Showing posts with label reformulation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reformulation. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 24, 2024

Guerlain Encens Mythique: Reformulation Done Right

Encens Mythique by Guerlain is a great choice for mid-season as well as wintertime in the north hemisphere, because it adapts so well to a multitude of requisites. I'm talking of the revamped edition in the cylindrical bottle with the gold spherical cap and the cute ribbons on the neck, as the scent originally launched among a trio of Middle Eastern exclusives (later brought into international counters of Guerlain) as Encens Mythique d'Orient. (Reviews of the trio are published on Perfume Shrine as well.) 


The Guerlain perfume bottles of Les Deserts d'Orient were adorned with Arab-cript calligraphy down one side, the French names down the other side. They were the tall, architectural style of the collection L'Art et la Matière with the antique gold overlay on the sides holding 75ml of perfume. The concentration of the fragrances is Eau de Parfum for tenacity.

Encens Mythique i airy and ethereal, yet spiritual and mysterious too, thanks to incense and ambergris which form the base of its alluring aura. It's lush thanks to rose; not the "grandma" version of tea rose, nor the too-engulfed-by-patchouli-middle-eastern-variety, it's just right and delectable. Encens Mythique is only lightly spicy (a hint of rosy pepperiness, a soupcon of medicinal). And finally it's clean no matter how you wear it. I revel in thinking I'm incarnating a medieval monk, a spy from the beginning of the 20th century and someone on a high-seas adventure. Marvelous.

Thursday, September 12, 2013

Caron 2013 Fragrance Editions ~Aimez Moi, Nocturnes, Piu Bellodgia, My Ylang: Notes on Reformulation & Bottle Design

Many loyal as well as casual readers address my inbox with questions whether there are any new reformulations going on in the venerable house of parfums Caron, especially going by the news of new bottles appearing since spring 2013.

The new editions from 2013 are clearly visually separate, by merits of bottle design alone, if nothing else, which should make it perfectly easy on the buyer: the simple, architectural, oblong bottles with the square white cap, with the name plastered on the length of the front, are far removed from the older style peppercorn-studded spray bottle with the gold rounded contours cap, or the royal-blue "crowned" one for the older Aimez Moi for instance. Of course Caron has had as many bottle re-designs as any other older brand; just remember the abstract artwork on the labels on the early 1980s plain spray bottles editions with the plastic cap, just one of them. Then again, the shagreen encasing of the rounded cylinders with the colorful codes for each brand are only too recent in memory to justify another change in so little time. What's going on?

Will this new development mean that the new style will phase out the older ones and does that mean that the perfumes inside are "ruined" for loyal Caron perfume buyers? Read on dear reader what I found out about this matter for your sake.


The 2013 edition of Aimez Moi is credited to perfumer Dominique Ropion (and not Richard Fraysse who reworked the rest of the Caron canon circa mid-2000s) who also had worked in the previous fragrance version from 1996. The two fragrance versions of Aimez Moi are extremely similar compared side by side, with a hint of sweetness being more pronounced in the newer one and a less earthy iris note, making for a slightly less dry effect. Thankfully for old timers, the two are close enough to satisfy the craving when it strikes.

Nocturnes 2013 however is substantially different from the classic aldehydic floral perfume Nocturnes from 1981 composed by Roger Pellegrino. The new version is a "woody floral musk", very soft, with a muted woody (and cleaned up patchouli?) base which points it more to the direction of SJP Lovely than to -say- Yves Saint Laurent Rive Gauche. So if you're in live with the older Nocturnes, better grab the older bottles while they're still available at decent prices.

Piu Bellodgia means "more Bellodgia" in Italian (fitting language since the original Bellodgia was inspired by the Italian countryside) but doesn't appear to add more oomph to the already rich bouquet of the classic Caron Bellodgia. Reworked by Richard Fraysse, this was a composition that needed to adhere to the new IFRA directives on the regulation of eugenol/isoeugenol (spicy components used in fragrance replicating carnations, such as this one). The newer version is rosier than I get from my old bottle (which is a fuller floral symphony), with less of the spicy kick.

Caron My Ylang, is a totally new perfume addition, composed by Richard Fraysse. The perfume features a noticeable blackcurrant buds note on top, a note that is returning on the trend wagon in perfumes lately, with a white floral heart which predictably features ylang ylang. For those who prefer their ylang rich and tropical like in Ylang in Gold by M.Micallef, or those who prefer their ylang greened up and mysterious, like in Ylang 49 by Le Labo, this is questionably good news; they probably won't be thrilled. For those who love the juxtaposition of a usually rich floral note with the peculiar sour-catty hint of blackcurrants, like in L'Ombre dans l'Eau by Diptyque, this is a welcome addition.

