A 2008 Retrospective

The end of the year is always a time of contemplation: summing up what happened, what left its indelible mark and what could have gone better. This is true in all things and more so when one is compiling a list for publishing purposes such as happens here. Theoretically, this recap should serve as a history lesson in not repeating the same mistakes and helping map out a better and more fruitful new year. Arguably, as per Hegel, "we have never learned anything from history, or acted on principles deducted from it " [1] however, which is so painfully true for the fragrance world and the luxury section in general. But let's not dampen our spirits just yet! Perhaps as evidenced before someone is paying attention, so here's to a better 2009.
The Perfume Shrine, along with a group of esteemed independent perfume bloggers participating, decided to publish some musings on 2008 and its fragrant twists and turns. So here are mine.

Something is rotten at the kingdom of Fragland?
To take things at the top, the main problem is there are too many fragrance launches. I mean, they're like rice grains as a reward on a chess board in some ancient tale or microbes on a petri-dish: one is not having an embarassement of riches anymore, but an embrassement full-stop. I know I am not the only one who has become jaded after all this time watching one after another announce the new miraculous composition that will incidentally both cure AIDS and end world hunger while making us smell fabulous. It's hard to get surprised any more, I guess. Still, the latest Serge Lutens ~which my friend Denyse was first to spread the news of~, the upcoming Hermessence and the newest Annick Goutal have managed to create some palpitations to my -otherwise- lukewarm heart. I'd hate to be disappointed and it's rather late to plead with the companies and the perfumers to please not mess with my heartstrings (they're all coming out in January, so we'll find out soon enough), so I am merely extending my wishes for something if not magnificent and earth-shattering, at least interesting enough.
It's worthwhile to note that amidst what is generally referenced as the worst recession since 1989, the hyper-luxe companies, such as By Killian, state that they have not noticed a decline in their turnover. Sibyllic...

Everyone is an Expert
When "Perfumes the Guide" erupted at the end of last March like a Godzilla-sized "menace" (?) on the front of thirsty lands (the perfume-discussing ones, I mean), suddenly a whole stampede of people nodding their heads energetically started quoting bits and pieces in order to justify their personal preferences; while another group of people were actively voicing their opposition questioning the validity of those opinions in that book in not so polite terms. The phenomenon left us with something of the weird mix of mirth, sarcasm and pained empathy. (Surely the authors were entitled to their opinions, weren't they? I thought they were).
Never before has such a small world taken itself at such breadth of importance! It was like watching Tim Burton's "Mars Attacks" with lots of popcorn. It was almost certain the authors would intellectually appreciate the crassness of Gaultier's Ma Dame. So what? You don't have to wear it! I doubt they're advocating that you should! They're simply evaluating its lack of pretence (good thing).
Yet suddenly the ratio of traditional press articles quadrupled with some quite original and serious and some hilarious results! Suddenly fragrance writing became big business. And although one could trace this last bit all the way back to The New York Times appointing Chandler Burr a scent critic a couple of years ago, this year's evolution has shown that starting one's own site or writing a piece for a newspaper leaves all the holes of one's semi-knowledge free for filling with fresh air. I am personally enjoying the wide selection ~when before did news circulate so quickly, as to make the new exclusive, moderately-priced Comme des Garcons sell out of stores carrying it in one day?~ that this development has given us, but I am urging you to judge with your best analytical and rational criterion while reading. (Obviously everyone has their own opinion, but not every journalist knows some facts).

Intriguing Trends I Noticed
Speaking of wishful thinking for 2009, I noticed that already 2008 brought a handful of things that raised my antennae to the direction of Interestville. Namely, the new direction for woody fragrances for women, the widening of selection of florals for men, and the ressurgence of melon notes through non-Calone [2]-using ways. A handful of genuinely intriguing trends emerged.

