"Your perfume is giving me the hives/ a headache/ asthma!"

How many times have you heard that line in one variation or another? Or are you one of the sufferers who feels like you're going to erupt any minute now from the fumes that are coming your way from down the hall? There are two sides to every argument and the modern (mostly Americanised) phenomenon of complaining about perfume-wearing in the workplace and public spaces is interesting to dissect, if hysterically overacted in some cases. Like the one involving Susan McBride, a Detroit city employee who claimed a co-worker’s perfume and room deodorizer caused her to suffer from migraines and nausea and in turn sued the city, claiming the scented workplace hindered her from working properly.

Most impressively, nevertheless, McBride actually won a $100,000 settlement and Detroit city employees in the three buildings where McBride works are now being warned not to wear scented products, including colognes, aftershave, perfumes and deodorants, or even use candles and air fresheners! Incidents like this and reportage from common folks who comment on MSN articles citing the incident as an example of a greater issue make me think. And the majority of interesting questions in this world begin with one simple word: "why". WHY has scent been given so much importance in today's society? Why is this annoyance greater now rather than decades before? And why is perfume and scented goods demonized in such a way? Is perfume wearing the new taboo? Or the new smoking?

Let's start by a typical example, taken from actual comments by readers. One woman complains about her co-worker constantly brewing fresh chai tea five times a day on her desk (Talk about a lot of constipation, but let's not tackle this right now). The smell of tea being brewed bothers her. She complains she's getting a headache. The other woman quips by saying she got a headache by the smell of the noodles that the other woman brought at the office the other day! The situation escalates to the point that the incident is reported to Human Resources and the floor manager. Chair brewing is brought to a halt. You see...nothing is as uncomplicated as a simple repulsion to the smell of something. Imagine how this can take on other shades of meaning when the offending item in question is a scented gift from a beloved one or even if it takes on the "enlightened" appeal of aromatherapeutic products. Or...the horrors, a humble deodorant (banning it risking a major case of the BOs) or the cleaning fluid for the floors!

Allergies and headaches triggered by scented products are a serious issue. I don't deny that for a minute! Let me repeat: I don't deny it. People battle with symptoms that can be debilitating. Some are even seizure-like, recalling epilepsy ("sensitivity to strong smells, flashing lights and certain noises"). For all that there is proper medical care, while common sense dictates to respect people and tone down whatever is making them ill, assuming the pinpointing has been successful. But how much of that is real and how much is simulated for various reasons? Even scientists are sometimes baffled. Where does one draw the line between having something hurt them ("I'm getting nauseated") and having something just annoy their aesthetic principles ("I hate that scent")? Reportedly the percentage of genuine medical conditions is very low. "Hey man, you stink!" is politically incorrect, whether the stink comes from body odour or perfume or smoke...Has this political correctness which has pervaded the American society prevented men and women from giving voice to what displeases them in a rational and level-mannered way, thus provoking secondary reflexes that lead to overacting and passive aggressiveness? I think it has.

Scent mapping is starting to become the equivalent of turf wars and a victim attitude that would "pay" for other things, some of which are tangible in the form of monetary recompensation. People have got ideas, after that $100,000 settlement. But it is the power trip which gives the thrill. Scent has always biologically been a way to mark one's territory and man (and woman), a grown-up animal out of the jungle, is refining the process by donning olfactory shoulder pads, marking one's personal space. Refuting someone's right to gnaw on your own personal space -within the public one- seems like resistance to usurped authority, claiming part of the common territory back, setting the line on someone's power. Doubly so, as perfume choice and individual odour is such an intimate, personal matter. It reads as rejection of someone on a deep, core level. How many times have you rejected a potential lover because you didn't like the way they smelled? And how many times have you felt flattered because someone praised your scent?

"A person doesn't necessarily have a right to wear perfume, but the person does have a right to be able to breathe in the workplace" is cited as reason for the indignation. Clearly perfume wearing is considered frivolous. The floodgates on entitlement to rights and the cult of "me" opened up at some point during the last 20 years, after which a major step back in basic manners and common sense ensued. Which brings me to another point: It's noted that the majority of complaints and the escalation of such cases is witnessed in the US (and to a lesser degree Canada). Other countries do not have such a problem (yet, at least). Why is that? I believe it has to do with a couple of reasons.

First of all, the frivolity of perfume seems ingrained in a WASP mentality, the glorification of soap and water of almost religious significance. "Cleanliness is next to godliness", right? Interestingly, the aphorism is similarly coined in other languages to extol the value of cleaning up; but the connection is not made to the divine, but rather with other values, such as social status. To further this syllogism, one might argue that by eschewing the god-prefered clean smell of soap and water, covering it up with perfume is "reeking" of suspicious motives. What are you trying to cover up, dude? Perfume wearing has for long being tied to members of the fair sex of low reputation in particular (parfum de puta), trying to cover up the smell of other men on them, or a witch-hunt mentality in which scent was used to ensnare men and control them through the subliminal medium of olfaction.

Another reason might be that the cubicle farm culture is most prevalent in the US rather than other countries. The tight-knit space does induce discomfort, conflict and ennui! Someone has to be blamed and perfume is so easy to target. Especially so since smells invade our space and trigger emotional responses. Which makes me further the thought: Has no one considered Sick Building Syndrome? Several of the symptoms described for perfume intolerance happen to be identical with those for the above condition.

What is perhaps even more intriguing is that I distinctly recall a perfumer saying that American perfumes are made with a higher concentration within the established Eau de Toilette and Eau de Parfum concentrations so as to satisfy the taste to have your perfume announcing you, a form of "olfactory shoulder pads" which used to be very demanded by the market focus groups on US soil. Historical fact confirms that some of the most potent, powerful fragrances first met with success in the US, such as Narcisse Noir by Caron, due to this preference. In a globalised market perhaps this isn't always the case, although several popular fragrances do get produced at different factories for different countries ("made in US" vs "made in France" etc., plus the difference in the alcohol used as a carrier vehicle for the essences) Several of the modern "clean" scents bearing American brand names (the Clean brand for instance) are so harsh and synthetic that they do pierce sinuses. In view of the above is it any wonder that lots of Americans are complaining? I don't think it's entirely their fault! But it does make for a new arena for the claim of personal space in an increasingly tight, overpopulated world.

On to you: Is perfume the latest taboo? Is it the new weapon to battle one's battles in the workplace? Do you have any problems from someone else's scent?

pics via legalblogwatch.typepad.com and dentalcollectibles.com

There's Hope for the Average Perfume Customer Still

I don't make a habit of reporting my fragrance consulting services, as I believe one person's qualms against jasmine and another's perception of patchouli as "mothballs-like" are of no particular interest to others, unless they happen to share them. Yet a recent session proved so particularly surprising and satisfactory on multiple levels, one of which is reinforcement of the belief that the consumer isn't a fool after all, that I thought you might get a kick out of it and maybe start a dialogue about similar observations you have made. At any rate, you'll be the judge in the comments!