The newer Caron fragrance editions have slowly infiltrated the counters (Londoners will find them at Liberty for instance) and will co-exist with the older ones for a while, but the future holds a complete refurbishing of the line with the newer style bottles replacing the gloriously wicked peppercorn-studded ones, as well as the crystal-faceted oblong ones with the "stopper" style cap (which mimic the ones of extrait for the lesser spray concentrations), with Parfum Sacre being the next to appear in the new style bottle. The advantage of the newer bottles is making them more male-friendly, a trait that is important to the men perfumisti out there. They also look more uniform, more of a coherent line, making way with the disparate bottle designs from various stand-alone glass molds for some of the perfumes in the line. Of course this also means an advantageous glass making cost per production, as each different mold requires a separate client account and budgeting.

In short: a reworking of the visual representation in an even more disruptive way than with what happened with Annick Goutal only this year. Let's hope what counts, what's inside, will hold a reliable standard. Aimez Moi 2013 at least is a step in the right direction.

Related reading on PerfumeShrine: Caron news & perfume reviews



Thursday, June 17, 2010

YSL "new" Opium: Death of Classic, Reformulation, Brand Repositioning (& a footnote on Belle d'Opium)

Just when we were lamenting the death of Opium, the fragrance by Yves Saint Laurent which marked our youth and stayed the course as a faithful companion, Yves Saint Laurent is busy issuing new marketing tools introducing us to the "new" Opium.
"New", because reformulation was necessary due to the IFRA restrictions on spicy ingredients (eugenol and iso-eugenol) which were necessary into the creation of the carnation heart of the memorable modern classic from 1977. If you love the older, richer bouquet with its characteristic pressed linens accord and carnation spice, stock up. I have because I love it so. [click for review]

In the new site What is Your Opium we're not spared any truths. It's up there in black and white: "This week Yves Saint Laurent unveils an addictive new fragrance. Crafted by renowned perfumers who found inspiration in a modern floral oriental. A scent born from a thousand inspirations".



They go on to reveal that each day will see a new feature or video involving the inspirations behind the fragrance, especially to the noteworthy perfumer Honorine Blanc (mentored by Sophia Grojsman) who was working on the scent for four years and talks about what she notices in the video. And they invite consumers to join: "To fête this modern elixir YSL will host an exclusive event in New York City on June 17th. Each day we’ll take you behind-the-scenes to meet the people creating this extraordinary soirée. They’ll share their inspirations and below we invite you to share yours. Tell us what inspires you". There is also a launch party, which according to Twitter, Alexa Chung and Alexandra Richards will be spinning, and rumored guests include hipsters like “The Cobrasnake” Mark Hunter and model Cory Kennedy. Todays' teaser on the Opium site has a video of the preparations. Obviously blogs are the new teasing tool for big companies to create Internet buzz.



Yet, the old is now most officially proclaimed dead...Whan Honorine talks about in the vid, "When a fragrance comes on the market, it's unique, it has its own signature, it's a true fragrance...it stays forever", sounds ironic.
Never before has a death being banged about with brass playing upbeat, inspiring military tunes!

Edit to add (19th June):
Dear sirs at YSL communication, if you're issuing something "new", old, revamped, whatever, it would be best if you were absolutely clear about what that thing is unless you do want us confused. To witness, the first email communication I got read:
"Hi,
Just wanted to send over a note letting you know that yesterday afternoon YSL launched a blog to help celebrate the release of their new Opium fragrance.The link is here: http://www.whatisyouropium.com/Each day on the site there will be a new bit of content released leading up to tomorrow's launch party and then following up on the event a few days afterward. Today, you can watch the 'setting the stage' video to see how the party is coming together. Hope you enjoy."
Now, a day later, they send this (please note how there was no mention of name in the above, while there is one now):
"Hi!
If you haven't already seen coverage from last night's YSL party be sure to check out today's Belle D'Opium blog post with event photos: http://whatisyouropium.com/day_after/And not long from now The Cobra Snake photos will be live online too".

I mean, geez, Belle d'Opium! Can you be any more misleading and contradicting? Is this a new flanker, like the summer editions? Is the whole campaign utterly confusing or what?

