or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Health & Body › Scent/Fragrance of the Day thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Scent/Fragrance of the Day thread - Page 1689

post #25321 of 25695

I mostly agree with Ellena: perfumery is at least partly chemistry, and reducing the number of ingredients available is one way to control the unknown unknowns. I'm not sure modern development cycles and testing really quite take it into account. "Good enough, ship it."

post #25322 of 25695
^My only hope is that the explosion of niche fragrance companies surviving (even thriving) will help push the big players (Givenchy, Dior, Guerlain, etc.) to go back in and reinvest in their original, superlative classics. Sort of like how the craft beer explosion has some of the big/traditional Beer companies realizing there is money to be made in putting out decent stuff (I have to admit a soft spot for Pabst's "Old Tankard Ale")

Dior did an OKAY job with the "Les Creations" line, but I'd love to see them push it further and reintroduce the parfums. Guerlain is apparently trying on some of theirs to get them as close as possible (given current legal restrictions). Caron is probably the one that has the most work to do... though I still like many of the Urn fragrances, they aren't at all the same.
post #25323 of 25695
Quote:
Originally Posted by rach2jlc View Post

^My only hope is that the explosion of niche fragrance companies surviving (even thriving) will help push the big players (Givenchy, Dior, Guerlain, etc.) to go back in and reinvest in their original, superlative classics. Sort of how some of the big Beer companies have realized there is money to made in craft beer/higher quality stuff other than carbonated water with some random alcohol squeezed inside.

Well, in theory this is supposed to happen, but structurally it is impossible due to the economics of Big Fragrance. Unlike with beer where a craft beer doesn't cost much more than a Heineken (most of the savings are economies of scale), the cost difference in perfume is several orders of magnitude. Your Azzaro Pour Homme probably costs around $0.5/bottle, your nice niche perfume with proper ingredients probably already $20, and your super nice bespoke scent $100+.

 

But Azzaro Pour Homme's formula is not owned by Azzaro, but by IFF (or whoever came up with it), who sells it for say, $25 (or whatever a 50% discount is) to Azzaro who can sell it to distributors locally (see Chandler Burr's book for more details, it's fascinating how the industry has ended up structuring itself!).

 

So as soon as a niche brand is bought out, they enter this same dynamic and the same economics and the cost has to go down and the price up. We see the same with, say, RM Williams being bought out by LVMH - oh look, a new boutique in New York! but also construction quality is down and the price is double. 

 

As for selling out... well, every entrepreneur has to make that choice. We were recently offered a buyout (quite casually, no term sheet). It was tempting. Walk away with a few millions, enjoy the bespoke clothing and fine stuff I've been denying myself for a few years due to reinvesting in the company... maybe even do a few more projects... but ultimately we like to hunt and we have bigger plans. But I can understand why a young, broke perfumer would take the money and run, even at the cost of destroying his work. 

post #25324 of 25695
Quote:
Originally Posted by rach2jlc View Post

^My only hope is that the explosion of niche fragrance companies surviving (even thriving) will help push the big players (Givenchy, Dior, Guerlain, etc.) to go back in and reinvest in their original, superlative classics. Sort of like how the craft beer explosion has some of the big/traditional Beer companies realizing there is money to be made in putting out decent stuff (I have to admit a soft spot for Pabst's "Old Tankard Ale")

Dior did an OKAY job with the "Les Creations" line, but I'd love to see them push it further and reintroduce the parfums. Guerlain is apparently trying on some of theirs to get them as close as possible (given current legal restrictions). Caron is probably the one that has the most work to do... though I still like many of the Urn fragrances, they aren't at all the same.

Actually what Guerlain (LVMH), Givenchy (also LVMH), Lanvin (L'Oreal) etc. are doing is precisely capitalising on the resurgence of interest to reissue classics... they're just not putting in the bottle the same stuff there was in the first place! 

post #25325 of 25695
Quote:
Originally Posted by crdb View Post

Actually what Guerlain (LVMH), Givenchy (also LVMH), Lanvin (L'Oreal) etc. are doing is precisely capitalising on the resurgence of interest to reissue classics... they're just not putting in the bottle the same stuff there was in the first place! 