My subject was a girly girl in her 20s, style-aware and groomed, interested in fragrances in general, exposed to mainstream market scents and marginally familiar with basic perfume vocabulary. Her skin is normal and lightly-toned and she has dark hair and light green eyes. She initially professed a like for floral fragrances, noticing two I wore in the preliminary conversations (Insolence Eau de Toilette and Lys Mediterranée) with no particular "NOs" pointed out. She possesses what is commonly called "a mathematical mind" and considers fragrance wearing a feminine touch but also a delight for the senses. This info is routinely amassed to summarise preferences and peculiarities, although I follow a complimentary technique based on a quick pop-quizz with multiple choices that seem out of the loop ~which you will please allow me to keep to myself for now, after all I have a business to attend to.

I organised the list of fragrance bottles to try so that most would be accessible without too much trouble where she lives, that they span across different fragrance families and different eras and that they embody some of the characteristics which came out of the short interview and test she took. I also took pains to propose fragrances which for the most part could be worn in a warmer climate, with a couple of exceptions.

So what did I present her with? Here's the list!

1. Diorella by Dior (A classic green-fruity chypre with summery appeal)
2. Cristalle by Chanel in Eau de Toilette concentration (A fresh citrusy "green" that is higher pitched)
3. Eau d'Hermès (A mid-of-the-century classic built on citrus-leather accords with a "dirty" musky underside)
4. Lys Mediterranée by F.Malle (A salty, spicy floral of lily and a foray into niche)
5. Insolence by Guerlain in Eau de Parfum concentration (A metallic and hair-spray violet & berries scent that is especially lasting)
6. Grand Amour by Annick Goutal (A heady floral bouquet that veers into floriental)
7. Rumeur by Lanvin (A modern woody musk with undefinable florals thrown in)
8. Shalimar by Guerlain in vintage Eau de Cologne (The classic oriental standby with a bronze-y feeling of smoked vanilla and oppoponax).
9. Theorema by Fendi (The discontinued marvel that combines the gourmand aspects of orange chocolate and traditional resinous heritage into an oriental fit even for summer)
10. Fumerie Turque by Serge Lutens (A milky take on a masculine theme, tobacco, and the trial by fire on baroque compositions)
11. Mitsouko by Guerlain in vintage parfum concentration (The very essence of rich fruity chypre with a murky depth of oakmoss sensuality)
12. Eau de Merveilles by Hermès (An odd duck out, fitting in no particular category, poised as it is between a salty ambergris skin-scent and woody overtones of non-definable nature)

A dozen does not a dime make: The testing period involved at home living with the fragrances for a few days, before choosing one as a favourite which would be the compass into more specific and nuanced suggestions (and to that end, I welcome your ideas!). Her pick?

No drumroll emoticon could be enough, as the choice although perfectly transparent for the two of us, is quite surprising to the rest of the world I guess: The unisex masterpiece from 1951, bring niche before there was niche, and the one which one of its accolytes, perfumer Jean Claude Ellena professes to like "one among a handful of people in France who wear it". Eau d'Hermès then, my friends, and don't let me catch anyone bad-mouthing youths as uncouth. Some of them know a good thing when they see it!

Related reading on Perfume Shrine: Fragrances for Myers Briggs types, Questions & Answers with a Fragrance Consultant, In Which I Fragrance Consult

photo collage found via troktiko , bottles photo by member Guerlain/Susana on Fragrantica's public board

The Perfume Wars: Old Lady vs Older Woman

Among perfume lovers' circles there are no other two words more despised than "old lady" perfume. Is it because often the people who love ~but also have the economic means to indulge in their passion~ are of more mature years? Is it because it connotates the worst ageism possible, an invisible one? Is it because in the en masse swiping out of "old lady" perfumes one is thus disregarding all the classics and the vintage treasures which evolving trends made obsolete? Possibly it's a combination of all of the above. And why are men left out, as usual? Are there no "old men" fragrances? And if they exist, why isn't the world paying any attention? Considering the subtextual content of language in reference to scents isn't an easy task, probably exactly because olfaction is a function that addresses the brain's limbic system rather than the rational centre of speech. Therefore a correlation between feeling produced by smell and language used to express it is hard to establish.

Some people defend the term "old lady" by saying it's vague, so it could be construed positively. And originally it was. For instance, a beloved grandmother who has a loyalty to a specific fragrance of her youth might be an old lady to emulate. I can think of at least two. After all fragrance vogues come and go: When My Sin by Lanvin launched in 1925 it was the bee's knees (it still is, if we need to be objective), a subversive scent for an emancipated woman. Miss Dior (1947) was aimed at the debutantes of the first years after WWII, hence the "miss" denomination. Now the young ones wear Miss Dior Cherie, a sweet fragrance that bears no olfactory relation to the predecessor and turn up their noses at the original. L'Eau d'Issey (1992) marked a whole generation now in their early forties; in the eyes of a modern teenager, it's terribly passé. The cyclical course of fashions accounts for the unavoidable reversion of norms and perceptions, in regards to scents as with everything else.
It could be a lack of vocabulary and imagination only: The derogatory term is easy to say and to blurb forth, without trying to come up with a phrase that describes our feelings in more precise terms that could convey nuanced meaning. Obviously the mystique of fragrance is terra incognita for many, but I am wondering whether this is an excuse for terminology laziness.

On the other hand, so very often the term "old lady smell" is used in reference not simply to obsolete or old-fashioned aromata, but rather displeasing or even repelling ones: Smells of incontinence, of "dead" hormones (very seldom detractors consider "old lady" perfumes as sexy or attractive), of lacking hygiene due to physical disabilities, smells of medicine and disease...The feeling is almost one of foreboding, a bad omen that has the evil ability to stick around and influence everyone around. "Chela Gonzalez and her friend Nora are looking forward to sixth grade in their El Paso school. They have finally been placed in the A-class, the “smart class,” which is for students who only speak English. Then Chela’s father has a stroke on the first day of school, her grandmother comes to help out, and “the air became thick with the smell of old lady perfume, of dying flowers and alcohol…. It was the smell of bad things.” Thus is constructed the central plot in Claudia Guadalupe Martinez’s debut novel for young adults "The Smell of Old Lady Perfume". No baking cookies, cuddling and fragrant kisses goodnight for this grandma and grandaughter.
A blogger further writes remarking the scent of a woman he passes by: "Perhaps this isn't a smell that old people spray themselves with. Maybe when you get past the menopause, you instantly start emitting it. Old women try to mask it with stronger fragrances, but the old lady smell keeps coming out. As they get older, the smell fades, and is replaced by the smell of old mothballs." There is even a Banning Old Lady Perfume on Facebook! And the pursuit of youth at all costs knows no (commercial) boundaries: there's a magic smell for everything!
Surely it must be a hard-wired mechanism in humans that averts us from anything that reminds us of our own mortality seeing a woman of advanced years as discarded material, an old hag. Before you pppfft it as sheer rubbish though read this: "A researcher at Shiseido Laboratories has traced the problem to a fatty acid known as palmitoleic acid. He has also learned that the body of a person up to about the age of 30 does not secrete a noticeable amount of this substance, but that once a person--whether male or female--hits 40, the volume rises sharply. The volume of palmitoleic acid released by the human body is 10 times as great among people in their seventies as in their forties."
Still, aging is a privilege; the alternative isn't as good. We might as well be a little more accepting and lenient and grow up already!