Woody fragrances are nothing new, but it seems that they have caught the eye of the makers of feminine fragrances: Sensuous by Estée Lauder, Magnifique for Lancome and Secret Obsession by Calvin Klein. From the predictability of the first to the hypersweet distortion-of-facts of the second and to the spicy austerity of the third (which I prefer out of the three, if pressed), I was pleased to witness a new trend coming, after what seemed like a tsunami of fruity florals and an oversimplification of modern chypres. May they continue (but with better compositions please)!

Floral touches for men took over where the pioneer marketing of Dior Homme had left: the metrosexual of 2008 is not afraid to wear his heart flower at his sleeve and go for Kenzo Power or Prada Infusion d'Homme. Then again, he can always fall back on Polo Modern Reserve by Ralph Lauren and its butch retro-machismo!

Melon and aquatic notes have been anathema for a whole (young) generation who grew up lisping "niche" and shopping at Aedes and Luckyscent with all the gusto of a card-holding dot.com progeny. Well, there's nothing like an old trend coming over for revenge and it seems like three 2008 releases are having a laugh at ou expense, admonishing us to shed our preconceptions and stop being annoyingly snobbish: Jean Claude Ellena did it first with Un Jardin Après la Mousson for Hermès and his daughter Céline followed with Sublime Balkiss for The Different Company, while Bertrand Duchaufour is continuing the laughter behind our backs with the river-like Fleur de Liane for L'artisan Parfumeur.

And then, there was Dans Tes Bras for F.Malle. Interesting to be sure.

My Coups de Foudre!
Then again there were some straight-arrow shoots who came up with things I loved immediately: a couple have even won pride of place in my ever-overspilling bottle collection! I feel for the honeyed apricots soaked in spices of El Attarine as soon as I smelled a sample. I came to love the somber, cool and warm antithesis of Serge Noire. Serge Lutens has largely redeemed himself in my eyes for the rather unoriginal latest releases of previous years. He has earned a grace period.
Chanel has also come up with a true rose-cut-like gem (Sycomore in Les Exclusifs line), a graceful if a little too pretty for its own good twin-set of a scent (Beige in Les Exclusifs) and a genuinely modern interpretation of an iconic milestone (No.5 Eau Premiere). Well done!
Suprisingly, Guerlain has produced only one modern fragrance this year that I liked in a year that was scattered with vintage acquisitions for me: Cruel Gardenia. But don't be fooled by the name, because it smells neither cruel nor gardenia-like (and I doubt they intended it to be either!). Still, this soapy prettiness has crept up on me. Don't get me started on Les Elixirs Charnels/ Carnal Elixirs though. Just don't!

Personal Growth
This year has been fulfilling on a personal level as related to my work here on Perfume Shrine and to my capacities as a fragrance writer and consultant. I have learned a lot of new things (for a constant student like myself, I have still lots of ground to cover though!), have expanded my horizons conversing with professionals who have taken an active interest in Perfume Shrine and am ready to relay my adventures with people who have a genuine passion for the art of perfumery. On top of that, in what started as a panicked attempt to salvage whatever I could out of a fragrance world that is constantly changing and rationing perfumery ingredients, thus creating a shortage in beauty, I finally managed to obtain some rare vintage collectibles which have graced my collection and have touched my historian's soul: Pour Troubler, Djedi, Fleur de Feu, Atuana, Ode, Liu (all by Guerlain, click to read reviews), Dior-Dior, Shiseido Nombre Noir, Lanvin Scandal...I am deeply thankful for the journey they have taken me on.
Last but not least, I have cemented a true rapport with my loyal readers, my guest writers and my perfume community friends and for that I am truly honoured.


Don't forget to check out what other bloggers have to say when recapping 2008 in their own words:

1000 fragrances
Ars Aromatica,
A Rose Beyond the Thames
Bittergrace Notes,
Grain de Musc,
I Smell therefore I Am,
Legerdenez,
Notes from the Ledge,
Olfactarama,
Savvy Thinker,
Smelly Blog (and her "best of" list)
The Non Blonde
and Tuilleries.