You've compelled me to open the wine cooler to wear something from my sacred bin today. Thinking some very old, very wonderful No. 19 extrait.
post #25326 of 25695
Quote:
Originally Posted by rach2jlc View Post


You've compelled me to open the wine cooler to wear something from my sacred bin today. Thinking some very old, very wonderful No. 19 extrait.

I shall be fair to Chanel. The Polges are geniuses. But they are being asked to do in 6 months what should take 4 years, and might not even be possible. No wonder the result is not up to expectations.

post #25327 of 25695
I think, by and large, I prefer synthetics, probably for the same reason people dislike them.

I like purity and simplicity, generally. If a note can have one, well, note, that's cool with me.

I quite like encre noire for this reason (got a bottle last week), and most things I like tend to be quite focused.
post #25328 of 25695
Quote:
Originally Posted by hendrix View Post

I think, by and large, I prefer synthetics, probably for the same reason people dislike them.

I like purity and simplicity, generally. If a note can have one, well, note, that's cool with me.

I quite like encre noire for this reason (got a bottle last week), and most things I like tend to be quite focused.

Genuine question, and not a criticism (there is room for a thousand tastes): what do you think of cooking with MSG?

 

That is, instead of getting umami from the glutamates present in parmesan, tomatoes, etc. have you tried adding MSG crystals directly into non-glutamates-rich food and what did you think? Was it a better experience than using natural ingredients with their more complex flavours overwhelming the umami experience?

post #25329 of 25695
The one thing I can tell you is that a) yes, food seasoned with MSG has a rich flavour while eating it but then comes b) the aftermath of that metallic, synthetic, artificial aftertaste combined with a somewhat fluffy fealing of/on the tongue. Not pleasant. At all. Thankfully I don't suffer from migranes as a result like some do.
post #25330 of 25695
SOTD is YSL M7, the vintage one. It's pretty decent. Not sure I love it but it's a nice solid scent.
post #25331 of 25695

Tauer Lonesome Rider - realizing I'm really sensitive to castoreum and as this slow dries down I don't smell leather as much as animal.

post #25332 of 25695
Quote:
Originally Posted by crdb View Post

Genuine question, and not a criticism (there is room for a thousand tastes): what do you think of cooking with MSG?

That is, instead of getting umami from the glutamates present in parmesan, tomatoes, etc. have you tried adding MSG crystals directly into non-glutamates-rich food and what did you think? Was it a better experience than using natural ingredients with their more complex flavours overwhelming the umami experience?

I don't know - I've never used MSG.

I have, however, used table salt. Which also applies somewhat.
post #25333 of 25695
Quote:
Originally Posted by hendrix View Post


I don't know - I've never used MSG.

I have, however, used table salt. Which also applies somewhat.

Salt has a direct (arguably, the most important) nutritional utility though. That's why we're so sensitive to it.

 

I wonder if there exists "fake salt" like aspartame for sugar, and what the experience of eating something with it would be like. How fast your body would realise.

post #25334 of 25695
Quote:
Originally Posted by crdb View Post

Salt has a direct (arguably, the most important) nutritional utility though. That's why we're so sensitive to it.

I wonder if there exists "fake salt" like aspartame for sugar, and what the experience of eating something with it would be like. How fast your body would realise.

Like with fats, various chemical methods to have exposed surface layers of salt interspersed with inert chemicals are attempts to trick the body. more common with fats really.

With salt itself simply changing the surface area exposed is enough to trick the body. i.e. very fine salt is going to be a healthier option for people with high blood sugar than the equivalent "saltiness" of rock salt.
post #25335 of 25695
Today I'm wearing Lampblack.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Health & Body
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Health & Body › Scent/Fragrance of the Day thread