Spirited discussions ensue whenever the subject is brought up nevertheless: One perplexed 25-year old says she was told by her boyfriend "his favourite perfume is White Diamonds by Elizabeth Taylor" and asks for opinions on whether it's too mature for her. Before anyone playfully suggests she ditches the boyfriend, she is told instead to "try it on skin first", "its old lady, try smelling Paris hilton, Gwen Stefani, Baby phat, J-Lo, these are just a few in my collection that smell oh so good", that "it’s a little mature but it smells alright. I wouldn’t wear it until I’m like 45+", "I didn’t know they had perfume for young folks and old folks" and yes, finally that "it is marketed to an older more mature woman". Ah...the magic word: "marketed"!

But let's see the world of difference a small substitution does to the term: What if instead of "old lady" we had "older woman"? The image of a prim, conservative little commuter, grey hair in a bun and structured purse in her lap, sensible shoes and no thoughts of enjoying anything naughty is looming whenever the derogatory term is used. Is it the "little" lady in there that is so distasteful to the detractors? One of them even mentions it out of the blue as smelling like "Eau de little old lady" when talking about retro perfumes , so there must be some truth in my theory! In contrast, consider being youngish and being told you smell "like an older woman", especially if this comes from a man. Instantly the characterisation is not negative; far from it. It's "older", not old. It's "woman", a more sensuously rich term than "lady". It's all French (or Italian) films and summers spent as an exchange student someplace where a knowing woman had taught you the secrets and exasperations of adult life Mrs. Robinson-style. Who wouldn't want to be as alluring as Jacqueline Bisset? Still, the ringing-of-some-humiliation term of "cougar" has been concocted against older women going after younger men, so I'm seriously considering whether "old lady" isn't a feminist issue to begin with. It probably is.

A suitable alternative term for "old lady" perfume nevertheless hasn't been universally accepted yet. Would "retro fragrances" be a positive term to replace the "old lady" one when referring to classics & old-fashioned scents? Would "old-fashioned" do when we're talking about something that is not necessarily within our comprehension or taste? Would "displeasing" be an umbrella subjective term for the scents we don't like, forgetting the ageist tentacles which are spreading and engulfing us whenever we use the term "old lady" in a negative light?
We're taking submissions for vocabulary expansion right here as we speak: Offer your own!

pics via shadyoldlady.com and cinematicpassions.com

Breaking the BONDs

I was fully prepared to write a long post about the latest business practices of Bond No.9 (i.e.opposing the selling of decants of their fragrances through the reliable services of The Perfume Court) after a long hiatus on the brand's news due to the somewhat non-diplomatic (for lack of a harsher word) handling of internet fragrance-camaraderie-politics on the whole (see their handling of the name "Peace"). But thankfully State of the [Car]nation beat me to the punchline with his great post BONDage and Dominance, which is highly recommended reading!

For what is worth, I have given every benefit of a doubt to businesses such as this one in the past, maintaining that they are within their rights to oppose all sales that might pose a threat to the integrity of their wares even inadvertedly ~and if we're all maintaining that perfumery is an art, then how can reselling it piece by piece not lessen that, even if it suits our pocketbook? Same is true for any perfume company (see the ceasing of decant selling on Ebay) and I can see their point. Yet somehow it's the MANNER something is handled that makes all the difference in the world: "Cease and desist" via Twitter messaging somehow appears like a calculated risk that a three-women-operated internet business (all decent ladies as far as I know) would rather drop the line off their stock instead of having to hire a costly attorney and take the case to court for years to come. So not cool!
Maybe we should all become fans of this cinematic reference "Piss on your peace..." instead? What do you think?



Brilliant (and highly educational) dialogue courtesy of the classic film The Lion in Winter with Peter O'Toole as Henry II of England and Timothy Dalton as King Phillip II of France (and Anthony Hopkins as Richard the Lionheart).

Top 13 Worst fragrances?

Uusally blogs post their Top 10 or so Best Perfumes etc etc. in a popularity stake that is easy for readers to browse through and can identify with; makes for light, pop reading. But what about a negative list? Those are less promoted by far, although far more illuminating on many levels. How does such a selection gain credence and isn't dismissed as snark, vitriol or plain ignorance? It's all very well for someone to say that they absolutely think something is stellar (no one gets offended and often the reader believes the author knows something they don't) but when someone bashes someone else's favorite scent, feelings can get quite hurt it seems!

I'm not going to attempt a Top Worst Fragrances List myself due to that very reason, but coming across one had all the right bells ringing and I thought I'd bring it for our readers for discussion: There's an article at MSN named Pe-ew! based on ratings of readers of TotalBeauty.com , comments of whom the article reiterates. The selection is rather tame (someone should send the readers some Secretions Magnifiques as a control specimen!) and the comments oscillate most often between the plain tired "old lady" (for lack of a better vocabulary) and the "heavy", while surprisingly the same things that are considered heavy to one are non-perceptible to another (or considered having no lasting power either). Makes one wonder just how our everyday choice of fragrance is really greeted by other people, doesn't it? What emerges from the poll is that under no circumstances can you:

1)Smell like a grandma (Why the hell not, if you want to? Is it a dirty thing?)

2)Smell cheap (Ditto)

3)Have something cost more than its perceived value in olfactory terms. (Blurry, but the only logical complaint and I'm afraid lots of brands and products are falling into this pit)

List of Top 13 Worst Fragrance from Total Beauty.com (in reverse order):

13. Aromatics elixir by Clinique : Predictably assumed "old lady in a bottle" and one reader likens it to "cats, mothballs and fruitcakes". Bernand Chant's bones are creaking, but no need. This is one of the MOST complimented fragrances on strangers, while it can be a bit too much on oneself sometimes. I had praised it profusely years ago and I still stand behind my credo. Personally I use the body lotion or the Sheer version; makes for less intense wearing.
12. YSL Parisienne: One reader notes the newest Yves Saint Laurent is a combination of her "grandmother and trees" (!), others find it "cheap" (can't argue) and "forgettable" and many consider it "not youthful at all". We can assume the sexy-teasy advertising missed their aim...
11. Lush Go Green: In the words of one reader "like a Christmas tree air freshener." That ties in with that green I guess!
10. M by Mariah Carey (Elizabeth Arden): Featuring a burnt marshmallow scent that is too sweet to the point of aversion it seemed condemned from the start. Proof people aren't swayed by a pretty bottle.
9. Lancome Magnifique: I had voiced my disagreement with the presentation and press about this one (basically a little misleading) but surely not the ghastly thing presented on that poll. "Cheap, incredibly strong and heavy, quickly fading": I can't say I agree with any of this. I can see how it can be polarising as a smell though; it's not among those I'd choose myself.
8. Aveda Pure Fume Essence: Haven't personally tried this one, but "musky and earthy" don't rate too well with today's audiences, at least on Beauty.com it seems. The Avedas I have tried, I wasn't impressed with.
7. Kenzo Flower : Isn't this a best-seller in the 30s-40s age bracket? The proof that powdery scents (alongside Cashmere Mist and Hypnotic Poison) are not only designated perfume solace for the elderly? I laughed with one reader insisting that she "shouldn't be hitting the bottom notes of a perfume within an hour". Really? Is this a new rule? Has she smelled any orientals? First time I hear about this concept!
6. Elizabeth Taylor White Diamonds: A reader who worked at Macy's says the salespeople called it "the old lady scent." "If you needed a gift for a much older woman, we sold you this!" All right I'm perfectly willing to accept this. Yet older women should be indulged too and what is Liz Taylor if not an older woman nowadays? (embarking on her 9th marriage no less!)