[1]approximate quote, Hegel referred to goverments.
[2]Calone is the sregistered name of a ynthetic aroma-material that dominated the 90s fragrances with its aquatic green melon note.

Economic Crisis? What Economic Crisis?

If the current economic standing of several households across the globe is anything to go by, surely the market should be catering to their needs by budgeting their offerings, providing outlets for small pleasures and the possibility of indulging into the escapist dream of sent bon without mortaging anything that is left standing to mortgage. However the above has probably been wishful thinking on our part. According to an article by Nazani Lakarani on yesterday's online edition of International Herald Tribune, companies are not especially tuned into the needs of perfumephiles who demand smaller bottles of their desired "fix" so they can collect with less guilt (just how much can one person apply in one lifetime?) and options for budget-friendly versions of packaging (refills, travel cases and similar contraptions). In a time of crisis how do the players respond?
The highlights of this article include some eye-glaring exempla of an industry which is either taking itself too seriously or not at all.

"Traditional luxury and designer brands still sell well; but at the top end of the market, the demand for personalized, custom-made luxury has spread to perfumery. "Regardless of budget, customers today seek a unique fragrance that sets them apart," said Ladan Lari, managing director of designer fragrances at L'Oréal, the French beauty products company.

I have long held that elitism is an integral part of escapism in the fragrance business; and especially in times when that escapism is within reach of everyone thanks to the Internet boom it stands to reason that someone needs to emphasize the luxurious, exclusive privilege of owning a coveted item that would differentiate the peasants from the posh (or so the unadmitted truth raises its ugly head). Several brands have played that game well and they have reaped the benefits: thanks to the Internet and the buzz of fragrance writing consumers up till now were willing to pay almost anything to own such an item. The sarcasm and deep contempt (for the plight of many consumers) of seeing this in black & white though makes me cringe a little...

"Positioning itself between the bespoke and limited edition markets, one specialized perfume company, l'Artisan Parfumeur, plans to introduce in January a line of single-edition perfumes - only one bottle of each will be made - to be sold exclusively through its flagship Paris store. The work of Bertrand Duchaufour, the in-house nose hired this year, the line, Mon Numéro, will be presented in one-off bottles designed by Pascale Riberolles, an artist and master glass blower, priced at about $20,000 for a 725-milliliter flask."

Now here is the weird part: one bottle of each fragrance, a collector's item accompanied by a matching price. And I am asking: why??? Why employ the artistry of a perfumer who is admittedly ingeniously revolutionizing the industry with his creations anyway for just what will inadvertedly become a museum piece? He can't be that bored, since he is given almost carte blanche within a niche house where he is master of all he surveys to create as he sees fit. Surely the owner of that single piece of perfume has as many chances of cracking that bottle open and ruining part of its investement value in the process as the oil problem of the planet solving itself naturally within the next decade. I am very much afraid that it will be a waste of energy, time, budget and essence in what will amount to an intellectual exercise instead of a paean to beauty. Fragrances are meant to be living and breathing things, radiating their joy, their wistfulness, their paramours within polite society's radius; not something tucked in a cellar awaiting the future generations to crack them open years later as a monetary investement in art. Attributing the artistry of perfumery into producing an artefact for an antiseptic environment is akin to sculpting a Venus of Milo for the private enjoyment of a single person in a remote village of an exotic Never Never land: a crime for and in the eyes of humanity.

"Kurkdjian's bespoke scents, conceived, blended and matured over 6 to 10 months, are priced at $10,000 for two 60-milliliter flasks, hand-engraved with a name or personal message. He also offers a service that he calls "Variations sur Mesure," mainly aimed at U.S. or British clients accustomed to fast results. "Based on a scent the client likes, I create several variations," Kurkdjian said. "The one ultimately chosen is still one-of-a-kind, but without the time-consuming adjustments. Ready in 10 days, it costs between $3,800 and $5,000."

