or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Streetwear and Denim › Recent purchases - Part II
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Recent purchases - Part II - Page 2008

post #30106 of 46942
I was also wondering, Rach, if you'd ever smelled the fragrance from Zadig-et-Voltaire? (It's a Paris fashion brand, so depending on where you're located, perhaps not.) I had some samples from them and, from what some people told me, it seemed pretty nice.
post #30107 of 46942
isn't there an SW&D fragrance thread?
post #30108 of 46942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benesyed View Post

Rach, what are your thoughts about Dior Homme? I really liked it on me. I wish it had a bit more longevity.
It would purely be a self indulgent smell. It reminds me of aged books in a college library but more pleasant than that description sounds. It maybe that my college librarian wore it. Anyway, it smelled mature and knowledgeable. A good casual scent for just relaxing.

I liked Dior's men's scents. The original Hedi limited ones (especially Bois d'argent) were lovely, and the mass-released Dior Homme was a nice one as well. Iris, leather, definitely worth it.

I haven't had a bottle in a few years, but still I remember finding it well done for a big designer scent.

Thewho13, never tried Zadig (except in paperback form from Signet books. lol)
post #30109 of 46942
Quote:
Originally Posted by nahneun View Post

DH is a gourmand scent ime. Very powdery and has hints of chocolate. I can see where you're coming from with the relaxing, but not sure how you get library

its the iris and lavender i think, smells just like the library stacks at a school near where I live. fond memories of reading random philosophy and poetry. biggrin.gif
post #30110 of 46942
Quote:
Originally Posted by brad-t View Post

isn't there an SW&D fragrance thread?

yes by yours truly
post #30111 of 46942
Another pair of Buttero Chukkas. I've decided that I fall somewhere between Dad-core and Japanese tourist - sorta like the more adventurous dressers in Esquire. Is this bad?
post #30112 of 46942
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA Guy View Post

Another pair of Buttero Chukkas. I've decided that I fall somewhere between Dad-core and Japanese tourist - sorta like the more adventurous dressers in Esquire. Is this bad?

It only becomes bad if you match it with a nylon vest that has some sort of bear and/or mascot on the back of indeterminable origin (saw a strange one the other day at the crosswalk that looked like Orco crossed with Chester the Cheetah.
post #30113 of 46942
CdG colognes simply say "Fragrance (Parfum)" in the ingredients list without listing what's in it. Considering that many fragrances have been tested and found to contain known carcinogens hiding behind this "trade secret" heading, do you feel comfortable letting it absorb into your skin and then spending the entire day inhaling the fumes?
post #30114 of 46942
Quote:
Originally Posted by BB1 View Post

CdG colognes simply say "Fragrance (Parfum)" in the ingredients list without listing what's in it. Considering that many fragrances have been tested and found to contain known carcinogens hiding behind this "trade secret" heading, do you feel comfortable letting it absorb into your skin and then spending the entire day inhaling the fumes?

Nobody lists the recipe for their juice any more than Col. sanders gives his "secret blend" of herbs and spices. All of them say "fragrance."

As for carcinogens, you know, at some point you decide how to live your life. No red meat, no wine or alcohol, no smoking, no trans fats, no saturated fats, no sugars, no carbs, no perfumes, no chocolate, no flying, no cell phones, no running, put on a helmet!, no allergens... stay inside your bubble and live to be 125 miserable, sad years old..

Quite frankly, an hour outside in any reasonable world metropolitan city is guaranteed to give you more sh*t into your bloodstream than an entire day with my Guerlain Jicky. I'll take the Jicky and a nice Bell's Two Hearted, thankyouverymuch. lol8[1].gif
post #30115 of 46942
yeah you make that choice, but the point is you should have the opportunity to make an informed choice.


Also, someone needs to tell Teger what an "adult purchase" is.
Edited by hendrix - 10/21/12 at 10:49pm
post #30116 of 46942
its not really that well informed

even if its listed you probably aren't going to do the back ground reading and investigate the method they used to determine its carcinogenicity. Sometimes mutagens are lumped into carcinogens after doing something like an ames test but that is pretty uninformative.