5. Harajuku Lovers Lil Angel : Possibly the least disliked in the Karajuku Lovers range gets bashed ("cloying, powdery, sweet, fading"). Typical.
4. Avon Timeless Cologne Spray: I can't really criticize the tried-and-tested poisoned arrows of "heavy," "musky" and "so very old" because I was jumping up and down like a demented puppy seeing again the little roll-on bottle I was handed down as an elementary school kid! I recall really liking the -problematic to classify- scent, even then. Goes to show you... 3. Tocca Stella: Again, isn't this really popular? One reader mentions it's reminiscent of gardenia or lilac like this is a criticism. I'm rather stumped.
2. Gucci by Gucci: Obviously tastes differ, but Gucci is selling quite well, so it probably pleases a lot of people. But reading through the comments, I get the sense that the major complaint is not lasting long enough or being perceivable for the duration it's expected.

1. Gifts of the Sea Spray by Caswell Massey : I have never smelled this, but now I'm psyched to hunt it down and get a sample. The complaint seems for it to be "dull". Somehow I think that could be said about half the current market...Anyway...

So: What do you think about the above? And which are your Top Worst Perfumes?

pic via enet.gr

How Much Will the Niche Market Bear?

The news on the discontinuation of some Serge Lutens fragrances we broke on these pages as well as the Guerlain discontinuations we also had the honerous duty of introducing to you a while ago have prompted me to think long and hard about the fragrance market and its trajectory ever since the Internet became a major player from 2000 onwards; first with budding perfume discussing fora and later in 2005 with the emergence of the first fragocentric blogs. Nine years and counting later things have profoundly changed and the scenery is altered.
Everyone jumped on the bandwagon of niche perfumery and with aspirations of artsy-fartsy pretence about how "perfumery is an art too" (Chandler, if only you knew what a monster you created!) they have been indundating the market with overpriced dreg ever since. There is simply TOO MUCH JUS OUT THERE!! Whether it's for the best or the worst I am leaving this up to your intelligent discussion in the comments. But first let me present some facts and some trivia for your consideration.

First there were the Hermessences in 2004: A major luxury player who was active on the fragrance sector as well decided to do the unthinkable ~present an exclusive line of top-tier scents reserved for their interior boutique only circuit. Guerlain had their own plan upon refurbishing their flagship store in 2005, plans which materialised and some which were almost cut mid-stream (Il Etait une Fois reissues, I'm talking to you!). Soon enough ~it seemed to me before the word Hermessence had dried on the staff memo~ Chanel pulled an Hermes as well, 3 years ago almost to the day, with their Les Exclusifs to be sold exclusively at Chanel boutiques. The two luxe lines were received with accolades, enthusiastic bises in a very European manner and profound respect from the whole perfume community, even if there were a couple of critical voices on the concept and coherence of the thing.
Just last year both "exclusives" were renegated to online shopping, making the acquisition of a coveted haute bottle approchable at the click of a mouse to anyone in upper Minnesota who had the requisite checkings account. Where's the exclusivity factor?

Several established brands followed (Dior Prive, Lancome La Collection, Tom Ford Private Blend, Lauder the Private Collection Line fragrances trio), and the few remaining ones came out just recently with their own "exclusive" sub-line within the line, cashing in on the hen who lays the golden eggs (or so they thought): Cartier Les Heures de Parfum, Van Cleef & Arpels Collection Extraordinaire, Dolce & Gabbana Anthology. They employed top tier perfumers, they advertised intelligently by word of mouth, they even brought original "ideas" for inspiration. (The Tarot deck for D&G, for Chris's sake. What's next? The Mayan calendars of doomsday?) The results? Rather lukewarm reception to varying degrees of temperature nuance. Even though there are a few specimens in there which are indeed great (especially in the first two brands), the idea seems tired, been-there-done-that and the audience doesn't seem to go back for much more... Not at those price points in this economy at least!

Uber-luxe brands positioned themselves in a place of de juro superior price point (often with the corresponding quality in the formula): Amouage and By Kilian are good examples. Recently By Kilian has introduced the smaller traveller bottles and the refills in order to appeal to the less cash-flowing clientele. Smart move! Still not every release can be received with enthusiasm. Writes Pam from Olfactarama regarding their latest Back to Black, giving it 2 stars out of 5: "A combination of pipe tobacco, cherry syrup (maybe cherry pipe tobacco?) and vanilla. After 2 or 3 hours only vanilla; after six it's a generic heliotrope/vanilla with a slight Play-Doh note. I don't know what all the fuss was about". One can re-invent the wheel so many times, I guess.

Several smaller players emerged lately as well, often with erratic results: French niche line Ego Facto from Pierre Aulas debuted at Marionnaud in France with 7 perfumes: 4 for women and 3 for men and even employed acclaimed nose Dominique Ropion for their Poopoo Pidoo fragrance (inspired by Marilyn Monroe no less) as well as other famous perfumers for the rest. One of my online friends with a discerning nose, who also posts on several fora & blogs, TaraC proclaims: "I just tried all 5 of the Ego Factos yesterday and didn’t like any of them. They all smelled like generic commercial synthetic swill on me… I guess I’m not the target customer!"
Smell Bent on the other hand is a new LA-based indie niche line, which deputed with 10 fragrances (!) at a low price point. A NST commentator calls them "pretty gimmicky too". MakeupAlley reviewers and regulars have varying opinions on them.
What's up? Are then people able to judge independently of the price asked? Big surprise, I guess they are! On an interesting spin of events a graphic outlining perecentages (according to a Sanford C. Berstein survey of 834 U.S. consumers conducted over a two-week period in mid-December) of people who have traded down in various consumer product sectors appeared in The Wall Street Journal. Some include: 34% traded down in laundry detergent, 31% traded down in kitchen paper twoels, 15% traded down in toothpaste & what is within our scope...14% traded down in perfume/cologne! Fascinating, no?

Please nota bene at this point that I have not (yet) smelled any of these fragrances from the two companies above so I cannot form a personal opinion on them. But the saturation of the market does leave a perfume writer with something less than frenzied desire to sample the latest thing, doesn't it? A sense of boredom sets in and samples lie there untouched. But let's forget for a second that this is a second job here, what about the average perfume lover who isn't necessarily writing about perfume: Can the market bear so many lines, so many brands, so much jus? Niche was the only sector in fragrances to show a slight increase amidst the recession. However this is slowly changing, exactly because the consumer is catapulted with "news" and "launches" daily. And the general trends direction isn't sounding too good either.