I have no special reason to defend any nationality, but when I see such hidden contempt (yes, you read that right) for American and British clients ~no matter that I am not part of that group~ I cringe some more. Let's repeat and ponder this time: "mainly aimed at U.S. or British clients accustomed to fast results". Is it my own impression or is there a very obvious snide in this? Fast results accounting for poor taste or something, and even that "fast results" being a gross generalisation. Basta! I sincerely hope that this is not a quote by mr.Francis Kurkdjian, whom I respect and admire for his talented offerings to the world of fragrance which I often enjoy myself. He is both much too young and much too talented to be so cynical so early on. Let's just hope it was an infortunate deduction on the part of the author. I welcome any clarification should anyone want to set things straight.

You can read the rest of the article here

Article brought to my attention by Elysium on POL. Pic through the Clint Eastwood Archive.

The Guerlain Conundrum

If you have been under a rock in a cave in the Sumatran soil, you might have missed the discussion around Guerlain's modus operandi of the last few years. Let's do a very brief recap for those of you who might have: First there was a colossus who bought an historical house: LVMH (that's Louis Vuitton Moet Hennesy) ~the Guerlain boutique at 68 Champs Elysees is getting refurbished and Guerlain starts to produce "niche" and exclusive lines within the brand as well as "for old time's sake" re-issues for those who have access to select distribution and serious trust funds. Then someone pronounces "The End of Civilization as We Know it", when news of a reformulation of one of the house's masterpieces leak: the perfume community sounds its barbaric yawp through the rooftops of the world and Isabelle Rousseau's mail gets spammed. Then that someone changes their mind about a year and a half later pronouncing the pneuma of the original living on in the current juice (sorry, I don't want to go there). In the meantime, industrious Guerlain launches juice after juice, flanker after flanker and name change after name change like the equivalent of Japanese labor on strike: working a 64-hour week. Do they even have time to smell the roses?
And when outsourcing is proving too incoherent, when Jean Paul is petering out after years of faithful service, they hire one of their Givaudan protegés, their own resident nose.
Last but not least, they issue out their take on erotic tittilation that reads like Régine Deforges on crack for Carnal Elixirs ~a MUA reader succinctly described it as "some Paris Hilton Goes to Versailles nightmare script": if you haven't yet read it, do so on Perfume Posse and don't miss the comments. I admit I didn't make the "charnel house" connection right away but the prose was such a deepest shade of purple I didn't have available grey cells left to proceed the data.
And of course prices are skyrocketing all the while: on everything, up till now cheap and cheaper, as if some strange magnetic force is making them all stick together like iron particles .

What exactly is happening to Guerlain? That's not me asking; that's the whole perfume buying public who lowers their brow in awe and respect when entering the Abode; an abode which will become a mausoleum if they lose that respect.

Let's take things from the top. Lutens was on the vanguard of the conceptual fragrance line. When the Salons du Palais Royal opened its doors in 1992, there was no one doing "niche". Apart from those who had small artisanal businesses at the back yard of their homes and they were lovingly preparing batches for themselves and their friends, of course. Or the special commissions by rich people to specific perfume houses. But these are not general exempla, emulated by many.
Lutens went where no one had dared set foot before: art-directing a whole series of scents that were inspired by specific visions of a very individual culture, made with traditional care yet modern flair ~in essence, a pioneering act of defiance to current trends (I am reminding you these were the ozonic/marine 90s). He must have lost quite a bit of money at first, as both the formulae were expensive (too many costly natural ingredients) and the packaging, decor and scenario were fine-tuned like a fine specimen by Stradivari.