The bottomline is the old Opium HAS been reformulated to its detriment, as attested by many fans. That doesn't change, no matter how it's marketed.

Thursday, April 16, 2009

The Strange Case of Dr.Oakmoss and Mr.Citrus (part 2)

We talked about the latest restrictions and how oakmoss is one complicated issue and tried to disentangle it a bit in Part 1. But there are more resticted ingredients, whose pros and cons we hope to analyse here. Yet revelations happen with the sudden “swoosh” of pyrotechnics.

The very perceptive Pat from Olfactarama sent me this most eye-opening comment:
“I poked around a little and came up with the RIFM's [Research Institute for Fragrance Materials] annual report. You may already have seen this document, but if not, there is a lot of interesting info here. I'm wondering if this organization isn't one of the ways the labs are funneling research funding into these studies, which may then be used to strongarm the fragrance industry. Since annual reports must be available to the public, it's possible to bypass the "members only" logjam at the site's opening -- I believe some of the publications papers are also available for reading. The list near the back gives RIFM's "partners," and most of the big fragrance manufacturers (Chanel, Estee Lauder, et. al.) are on it. Here is the link: RIFM.Org
I urge you to click the link (it's NOT the well known IFRA amendement, it's a different organisation) and read the participating members on the last page; blink a little and read again!

Chanel….The one company who profited by the downfall of Guerlain to the eyes of many perfume enthusiasts. The one company who salvaged their reputation through the hardships of having to appeal to mainsteam tastes and all with easy elegance. Now, there is proof that they do not oppose the restrictions which are set to harm them most: the jasmine restrictions (as well as the coumarin, ylang ylang, eugenol, oakmoss et al). Octavian had succintcly put it:
“Remember that not only the perfume extract contains a great amount of French jasmine but also this is at the heart of all marketing stories of Chanel. Chanel always insisted on the quality of its jasmine, being one of the very few to use the French type, also cultivated by Chanel” and from a marketing point of view, how can you communicate about jasmine now? Can you show the fields, the extraction and write articles about No5 history and quality when IFRA tells that "jasminum grandiflorum" is "poison"?
It’s a problem. The continuation of the myth will necessarily have to be a covert lie.

However Chanel in either an attempt to salvage what they can (how? I’d advise the Wertheimer brothers to make a statement to that) or to retain their market share without increasing prices are condoning the reformulations. I do know that they are rigorous in preserving quality and just as there are different grades of foodstuff so there are in perfumery ingredients, so they will use the best available. But still the question is: what will there be available?

And Lauder is also a member of RIFM. This makes the futile hope of people in the US that American made perfumes might retain their formula unchanged just that…futile. It was plainly to see before, since Lauder fragrances are made by IFF (who belongs to IFRA), but since not all people know that tidbit, it’s worth mentioning now.

On what concerns citrus restrictions, the kerfuffle is too much for no special reason in most cases. Many people exclaim –justifiably-: “Ridiculous! I get more orange essence on my hands by peeling an orange or on my mouth by eating it than by using perfume!”. True, but there’s a catch: Most citruses in perfumes are synthetic already! Yes, yes, even those you think are naturals. Yes, yes, even some very respected brands (Shalimar anyone? Mitsouko?) . And you know, the difference isn't that perceptible to the majority of even discerning noses and bergamot in particular has been substituted for years due to its photosensitizing begaptene. Which is why I witnessed the groves in Sicily and Calabria being a waning craft...
Yet some citrus essences can be realistically replicated. Want proof? Go smell In Love Again by Yves Saint Laurent. Great realistic grapefruit note, huh? 100% synthetic. But that doesn't diminish the artistry of it, nor should it deter you from using it.

Of course there are several niche and small perfumers (notably the all-naturals field) who continue to use natural extracts and they'e taking a hard blow with the latest; this might make them outlaw indeed! Anya McCoy said:
"There are few willing to take a stance on this. I will. I will continue to use all of the aromatics I wish, with a warning label. If, as it seems it will, the regulations come to the USA, and the FDA enforces them, I will protest and am willing to become a legal case, if necessary. I dare others to join me. That is my solution to the oakmoss, orange, rose, ylang ylang (ad infinitum materials) problem."
Of course that means solely Internet sales... No brand which hopes to have their scents in brick and mortar stores can afford this, since they are subject to import laws (from either the EU or the US).