According to reportage by Jason Ashley Wright on Tulsa World "2010 is the year of the celebrity fragrance, said Megan Hurd, a beauty expert for Amazon.com. Not only is Kim Kardashian’s anticipated first scent hitting shelves this month, so is Halle Berry’s orchid-and-citrus- inspired scent. Others include Beyonce’s (in February) and Sarah Jessica Parker’s third fragrance, SJP NY (early spring). People are gravitating toward lighter, more airy scents, said Pat Hudelson, a fragrance expert at Saks Fifth Avenue in Utica Square. Last month’s deep-freeze temperatures “kind of put everybody in a depressed state,” she said. “Everybody needs something new and kind of fun.”
Some show increase in their stakes even amidst the lagging economy: "Inter Parfums Inc. announced that net sales for the fourth quarter were about $113.6 million, a 13% increase from $100.4 million in the prior year quarter." (to note they distribute Van Cleef,Burberry, Lanvin, and will be collaborating with Montblanc soon). They're bringing out Burberry Sport fragrance line this month and Oriens, a female fragrance line by Van Cleef & Arpels this coming March, so obviously the Van Cleef brand needed some reboosting. (Amazing if you think of it, since La Collection Extraordinaire practically just launched, it was only last autumn!).
Some show decrease and pleas for help: "Mr. Burkle's investment firm Yucaipa Cos. bought up a large chunk of Barneys' debt late last year and has offered to invest at least another $50 million in the high-end fashion chain via a loan deal that would leave him owning 80% of Barneys' common equity. The remaining equity would be held by Barneys' current owner, Istithmar World Capital, the investment arm of state-owned Dubai World" [...]The move is the latest play for Barneys, a swanky New York apparel retailer that has struggled since being taken over by Istithmar just before the recession hit".[source] And some propose a completely different approach still: "Some luxury brands are finding that single-sex boutiques boost the bottom line. While it's not exactly a man's world on Main Street, luxury brands are increasingly offering greater exclusivity in men-only shops" [source] Cherchez l'homme!

So what "fruits" will the future of perfumery, especially niche, bear? Let's hear it from you!

Photo of Audrey Hepburn by Richard Avedon via manishtama blog. Still from Greek film "Rendez-vous at Corfu" (1959) via grcinema.wordpress.com

The Power of "Noir" in Perfumes

Nowhere is the power of "noir" (aka black) more intense than in the sublime and surreal cosmos of perfumes: From modern creations such as Bulgari's Jasmin Noir and Black or Tom Ford's Black Orchid and even Black Violet to Ormonde Jayne's Orris Noir and Yves Rocher's Iris Noir, all the way through to vintage gems such as the murky Narcisse Noir by Caron, or the kaleidoscopic Or Noir by Pascal Morabito, with a detour at niche "founder" Serge Lutens via his Datura Noir, everything is painted in black a la Rolling Stones. And who can forget the enigmatically legendary Nombre Noir by Shiseido and its white heat?

Even more vague and promising in intonation than the above (which mostly recall shady, unusual hybrids of flowers with few exceptions) are those which are sartorially-inspired (Lutens has Fourreau Noir but also Serge Noire, both evoking fabrics and items of clothing; Guerlain La Petite Robe Noire, while Avon has Little Black Dress, where black is synonymous to pared elegance regardless of the discombobulating scent: the mere mention of the name promises Hepburn-like pizazz!). The darkening of ingredients is also popular: The slightly scorched effect of Noir Epices by Michel Rounditska for the F.Malle line, the indie Ambre Noir by Sonoma Scent Studio... Black Sun by Salvador Dali sounds even more surreal than intended, the world of alchemy eclipsed into Schwarze Sonne/Sonnenrad neopaganism purpoting radical change: apparently not so, in perfume terms! Crystal Noir by Versace is reminiscent of jet-bead jewellery, the par excellence mourning jewellery in the Victorian Era, a direction that the designer house considers too far back to be referenced by the youthful audience to which they aspire. Sometimes "noir" can even stand alone, stolid, full of fortitude and mystery, like a promised (but rarely delivered) olfactory Healthcliff: Lacroix Noir for men, Avon's Noir for men...Othertimes, it paints a heroic symbol with the wide brush of machismo: Drakkar Noir, how can we forget you? Perhaps the more literal interpretation of Lalique's Encre Noire (black ink) is more elegant onomastically. And the trend gets carried in excess as in ~fittingly named~ Black XS by Paco Rabanne, The Wrong Man obviously for dark regressions out of the past.

The recent trend of naming perfumes "Black this" and "Noir that" (or as Tania Sanchez wittingly calls Black Thingamajig) has really gained momentum with hundreds of fragrances containing one or the other denominator in their very name. After testing the majority of them with apprehension as to their perceived fangliness, I have come to believe it's pure marketese to denote something that is the antithesis of "fresh", "light", "inoffensive", "cookie-cutter". Admittedly, people have always wanted to be the opposite of the last two adjectives, even if they don't have one iota of dangerousness, sensuousness or mystery in their bones. Call it the call of the wild, the desire to be what they cannot be in their ordinary lives, call it escapism: Which I realise all perfume really boils down to! It's simply irresistible, it's like watching an old film-noir and fantasizing about being the wicked femme fatale (Who is usually coincidentally dressed in black, have you seen any in pink polkadots and yellow ribbons in her hair?). "The femme fatale provokes a kind of temporary insanity in the protagonist, which partially absolves him from responsibility for his actions. It is as though she happens to him, like a natural force". [quote]
Ayala Moriel, an indie perfumer from Canada, has created a glorious (and mysterious-smelling) patchouli confection in her suitably named Film Noir. The crossfire of "good girl vs. bad girl" is a dichotomy prevalent in many cultures, none more pointedly so than the American one, with a plethora of "rules" to adhere to in order to belong to one and not the other, personal fragrance being the outward manifestation of an inward inclination. Nuit Noire by Mona di Orio assumes a very intimate aura (of yes, rather forbidden bodily zones) to talk about the dangers of a black night ~what its name means~ when you'd be more simpatico to some experimenting in Bitter Moon/Lunes de Fiel , Pascal-Bruckner-style. The decade of "clean" (the 90s) with its AIDS hysteria ~when perfumes seemed to serve as a virtual chastity-belt~ is over and thankfully most of the ozonics and aqueous scents are left in a lonely place.

Somehow I think the reference was cinematic to begin with, including the very first scents onomatized with this dark epithet. Marcel L'Herbier's Le Parfum de la Dame en Noir from 1931 based on Gaston Leroux's older novel of the same name conveniently tied the two in an inextricable knot. Narcisse Noir by Caron, apart from Sunset Boulevard and its dramatic sensuality, makes me think of vampy Theda Bara, arguably not the person you'd imagine baking you an apple-pie and preparing the kids for school in the morning; assuming she were actually awake in the morning! Which nicely brings me to the current pop mania for vampires and creatures of the night, via Stephanie Meyer's Twilight and its tremendous marketability: Are dark-named fragrances another manifestation of a youth's desire for safe "danger" and repressed sexuality, as explored via boyish vampire teens who have sharper teeth than other body parts? It's murder, my sweet, not sex!

Arguably black has always been laced with magical qualities too, the sense of inherent danger, the cabbalistic and alchemical symbols tied to its shaded enigma: enter the most representative olfactory case of them all, Magie Noire by Lancome. Apparently in an era where witches are fortunately not burned to the stick with gusto until they're well-done, perfumers show a hankering for well-done renditions instead of dark, earthy and twilight-shaded compositions that lurk within shaded forests, the dark corner and the nighmare alley.