Success comes to those who wait and imitation is the sincerest form of flattery: A few years later almost everyone was doing their own Lutenesque vision.
The exclusivity factor caught on and everyone started realising that the lack of "marketing" on Lutens's part on the Paris exclusives was indeed an admirable marketing tool: the oldest one, actually ~deny this which could be had and you create desire!
Consequently, this avalanche of exclusive lines within big brands who cater for two different clienteles, it seems: The hoi polloi and the connoisseurs. [The latter term can be thought to be an euphemism for those who are willing to spend a lot of money and energy hunting down what is elusive yet not always worthwhile, but I will return on this at some other time].
One house followed another in this "game". Hermès was the first to launch an exclusive line of haughty-mighty sparse fragrances (like eating raw artichokes is the pinacle of savoir-faire) for their "boutiques only" just when they hired a resident nose in a move that was crucial: the Hermessences.
I am pretty sure Chanel saw the desirability factor of the Hermessences and launched Les Exclusifs in turn: appearing like elegant sketches rather than finished oil on canvases, they utilised modern interpretations of older spermatic ideas in previous fragrances of the house. Even Lancôme re-issued some of their past successes in La Collection, including Cuir, and Givenchy did Les Mythiques.

What was Guerlain to do? The above houses were not primarily perfume houses. Hermès is a glorified saddlery. Chanel an iconic fashion house who had their own cornering on chic that needed modernising in the 80s to get out of the moth-balls of inertia. Givenchy is a designer house relying on the designer's quixotic pursue of elegance, not for some time now. Lancome was skincare and cosmetics and try to convince me otherwise.
Guerlain had a legend in their hands: Shalimar (amidst myriads, assuredly, but I'm willing to accept it's their calling card) as well as an arch-snob that demands an acquired taste much like a Trapeze-monk-produced-beer fermented in the bottle (ie.Mitsouko). With the craziness about gourmands in recent years surely they could have tapped that potential and produced something sophisticated and rich in that vein. After all their exquisite treatment of vanillin has consolidated their mythos. Would it be enough?
I think they were terribly late with their Spirituese Double Vanille (which admitedly sounds much worse than it actually smells; fist faux pas). Their Shalimar Light was brilliant and they should have pursued in that course stylistically (not in the onomatopoieia part though, because it evokes sugar-free sodas to mind and that wouldn't help; second faux pas).

Guerlain realised they couldn't be left out of the "game" everyone was playing: Enter L'art et la Matière line ~at least visually, but also semantically, very much inspired by the Lutens portfolio. Guerlain fans are crazy about Guerlain anyway, but this allowed them to approach a segment of the niche audience who was after more conceptualised, modern series with lyrical and strange names ( à la Tubereuse Criminelle, which is surely behind the Rose Barbare or Angélique Noire moniker).

It seems to me that Guerlain is on an especially precarious balance: they need to respect their historical tradition (which after all, as an historian, can't help but respect) and to enrich it with some modernity (otherwise they will get obsolete and slowly die along with their old customers). But the practical problem is Guerlain afficionados are not interested in modernity: they want tradition! That die-hard core base is too small to sustain the house alone, however, so they need to corner the modern market (new parties interested in the "hard to get") as well as the mass market to get profits that would fuel the above two scenarios.
Therefore they neededed to proceed with segmentation, which they did on the antithetical poles of tradition and modernity:

1) the Il Etait une fois line for the serious traditionalists and collectors in Baccarat crystal bottles with special etchings and Jean Paul's boutonnière molded out of wax (über-tradition of the upper echelons with a price tag to reach the stars)
2) the classic stable of dependables, such as Shalimar, L'heure Bleue, Vétiver et al, with some lifting ~that never gets admitted~ for the old, loyal fans (conservative traditionalists)
3) Les Parisiennes for the younger fans with the desire to hop to Paris and get a memento from a great museum-store (tradition and modernity hand in hand: limited editions that scream "new" in old, royally embossed bottles; travel exclusives that created a following but now put on their party clothes and are unwilling to stay overnight unless you order Veuve Cliquot with those nachos)
4) L'art et la Matiere line (audience: the press people, the niche fans, the blogosphere, the marketing people at rival firms getting a heart attack ~modernity that shows we're alive and kicking, by Jove!).

These moves did revamp their profit margin and their "niche" appeal as well as the interest of collectors and perfume lovers of vintage.
And now they growl "for the animal in you" with their mojito-sounding Guerlain Homme and play light bondage games with their Elixir Charnels. It's like a temporary tattoo for kids, hidden in a bag of Cheetos: be a man and go the whole hog with it, damn it!