Moreover, you probably will not calculate the relative risk to really determine what the actual absolute increase in risk is. 10x risk sounds scary unless u realize that you just moved from 1/100k to /10k life time risk. Likely there is no epidemiological data to give you that in all likelihood.

I'd be more concerend about the anti-microbials they use in deoderants. Endocrine dysfunction in animal models with a pretty high rate.

My point being that there really isnt that great evidence out there on cologne related carcinogenicity and making sense of it requires some pretty solid technical know-how of experimental design and stats
post #30117 of 46942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benesyed View Post

its not really that well informed
even if its listed you probably aren't going to do the back ground reading and investigate the method they used to determine its carcinogenicity. Sometimes mutagens are lumped into carcinogens after doing something like an ames test but that is pretty uninformative.

Right, so because the methods aren't perfect, we just shouldn't bother? this is the reality of science mate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benesyed View Post

Moreover, you probably will not calculate the relative risk to really determine what the actual absolute increase in risk is. 10x risk sounds scary unless u realize that you just moved from 1/100k to /10k life time risk. Likely there is no epidemiological data to give you that in all likelihood.

again, struggling to see what you're saying. People can't be bothered, so no effort should be made?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benesyed View Post

I'd be more concerend about the anti-microbials they use in deoderants. Endocrine dysfunction in animal models with a pretty high rate.

Me too, but I wouldn't be worried about endocrine dysfunction. I'd be worried about immune dysfunction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benesyed View Post

My point being that there really isnt that great evidence out there on cologne related carcinogenicity and making sense of it requires some pretty solid technical know-how of experimental design and stats

The point is that having no regulation or requirement to disclose ingredient toxicity and/or carcinogenicity is inadequate.
post #30118 of 46942
Quote:
Originally Posted by hendrix View Post

The point is that having no regulation or requirement to disclose ingredient toxicity and/or carcinogenicity is inadequate.

Oh, dear, IFRA is the biggest nanny-state in teh world. Thanks to them, virtually all of the great frags of history have been mercilessly gutted because somebody somewhere MAY have an allergy that might give his/her nose a tingle. The list of banned notes, essences, etc. grows year by year. While of course I don't want them putting radioactive Cesium into my fragrances, on the other hand I think they go WAY overboard sometimes. For example, they've pretty much assured that a REAL chypre can never exist anymore.

It's this kind of crap that leads to a world full of Trabants and Soylent Green.
post #30119 of 46942
My point is two fold:
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Providing information will not make any meaningful impact on risk-assessment
1) Pragmatically people lack the know-how to make a meaningful decision based on the evidence presented because they do not understand what those articles actually mean and can't without training/lots of time and work, which likely they will not expend. This is a legitimate argument because disclosing information does have costs in terms of appeal/mystique and competitiveness. If very few people will bother to investigate then its not really worthwhile to invite other harms.

2) Even if the above argument was untrue, the research evidence is not at the quality level (yet) that you could say ok using cologne with x/y/z ingredients leads to an increase of X% in my risk of getting cancer.

The reason that value is important is because it lets to weigh whether or not said risk is worth taking. If you don't have anything resembling that then its just this "may cause cancer" - but ANYTHING can do that and so you are not making an informed decision at all.

You will either a) say fuck it any risk is too much (which is not logical or consistent with other instances of risk appraisal) or b) you will say yolo but still do so for bad reasons. The appropriate thing would be to have better studies and epidemiological surveillance to get information that would aid in actually making said decisions. Absent that its a toss up.

It is equivalent to guessing what animals someone is thinking of based on if its land/sea/or air. Your odds at accurate assessment have increased in a pragmatically useless way, and you still will more likely than not get the right answer

Edited by Benesyed - 10/22/12 at 12:05am
post #30120 of 46942
JUST STOP NOW
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Streetwear and Denim
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Streetwear and Denim › Recent purchases - Part II