But the obsession with darkness also has to do with fashion and visual cues: Black is not a colour, optically-speaking: It's the absence of colour! This gives it a sort of power that all other colours lack (a comparable case with white but different connotations). Mediterranean cultures who have embraced it because it makes such a strartling constrast with the bright sun knew a thing or two: Picture the lace-headscarf of the Spanish consorts over red blooms, the black cloth of Sicilian and Greek widows against the white-painted little houses. It's not an accident that nidjas are dressed in black, that we have the little black dress (the little red one is a whole different matter), that goths like black, that black has an aura of the occult and the forbidden, even the subversive or the fatal (black death, black metal, black sabbath, black widow...).

I have a personal theory to offer on that matter as well: black is the colour of anonimity! Put someone in black and they mingle right in. "Men in black", remember? The ones supposed to come out of nowehere and zap your memories of close encounters of the third kind out of your system. You can't do that in -say- jade or canary yellow! Therefore black in a genius transition from the visual to the olfactory & the mnemonic allows both the concept of a perfume to be easier to graft on one's self and for one's personality (assuming they have one to begin with) to shine through; allowing the better elements to slowly unveil themselves.

Whether I associate the word "noir" with specific perfumery notes? Not really! Several recent, modern "noir" and "black" fragrances ironically smell exactly "light, fresh, inoffensive, cookie-cutter", so....no. Other people however mention oud, patchouli, resin, smoke, tobacco, incense. It's a your mileage may vary, in any case, not one of "all cats are black in the night".

So what does "noir" signify for you in terms of smell?

And a Game: He or She who recognises all the titles of film-noirs hidden in the text will win a decant off my vintage collection! (hint: they're 10 in total and they're all Google-able)




pics of The Killers and The Narrow Margin via sbccfilmreviews.com, kitsune.noir.blogimages, dvdbeaver.com

Perfume Appreciation & the Quest for Objective Beauty

It is all too often that I come across pronouncements having to do with differing perceptions on fragrances that end with "Everyone is different and perfume is so subjective" or "One woman's poison is another woman's meat" (no reference to any specific Dior fragrance infered!). I fully realise that it is a polite way to agree to disagree. Nevertheless it accounts for a severe skewing of perception of art forms and muddling of "beauty"(i.e. harmony) vs. "attractiveness" (i.e. personal associations and quirks). The two are not interchangeable, nor mutually exclusive or inclusive.

If we are to consider perfumery as an art form (a concept that was pioneered by Edmond Roudnitska and increasingly popular in our days of niche brands plethora) such pronouncements present something of an oxymoron. Something can be beautiful and nevertheless not attract you personally, just as much as something can be ~by virtue of the common denominator~ termed ugly and yet you find yourself madly enamored with it! This is because beauty and attraction are two completely different qualities and to muddle between the two amounts to a confusion of aesthetic principles. So without escalating this into a manifesto, let's disentangle the matter as pertains to perfumery and its aesthetics.

If perfumery is to be held as an art form, then it should capitulate to the rules of other art forms: It should be judged on aesthetic grounds and present measurable qualitative and quantitative criteria. Aesthetics is generally viewed as the "critical reflection on art, culture and nature." and as such it is subordinate to axiology (a branch of philosophy). The very word has an interesting etymology that brings us closer to its true core: αξία in Greek means value, as in monetary value, but more importantly in this case as moral value, i.e. as an ideal to be reached. Therefore aesthetics and art philosophy in general aim at establishing and questioning the moral values shaping any specific art form (NB. By "moral" I do not refer to Judeo-Christian nuances of the term).

The experience of "beauty" often involves interpreting an entity (a human being, a painting, a perfume...) as being in balance with nature or presenting a view of harmony; in essence this is the classical ideal, a concept that considers the context as important, thus rendering a replica of Capella Sixtina's dome in the lounge of a Las Vegas casino ultimately kitch, same as wearing an extrait de parfum by Chanel in order to denote one's superior taste or social status [But more on that on our article on kitch here].
This harmonious coexistence might in turn produce feelings of attraction and emotional well-being. Because this is a subjective experience, the pronouncement that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is often referenced. Defenders of this view consider beauty to engender a salient experience, reflecting on the meaning of their own existence, therefore imbuing beauty with personal resonance. However as with everything a little more in depth exploring is warranted.

The classical Greek adjective for "beautiful" is καλός (ka-LOS), as in καλός καγαθός in Homer (It denotes excellence in character, social status and physical attributes, all at once). The Koine Greek word for beautiful in contrast was ὡραῖος (hō-RE-os) which derives from ὥρα (hōra), meaning "hour." Therefore being of "one's hour", in context with time and place was considered the mark of true beauty. Our society that produces fruit outside their normal time-frame in greenhouses and puts women under the knife for them to appear younger (or encourages teenagers to abandon their fresh looks in favour of an oversexualised, mature image) is clearly out of synch with this concept. Consider how when judging a perfume we are ascertaining its place within its historical context, like we did with Chanel No.46 or Patou's Ma Collection fragrances, but also how it should present a quality of timelessness, like for instance the classical vetiver colognes that shaped the genre. Certainly there are fragrances 'of their time' and 'for all time' and sometimes the two wonderfully interlap (Eau Sauvage, Coty Chypre, Guerlain Shalimar to name but a few).

But agreeing on specific terms doesn't always come naturally. Immanuel Kant brings the example of a man: "If he says that Canary wine is agreeable he is quite content if someone else corrects his terms and reminds him to say instead: It is agreeable to me," because "Everyone has his own (sense of) taste" (1790). The case of "beauty" differs from mere "agreeableness" nevertheless because, "If he proclaims something to be beautiful, then he requires the same liking from others; he then judges not just for himself but for everyone, and speaks of beauty as if it were a property of things."
This truth may appear almost fascist to today's political correct sensibilities of tolerance and acceptance of difference, but like with accessing Leni Rifensthal's Triumph of the Will, there might be moral reasons to feel horror because of it, but aesthetic reasons to feel awe all the same. The axiom that emerged in the 19th century romanticism milieu became "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" evoking a perception of ugliness as potentially mistaken or short-sighted. Popular fairy tales taught from the cradle onwards, such as The Ugly Duckling by Hans Christian Andersen, helped cement this idea.

Yet the saying is a perverted twist on the most unexpected source: Plato! Plato argued powerfully in favour of the objectivity of certain values, such as good, beauty and truth, mapping them outside an individual's sphere of perception or belief. Talk about irony! In his philosophical system ~as displayed most famously in the Allegory of the Cave~ there are two worlds, the physical one in which we live and another, abstract world of unchanging truth; the physical world seen as a mere reflection of the more perfect abstract world (A modern twist of which is found in The Matrix of all things). In Symposium, the Greek idealist philosopher advises: "Remember how in that communion only, beholding beauty with the eye of the mind, he will be enabled to bring forth, not images of beauty, but realities (for he has hold not of an image but of a reality), and bringing forth and nourishing true virtue to become the friend of God and be immortal, if mortal man may." A mental judgement of beauty does not exclude that there is a specific idea of beauty, in fact αξία, a moral value! (On that note Drew A. Hyland wrote an interesting book named Plato and the Question of Beauty)

The ambiguity of the Sophists movement in 5th century BC Athens ("everything is relevant, everything is subjective") culminated (via the Neoplatonics) into the romantic notion of subjective beauty, which coincided with the "widening" of the world into empires that spun two hemispheres: The shift from Victorian to Edwardian ideals as pertains to beauty and art are a mere example. Judgments of aesthetic value were also linked to judgments of economic or political value, focusing on what a thing symbolises and thus judging the thing through its symbolic value. The emergence of luxury perfume houses and purveyors of fine cosmetics (Guerlain, Houbigant, L.T. Piver, Lancome) bore a role of ascertaining a social position that was marked by acknowledging beauty and reaping its benefits.