Will these moves see them through thick and thin in the future? I am very much afraid that they are not ready to see just how deep down the rabbit hole goes...

Photography by Maria Brink courtesy of What Up Thug blog. Guerlain garden at EPCOT courtesy of anelson823

Perfume: gimmick or innovation? And at what price?

A closeted skeleton in the cupboard of perfume business world is price. Actual retail price. And the relevance that it has to the spectrum of factors that determine it.

Of course perfume creation entails many things to consider: costly and not so costly raw materials, perfumer outsourcing (the houses that produce scents use perfumers who invariably work for one of the Big Companies: IFF, Givaudan Roure, Quest, Haarmar & Reimer , Dragoco, Takasago), laboratory experimentation and all that entails (discarded batches, work hours paid to technicians, etc), creative, marketing and PR team budget, packaging and advertising costs, copyright legal clauses. It is difficult, I can tell you!
Even niche companies that work outside the umbrella process just described often have to account for some of the above factors.

However how much of this reflects on the actual quality of the jus? Is price a real indication of quality? Or is it irrelevant of that?
Let’s ponder on this for a while.

Too often among people who occupy themselves with perfume as a hobby there is the prevalent notion that products that cost a lot must be in some form superior to those that are considered inexpensive. The old dictum “I’m not rich enough to buy cheap” is still considered good advice in buying. I remember it was the domineering attitude among women of a previous generation here when they went out shopping for clothes, leather goods and other comparable items: they opted for something seemingly expensive which they assumed would last longer, perform better and give them a sense of decency and class. I certainly agree on those merits if we’re talking about the above goods.
Nevertheless the latest trend is “luxury for all” in the whole industrialized western world translating in good quality objects for relatively affordable prices and this is something that is dear to my heart. I think it is one step ahead of the new money penchant for exhibiting vulgar displays of wealth.
But is it relevant when talking about fragrance?

The issue of raw materials is pivotal to my mind if we are to seriously discuss this. Much as with cosmetics and skincare products, what is contained in the jar or pot is what ultimately makes the crucial difference. If you find yourself reading the ingredients list of Crème de la Mer with its up till some years ago exorbitant price ~ over 130$ for 1oz ~ (and I’m saying “up till some years ago”, because in the last 6-7 years most of the skincare market has gone after its way) you find yourself face to face with mineral oil, thickeners and some algae. Which can be easily had at the drugstore for a mere 99 cents (that is the price of the Nivea cream which is comparable in texture, moisturizing properties and overall feel, per consumers on MUA)!
L’oréal was ahead of the trends when they invested their vast experience and technical expertise on mass-market lines such as Garnier and Plénitude, sold at the shelves of drugstores and supermarkets, using comparable innovations as those used in their upmarket lines such as Rubinstein and Lancôme. The result? The products fly off the shelves in record time and they also win prizes for both ends of the price spectrum for the same amount of research (enter the recent Prix d’Excellence awards bestowed by European journalists regarding their innovative dermo-adaptive molecule used in both Vichy and Lancôme skincare). They’re clearly on to something!
Now I ask again: does this same practice pertain to perfume?

Apparently too often in our modern era perfume ingredients come astoundingly cheap and astoundingly uniform across lines: since it’s usually the same exact Big Companies who produce perfumes for high and low end houses, it is too often the case that a perfume by –say- X prestige brand is also using the majority of ingredients of Y celebrity frag (I’m using the latter reference as celebrity-endorsed scents are too often regarded with disdain among perfume lovers as being “cheap” and not desirable products capitalizing on a passing infatuation with said celebrity ~ which mind you, I’m not 100% disagreeing with!).
All too often they’re manufactured by the same noses/perfumers too! A comparative search is very telling!

So what is so different that validates the difference in retail price, the distribution channel and the consequent expression of elation on the average recipient’s face of such a perfumed gift? (Because surely you have seen some marked difference when you present someone with something from Dior vs. something from Stetson, right?).

