What is the usual cut rate when tincturing tonquin???

Im asking because I have a pint of tinctured tonquin. I am making a lure that asks for an ounce of tonquin. Just trying to figure out how much of the tinctured tonquin to equal once of pure
tonquin.
Thanks for any help

???

If it calls for a ounce use a ounce.
If it comes from a trapping supply house its likely dilluted already.
I wouldnt dilute it further unless it calls for that

Is it a old formula or new?

TravC is the master. When he speaks, you can take it to the bank.

Its an old formula out of the trappers post. Mike Marsyada does a lure and bait page. So i have been tinkering around with some of his formulas

thank you, TravC!

truly appreciate that kind of very useful information!

An ounce? Holy smokes what are ya making 50 gallons?!?!



My recipe book has some old ones in it. It’s always fun trying to decipher what they may have been using as some of the amounts really blow a guys mind sometimes.

Yeah, tonquin is a good one for deciphering. It is always a tincture in formulas, but usually just written down as X amount of tonquin. Question is, what sort of ratio was the tincture the formulator was using? Was it a tincture of a full pod? Empty pod? Or contents? Or anywhere in between. A lot of them old guys would tincture empty scraped pods, or tincture them multiple times. I have to think a lot of times when they call for large amounts of tonquin in these old formulas, they were using something like that, which was very diluted.

Not to mention the synthetics

I wonder when the synthetic stuff started replacing the real stuff

Alot of the old timers referd to.deer musk in general as tonquin
That deer specificaly from areas of virtnam is perdy much considerd close to extinct for around 250.years or so

If they were were talking a diffrent sub species like siberian mongolian himilayin tibettean etc (there are several difftent species of musk deer) then they were likely tinctureing the pods after extracting the grains or the grains with the empty pods.

From what i can gather 1 oz of "tonquin" is likely refering to the real article but tinctured in alchahol or macerated in some sort of oil


Here is the confuseing part.

Type two synthetics laveld as "tonquin" are a totally diffrent smell then deer musk. They are not the same one is animal derived and hold that characteristic tinctured or macerated and was used in western ferfumes as a fixitive not as much as for the smell.
Prized in the east still today with siberian in oud oils and in attars.

One is floral simular to amber your modern "type 2 tonquin" is such.

So you have to consider this when useing old formulas.
Deer musk is very attractive because its animal nature
Urineous animal body like charectiristic not for the sweet or floral aspect of modern synthetic musks. I would consider the strenth of my type two and use it with that in mind it sounds like if this was a small batch that was the intended use

1 oz is alot of the newer type 2 tonquin unless you got it from a supply house like MTP FNT and the like its very diluted. But still.thats a lot in a small batch formula.

The artificial type 2 Tonquin TravC refers to gets a bad rap. I’ve not worked with authentic enough to make a comparison but the type 2 does hold some attraction to canines and I feel it has value.

I’ve found the type 2 can be difficult to judge how much to add. In some bases you can add quite a bit…in others it completely dominates the other odors.

I’ve tried to avoid it in my lures because of its attraction to white tailed deer. But this lure development thing is an obsession and in the journey to create new formulas I have been playing with it more.

I’ve found trying to make published formulas set me back as a luremaker in the beginning. It is a way to learn how things blend with each other but it is often a disappointment.

I much prefer to build a lure slowly over time by adding an ingredient and letting it sit for a time and smelling it later and adjusting.

When you get something how you want it odor wise often the next hurdle is consistency and after that is scaling up to large batches (which can be difficult).

The only shortcut to that is start with a fairly large batch. But by doing that it can get very costly when a mistake is made.

I agree. I like type 2. I just use less of it compared to some of the other synthetic musks it holds attraction and when i decide to use it does great with some bases over others. Nothing wrong with them but when folks go to replicateing old formulas you must have in the back of your mind the diffrences between synthetics and genuine and understand why certain ingrdients are used. Musk is someghing i feel sometimes is highly misunderstood and lost in translation over the shift from the originals especialy the deer musks and interpretateing old formulas.

I guess it comes down to context

I havent played alot with tonquin. Ive got a fair amount of the synthetic (probably at least a gallon) and maybe a half gallon of real Himalayan musk tinture. When i have tested the stuff i haven't found it to high on the attraction scale. Maybe i just dont have the right balance of it in the formulation. I plan on doing future testing with it but ive found enough other ingredients that have a very high level of attraction that are much easier to work with so haven't done more investigation into it. Of the synthetics and my experience the old original formulation white musk crystals hold the most interest for me with coyotes.

When i first started formulating and testing lure i was using a good amount of the synthetics and exotic ingredients in my formulations and got some intrested but when i started building good formulations using more natural ingredients i had much better results using the exotic stuff as a very secondary odor to maybe just take the attraction up one more notch. My experience that real exotic stuff doesn't preform well when it has too much present in the odor profile. And honestly never had much luck formulating a lure off what i thought it should smell like. Ive had the most success one ingredient at the time and let the coyotes tell me what they think of it.
.

My opinion that a lot of the published formulas coming out of the west were simple but decent formulas. Maybe the trapper who shared them let out an ingredient or two and kept them under his hat. The bases always seemed to be things that were available in bulk which tells me they probably came from a trapper who was trapping on a large scale.

Some of the Eastern formulas I feel may have been published to throw the average trapper off track. Some that were good were so expensive to make that the man wrote them could be sure that the lure would never be sold commercially. Some were about worthless IMO.

Many, many great lures came out of the east but many of the published formulas were shared by men who made their living in the lure business so would never give out anything close to what they produced. It seems like a lot of the western formulas were from control men and their “pet” lure formulas mattered to them but didn’t directly affect their livelihood.

If I were to follow Marsyadas recipes he publishes in Trappers Post I would use Siberian type 2 Tonquin in the amount he specifies. I doubt he would publish a formula that doesn’t use modern ingredients. He was in the business in a big way and had close ties to Nick Wyshinski who supplied a lot of these musks and oils.

I havent gotten the trappers post in a few years id like to see the one hes talking about. The siberian type 2 im familiar with is nice
It seems to.have a little more edge then there type 2 tonq its perdy stout

Type 2, to my nose quickly becomes a dominant odor.

So 1 oz, depending on base measure, seems like an awful lot!

Yes that is the formula. Thanks TD

Thats ALOT of tonquin or catnip oil