Aesthetic judgment usually goes beyond sensory discrimination. David Hume proclaims delicasy of taste as "the ability to detect all the ingredients in a composition" (discerning all notes in a perfume?), but supplements it with the sensitivity "to pains as well as pleasures, which escape the rest of mankind", indavertedly jump-starting the whole modernist theory of art that is conceived to shock or repel (compare this with the desire of perfumephiliacs to explore the arcane and the initially "weird"). Sensory discrimination is therefore linked to a capacity for "pleasure" and when pleasure arises from sensation then we have "enjoyment" (as per Kant) But this sensation as explained in The Critique of Judgment correlates the "beautiful" with engaging reflective contemplation, rendering any pronouncement on beauty a sensory, emotional and intellectual endeavour all at once.

Therefore in order to ascertain the beauty of a perfume, one should employ beyong the gut feeling of like/dislike some other criteria:

• How well does the fragrance converse what it has to say? (And does it have something to say in the first place?) 
• How well does it intergate into its genre and into its time-frame? 
• How well does it balance the facets and create its message? 
• How well does it stay on skin? 
• Is the perfumer or art director in possession of a distinct style uniquely his/her own? (For instance Jean Claude Ellena, Isabelle Doyenne, Serge Lutens, Michel Roudnitska and some others clearly are) 

One can absolutely dislike something that they respect as a work of art and vice versa.  Not everyone likes the Taxi Driver, but it's a great movie for several reasons. Many people love the Beach Boys but they're not on an artistic par with the Beatles, say, again for several reasons.
There needs to be an end to the political correctness of "everyone smells differently/ perhaps it's my chemistry" in order for the perfume community to accept fragrance not merely as a sent bon (nothing wrong with that, per se) but as an art form.
Perhaps the wittiest epilogue is decidely low-brow but, ah, so apt: "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and it may be necessary from time to time to give a stupid or misinformed beholder a black eye."

So, on to you: what do you think?


Light bulbs with flame via cache.wists.com. Painting of fat nude by Jenny Saville via blog.robbiecooper.org. Parisian illustration from 1922 via lovesponge03/photobucket.

Inspired by 1000frsgrances

Eau de Celebrity: Waning, waning...?

In the last 10 years everyone who is recognised a bit more widely than their schoolmates, their own mother and possibly their hamster seems to have issued a fragrance bearing their name in gilt lettes on bottles produced by Parlux and Coty (mainly). The phenomenon nicknamed "celebrity fragrances" had accumulated epic proportions in the last couple of years when even reality game players had their own eponymous scent on the market (no disrespect to poor late Jane Goody), adding to a massive churn-out in the class of the hudnreds. Thankfully (to many, ourselves included) it seems that, despite Beyonce, Kim Kardashian and Peter Andre all having a scent in the works, the trend is on its waning phase.

"[...] it has recently been revealed by retailers that these products don't have the longevity of classic fragrances and that customers actually don't want to smell like someone off Big Brother after all. Jason Zemmel, founder of online discount store halfpriceperfumes, said: “It’s a fickle market with celebrity scandals and poor album sales having a direct effect on sales of celebrity scents. It used to be the biggest stars that brought out a scent but we now have all manner of C-listers churning out fragrances whenever they have something to promote.”

Adding that:

“Whilst some, like the Britney Spears range sells well, we’ve found many have shunned the scents of lesser known celebs. We’re now seeing resurgence for classic scents such as Christian Dior, Elizabeth Arden and Chanel, that have been around for years,” said Zemmel.

Parlux is on record for losing $4.3m last year and a reported $2.5m loss in the second quarter of this year. Whether the economic recession is having any relation to the buying patterns of consumers who would rather spend their money on something they really perceive as necessary (or as prestigious, when they do spend over budget)is not accounted for. It does seem that overexposure to specific names has created satiation and boredom and that only strong names are surviving, such as the Jennifer Lopez empire of scents or the Beckham duo.
Shall we all heave a collective sigh of "oh good!" and forget about the overexposed faces that greet us with their candid shots on the front pages of Hello magazine? Here's to hoping! Or at least that from the collective stink only the nice fumes (no matter how few) will surface victorious and sustain their life on the shelves.

Read the full article on Body Confidential.

Victoria Beckham pic courtesy of American Elle magazine.

Back to the Future (of Fragrance this time)

Shaping the market of scent is not within our capacity, however mapping it is. And it seems like our antennae have been tuned to all the talk lately about a shift in consumers' tastes and a seismic change due to the increased information received by the Internet. This manifests itself with many signs, which we will tackle one by one.

First of all, the reign of "celebrity scents" is coming to a slow end. (Those are fragrances bearing the name of a famous person, produced by a couple of companies excelling in that brief, like Coty or Parlux). It's not simply that perfumistos, people with an acute interest in fragrance, are getting completely jaded and being vocal about it on online fora. It's also that there is simply too much celebrity juice out there.
In the article "Celebrity Scents Fall Out of Style: So Over It" by Carmen Nobel in Thestreet.com the author stipulates that "Tagging a perfume with the name of a celebrity goes back to the days of Coco Chanel. But the trend got a little out of control after the success of Jennifer Lopez's Glow, launched in 2002". After everyone and their grandma and their grandma's cook having a celebrity scent in the works, from athletes to actresses/musicians and authors all the way to reality-games-participants, it's getting a little tired and lots of people do not see the glamour or the relevance with certain celebrities.
The stats are a little shocking and show the proliferation of what seems like an oversaturated market: "In 2005, there were some 20 celebrity fragrances on high-end department store shelves, and by 2008, there were at least 47, according to Karen Grant, a beauty industry analyst at the NPD Group, a market research company in Port Washington, N.Y. And those were just the fragrances in the "prestige" and "premium" brackets, those that cost at least $50 and upwards of $75 per bottle, respectively."
The analyst also foreshadowed that the celebrity scents which would do well in the near future would be only the ones which are packaged in fancy presentations (Harajuku Lovers being an example)

But people are also avoiding perfume altogether sometimes: Too much juice sometimes produces a saturation across the boards. In an quizzical article on the Frisky fragrance shizophreniac (by her own playful admission) Erin Flaherty prompted by a no doubt exaggerated statistic (NB statistics can be manipulated the way one wants them to) intelligently discusses whether fragrance as a concept is knowing diminished popularity lately: Has perfume gone out of style? "When it comes to women and our relationship with fragrance, there’s something I’ve noticed lately, and it makes me wonder how many women out there wear any perfume at all? [...] the whole douse yourself in perfume before you leave the house thing hearkens back to another era. A lot of 20- and 30-somethings I know just don’t bother.[...] A recent NPD report showed that prestige fragrance sales in the U.S. are down 10 percent. This could just be due to the recession, but still. There’s also our generation’s obsession with individuality: Maybe we don’t all want to smell like the latest designer fragrance (or God help us, Britney Spears), and are more likely to create our own signature mixes using oils, a combination of perfumes, or are just content with our bodies’ own natural scents. Or maybe it’s just allergies".

