the rest of their bottles are those gorgeous mosque-shaped decanters.
I'd love to read more reviews about Amouage – especially Ciel woman. A local boutique near my workplace sells this line, but I'm too shy to ask for a sniff!
Hi B, you are right, it isn't cheap! I am becoming fairly jaded about perfume prices though. Going to try it one more time before I decide.
I certainly wouldn't get this for the florals, as they don't last long. If you hate civet, I doubt you're going to like it anyway! I'm hoping to review Ciel & Dia next week.
I have the edp in this one bought from Les Senteurs in london.
They intended to stock it but changed their minds. Therefore I
was able to buy at half
price �35 for 30mls. The bottle is quite simple but then I do not like fancy bottles.
The edp is smooth but spicy a nice oriental. The other Amouages did not appeal to me at all.
That is a great price, D, congrats! It is my favorite of the Amouage scents I've tried so far too.
Great update, Robin! I got a small vial of ‘New Ubar’ just last weekend, and while I think it’s nice, it’s not something I’d call “heavenly” or any other over-the-top adjective. To me it’s a well-blended floral with a lot of LOTV up top, and yes, there’s something about it that smells a bit old-fashioned (not that that’s a bad thing). The base isn’t too dark and to my nose, not all that noticable — it remains very floral throughout. I also have to say I don’t personally detect anything very animalic and not obviously civet-ty. It’s nice, but not my thing. [I sure hope when I get my Lyric Woman split it’s not a far cry from the beauty I built it up to be in my memory!]
Joe, My favorites from Amouage are still what they were, I think — Gold Pour Homme (although don’t know if that’s been reformulated) and Jubilation XXV. And Homage, which is maybe the only one I’d call heavenly, and which of course I cannot afford in this lifetime and probably not in the next.
I do think this is gorgeous, and so is Lyric and so is Jubilation 25, but not sure any of them are really my thing either. The original Ubar was, as I said, more of a woody scent, and that’s just more my thing.
Ah Joe – each time I revisit the dregs of my small vial of Lyric it smells better and better – I think because I am so happy to be having more!!
I think it is so odd that the price difference is so negligible between the sizes. $35 for another 50 ml? I guess they really want to sell that big bottle.
That’s often the case…doesn’t cost that much more to get double the size. Problem is that I’m after less juice, not more
I sniffed it a few weeks ago and while it was nice, it didn’t excite me. I still prefer Dia, Gold and Jubilation.
And I need to revisit Dia…must do that soon, although did not love it the first time.
I’m just picking up a sample of Ubar today. I want to love it, but in a way I’m hoping I don’t so I can spend the $$ on an MDCI!! But since I love rich orientals so much I will probably like it a lot…
I’ll be curious to hear your thoughts on it, Ann. I don’t think it’ll be the “rich oriental” you might be imagining; it’s very floral and the base isn’t remotely dark/rich. I just dabbed some on and there’s something in it that evokes Guerlain to me.
Hmm – interesting. Guerlain like. Well, I have a bunch of the MDCI and PdNs coming in the same order, and I’m really more interested in them, so if I’m so-so about Ubar it will be ok – I have my Guerlains that I love…It would take a lot to knock Chamade or Nahema off the top of the pyramid!! We’ll have to converse about the MDCI…maybe another well planned split will be in order?
Agree with Joe — would not call it a “rich oriental” at all. More like a rich floral to my nose, regardless of its official classification.
I ordered a sample as soon as I found out it was available again and tried it about 2 weeks ago. How could I not when remembering how much Robin likes to sing the praises of the original everytime Amouage is mentioned?
I think it’s a truly lovely floral fragrance and since I have an affinity for the likes of classic Guerlains, which tend to be “bigger” scents, I would not hesitate to use the new Ubar for day wear. But at that price? I think I can find more affordable comparables and still be satisfied.
It is not cheap. I wish it was still $60
Is it still available as an EDT anywhere or does this new EDP version replace the EDT? Sounds like they should keep both,
No, the EdT was already discontinued when I wrote this article in 2005.
Meant to add in my post that I went to the Amouge web site but it’s under maintenance, sorry.
Well, I was VERY fortunate enough to snag a sealed 50ml EDP bottle of the original Ubar last year (for about £25). While I found it to be everything mentioned in your review, especially with regards to the sandalwood and rose, it was far to soft on my skin.
For several weeks, I found myself changing my mind about it (and the ugly bottle didn’t help matters either). In the end, I sold it off for a very nice profit (a few months before it’s re-release was announced).
Do I regret it? No, not really. Would I be interested in the new version? Personally, I found Lyric for women far more satisfying from a male point of view (although I do miss the rich sandalwood accord).
Drat, wish you’d given that vintage bottle to me, LOL!
I see I’m *well* beyond the curve again – here it is Jan. 2010 and I’m just getting to Ubar!
Thanks to swaps, I now find myself in possession of a sample of both the original edp (carded!) and the re-release. The original is a light floral-woody, quite lovely, and the new is Just My Sort of Thing, an oriental floral heavy on the floral.
I’m with OperaFan up there – I’ve been wearing the new to work for the past couple of days. Just one dab from the vial is the right amount, though – spraying would definitely make it too much for the office, while one dab keeps the sillage within my customary 3-foot radius.
As with all the Amouages, a whole bottle is out of my reach, but maybe I can snag a small decant. That ought to be enough, especially since one dab is a day’s worth of scent!
It really is lovely. I still lament the old, which probably wasn’t sustainable given the state of sandalwood in the wild these days. Oh well. Glad you love the new, and good luck getting some!
Had my sample delivered today and its awful!!! On my skin it smells like a cheap incense shop/head shop of the 80’s. Am really disappointed….but I have learnt something and that is the more real ingredients a company uses the more likely that perfume is to be odd or different depending on your skin type. All the Amouage I’ve tried have not been good on my skin (sigh) but on paper strips they smell great – its weird but true – oh well saved myself lots of money:))
And always good to save money!