For some reason there is an addendum to perfume.
Maybe exactly because it is still something of a mystery: its practices, its ingredients, its way of being composed is not completely revealed to the public. There is a list of some ingredients on the box of perfumes as of lately, but those are simply some of those that are purported to be in danger of skin sensitizing or triggering allergies, hence their inclusion under the newest laws. It is by no means a conclusive list of contents.
And here is where advertising, packaging and marketing enter the equation.

The collective subconscious is coaxed to buy into a myth, especially if we’re talking about big brands and houses with history and pedigree behind them. And indeed many aspects of that myth are beautifully incorporated into the presentation of perfume. Consider the immortal quote of Coco Chanel “A woman without perfume has no future”, or Patou’s campaign for Joy “the costliest perfume in the world”. Or the rich history of Guerlain with the anecdotal stories behind many of their creations, such as the Jicky tale about the young English girl that the son fell hopelessly in love with, the Shalimar tale of the Indian love-affair in the gardens, the 1001 Nights tale behind the creation of Nahéma or the tragic love-story inspired by a novel for the grand Mitsouko.
The fawning over perfume advertising –of which I am no less guilty than most- is also testament to this.
The beautiful flacons are contributing in turn to impulse purchases or calculated decisions from people who are very bent on the visual. Many times the outer cast of something has lied to us about the contents, so we buy the exquisite bottle for it to be displayed for our artistic delectation rather than used for its contents. This is where the limited editions and Baccarat collectibles work so well and will continue to be produced for this exact reason: man (and woman) is a highly visual-oriented animal.

There is also something called concept and conceptual artistic merit (you can click here and here for some insight on what I think). This comes more into play with niche brands, as the big houses are in their vast majority producing press releases that invariably view perfume as a means of seduction or at the very least presentable “package” of the wearer to his/her intended audience.
Niche houses on the contrary have taken steps into bypassing this somehow contained notion by expanding the reasons one might opt for wearing a particular perfume: asserting one’s true personality, invoking olfactory landscapes, sourcing long-forgotten memories, intellectualizing olfaction or even creating a distance and introspective mood that is meant only for the wearer to enjoy ~the olfactory equivalent of an I-pod and headphones on the subway: a modern urban shield from the outer world.
The practice has been explored in various degrees by several niche houses: Lutens with his Arabic tradition concept, F.Malle with his collection of auteurs who produce only what they deem worthy themselves, the pleiad of Natural Perfumers who insist on using their natural essences in a way that is ecologically sound and artistically in tune with the universe, Comme des Garcons with their completely iconoclastic anti-perfumes meant to shock and make you think, Gaubin Daude, Tauer, L’artisan parfumeur, Ormonde Jayne, you name it…They all have tried to give a voice to a vision in their minds and remain consistent with that instead of trying to be all things to all people the way big houses and designer fragrances usually are.
Yet do they all succeed? And are their prices justified by those two tokens mentioned: innovation of vision and raw materials? It seems to me that the answer cannot be a simple blanket one. There are as many nuances in the niche world as there are in products of conglomerates and big Luxury Groups. Some do have better quality than others, some do have a more concrete vision than others and I can see how that might influence a preference and predisposition of looking forward to their latest releases.

This is what ultimately makes decision so difficult and testing of such paramount importance. Because deep down, you know that no matter how much something is praised by perfume connoisseurs or how beautiful the adverts looks or how prestige the brand and name sound, you have to really like it yourself to be able to wear it and enjoy it to the last dregs of a real retailed-price purchased whole bottle (no steals and bargains missy, we’re watching you!).
And if you repurchase, then it is really something to celebrate about: you have found a winner! Bravo!



Top pic originally uploaded on MUA but have since had trouble locating her username. If you do know it, let me know, I think it is brilliant!
Pic of Baldini and Grenouille characters from film "Perfume: story of a murderer" courtesy of Ohnotheydidnt/Livejournal.com.