On the other hand, there seems to be an indirect marketing strategy in which the familiar and old stanby, the fashion designer turned fragrance-churning big name, is used again in new and ingenious ways to provoke the response of a more aware consumer who is leafing through glossies like always, but is also interested in online information. Evidence: the latest column by Tina Gaudoin in the Wall Street Journal Magazine which tackles the Italian designer Giorgio Armani and his illustarted talk about scents and sensuality. (I admit I had no idea he had been in medical study at any point in his career! The things one learns...But I do adore capers!!!) Are the people reached that way more likely to sample his latest venture, Idole d'Armani?

On the same issue of the same medium there is another interesting piece about the most prized spice, saffron, a literal stamen by stamen worth of gold foil due to the labour-intensive harvesting. Saffron notes in fragrances have known a surge in niche releases and the reason is not hard to see, judging by the culinary effect the red spice possesses: "Comparing saffron to other culinary objets d’art is a nonstarter. Drugs are more appropriate. Too much and a dish overdoses on flavor. In excess, it can even become toxic. “Eating handfuls of raw saffron will shut down your liver,” Sharifi warns. But a tenth of an ounce, say, what Andrés might add to a saffron cake, can carry a dish on its shoulders, brightening the color to a golden orange and cutting the sweetness of a dessert with its grassy, metallic punches. (And just a dash will add at least a few dollars to the price of any dish.)" Would the popularity of exotic ingredients in cuisine result in an increased awareness of "scentsorial" experiences out of the perfume bottle? After all, smell and flavour are closely entwined and the discenring perfume wearer is often an equally investigative, adventurous foodie. Could these old, nay, ancient ingredients (crocus from which saffron is extracted was known by the prehistoric Aegean populations) become the new items to replace the pink pepper, the iris and the ~synthetic, by now~ oud which have taken the niche and mainstream market by storm these past two-three years? Cheers to a new route chosen, if so, and I raise my glass to this back to the future!

So the baton is on to you: What do you notice in your neck of woods about fragrance trends? Do people wear fragrance or avoid it, what is getting chosen most, are people inquisitive about new exotic or perhaps old-fashioned scents?

pic credits: bloogoscoped.com, aphrodisiology.com, girlinaglasshouse.blogspot.com

Who Wants to Gag the Blogosphere?

Today's post comes with a bitter aftertaste. It was with surprise and alarm that I was informed by Octavian Coifan, the blogger of 1000 fragrances, that his blog was reported to Blogger regarding his recent posts about the relationships and possible "borrowing" between the new Guerlain Idylle and Coty's previous work from 1922 of the same name.
Apparently the legal team at LVMH decided that the postings were too accusatory and decided to bring out the big guns, reporting said postings and demanding they're taken down; otherwise Octavian's account would get deleted by Blogger.
Octavian has posted about the incident and about his decision on his blog, but I wanted to bring some questions to you, hopefully igniting another stimulating discussion:

1.The function of reporting a blog on Blogger exists for the following reasons: pornographic content without prior warning (non applicable in this case), copyright infringement (non applicable in this case) and libel/defamation. It's the last bit that was considered applicable according to LVMH but non applicable according to my humble opinion and here's why. The Merriam Webster definition of libel states: "A written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression. A statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt." Nota bene the "unjustly unfavorable" and "without just cause". But the thing is Octavian posted info and photos of the comparison! Besides Idylle by Coty is mentioned in Art & Fragrance Rapport Annuel 2007 as well as in Perfume Intelligence Encyclopedia. Therefore it's nothing new, it's in the public domain for long and he was the one connecting the dots. Does it transpire an adage of the "let sleeping dogs lie" nature? Is this a case of "all is well if no one points it out for others to see"??

2.Other people in the French blogosphere, such as Jeanne from auparfum.com and Mechant Loup of Olfactorum, had posted the preview of the new Idylle bottle and presentation before the original release (Grain de Musc reports the original source was Les Échos owned by LVMH! Stratégies, a business monthly) and were asked by mail to take them down, which they obligingly did {edit to correct: Mechant Loup just informed me that he had the picture taken down through no action of his own, apparently through direct intervention of Blogger itself!}. Octavian was more drastically met. Why is that? Did he go too far in his pointing out the shorcomings of recent LVMH offerings and general practices? It can be argued that he has also greatly contributed to the grandeur of the perception of Guerlain from the perfume-loving community with both his appraisals of older scents as well as newer ones. And the gravitas of the praise is exactly in place due to the existence of criticism where it's due!
Besides, how far is "too far"? And most importantly WHO decides on that last bit? As a Greek by birth, the place where democracy was originally conceived and founded, this is deeply scathing to my very ethos, to my very core. In times where E-democracy is manifesting itself, when the Internet and the blogosphere are viewed as a platform and delivery medium for tools that help to eliminate some of the distance constraints in direct democracy, this is deeply against the times and denotes lack of grasping of current sensibilities. Which brings me to my next question.

3.Who in their right minds thought that such an action was a sensible move in PR terms? The likeable madame Sylvaine Delacourte, artistic director of Guerlain, has been receiving lots of flack for the recent creations of the house (and I admit although I personally liked some, I didn't like all of them) but she was unaware of the Blogger intimidation and to her credit she has confirmed so publicly on Octavian's blog! Why is there such a lack of communication and handling within the firm? This makes a highly placed person feel like a puppet and all the rest of us like viewers of a train-wreck and I am sure she does not appreciate it, nor do we. This also shatters the wonderful prospects we have tried to establish between the blogosphere and the historic house, starting a dialogue in which for once we could be heard!
After all, brands do read us and since Guerlain recently copyrighted the name Loin du Tout just after our review (I am eagerly expecting Lancôme to follow with Kypre), then it means that we blogggers can provide some sort of direction even inadevertedly. Is it worth losing that?

4.What is most alarming is not that big firms have gone after bloggers. No, this has happened again with Pere de Pierre and some objection regarding the authoriship of Lutens fragrances; this has happened to The Non Blonde when she posted about receiving some intimidation from PR companies regarding a lipstick; and there is also the infamous incident of independent perfumer Liz Zorn and her scent name "Peace" objected to by Bond No.9 and their own copyrighted "Scent of Peace". What is most alarming is that it was Blogger involved, a Google platform that has happily catered to the lion's share of blogging writers who wanted to self-publish due to its ease, good infrastructure and free publishing status. Accepting grosso modo a complaint without some logical delay in fair evaluation of the reported blogger and his specific posts equates accepting the word of the behemoth (or anyone really) against the little guy. And this means that there is a shortcoming of democracy once again...I find that last part most devious, most obscure and ~aside any overdramatisation~ truly alarming!

Let me terminate in a very American parable: As Benjamin Franklin was exiting after writing the U.S. constitution, a woman asked him "Sir, what have you given us?"; he responded "A republic ma'am, if you can keep it".

If we can keep it...