Brands which use a high degree of natural extracts, citrus and otherwise, such as Annick Goutal, Miller Harris, and Ormonde Jayne are facing a very real problem, hitting them like a ton of bricks. Their buying of raw materials will be seriously challenged thanks to the tale-over of the Grasse companies of raw materials (as discussed here) and due to their drastic change in the formula they will have a hard time adjusting to the changes. You might stock up on those as well. In fact a MUA poster, Alabasterkitten, has noticed a bunch of them at Loehmann's last night, $50 for 1.7 oz - Songes (jasmine, ylang ylang), Mandragore (bergamot), Eau de Hadrien (lemon and citruses, oakmoss), Petite Cherie (pear synth), Gardenia Passion (oakmoss, jasmine) and Nuits d'Hadrien (citrus)!

As to other ingredients, there are many but there are ways around them without much compromise. Verbena has been singled out in online discussions, because it's a common aromatherapeutic infusion and oil and it created the question how it could be regarded as a "bad" thing. Well, litsea cubeba has a bracing lemony note that could sufficiently substitute it and in fact it extends the effect nicely into the middle notes, a trick often used by pefumers to extend tangy aspects. So, no problem there.

Hydroxycitronellal (lily of the valley) is on the chopping block, as is majantol. Obviously lily of the valley will suffer as a note, not mentioning Lilial (by Givaudan) and Lyral (by IFF), which have also been examined regarding their sensitizing properties. Lily of the valley is a more common note than one would suspect, because it both opens up the bouquet of classic perfumes and it imparts a collateral “clean” note to modern ones (perhaps due to its mega presence in functional cleaning products). Diorissimo has already changed it packaging to denote the change that has been implemented to the levels of hydroxycitronnelal: the newer white packaging with pink “oval” bearing the name states hydroxycitronellal further behind other ingredients instead of the slightly older batch of pink packaging with white oval. The change is subtle and very cunning: while right now the packaging can be an indicator of batches, the introduction of a different colour schema is an optical blurring, ready for further –and final- chopping off! The consumer will never be able to realise without minutely examining the allergens list, which -let’s face it- is not what most people do.

Ylang Ylang is that rare thing: a comparatively inexpensive natural. Which poses a question over its impending restrictions. Baffled there.

The most serious aspect however and I don't know how it can be bypassed is jasmine....
Jasmine grandiflorum will be limited to 0.7% and jasmine sambac to 4%, under the latest 43rd amendement of IFRA. They are potent, so even a little helps, but 0.7% is getting pretty low...Jasmine is the emblem of quality French perfumery, a whole mythos behind many famous classics (No.5, Joy etc.) as stated so passionately on Grain de Musc and sadly both the grandiflorum and the sambac variety come under the latest restictions. And since Grasse jasmine was used in only the extrait of those classics, if you absolutely love those, you might stock up. Although don't be fooled, they have already been altered numerous times. No.5 has been stated to have changed its musks (eradicating the nitromusks so maligned by environmental studies) but smelling olde batches confirms that it’s not only them that changed. Since P&G (who belong to the RIFM oganisation, as stated in the above PDF) are the licence owners for parfums Patou, Joy is also to be changed irrevocably, probably to the great chagrin of resident perfumer Jean Michel Duriez.

The matter is terribly complicated, but....Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose!

Pic of Dr.Jekyl and Mr.Hyde cover via sbfmedia.relationalhost.com. Diorissimo through photobucket search. Jasmine by Perfumeshrine, all rights reserved.

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

The Strange Case of Dr.Oakmoss and Mr.Citrus (part 1)

We have been discussing the latest perfumery restrictions on ingredients these past few days. [You can catch up here and here]. Today's post is useful and practical advice before you rush to buy everything tagged "vintage" on Ebay or stores, especially on anything that says it has a "note" of oakmoss (many of them do not have oakmoss to begin with, as a "note" is not an actual ingredient ~meaning the effect of "oakmoss smell" can be replicated aproximately with other ingredients, some synthetic, some natural). To set things straight therefore, let me say the following.

Oakmoss is ~according to the latest restrictions applicable from January 2010~ only resticted, not prohibited. Let me repeat: oakmoss is not being completely eliminated from perfumes! The direction simply states that it needs to be drastically lowered. What that means: it's allowed to 0.1% of the formula compound AND at the same time the oakmoss extact has to contain no more of 100ppm atranol and chloroatranol (those two are the sensitising parts of the natural essence) But oakmoss has been steadily getting lowered in the last 10 years at least! Even if it means perfumes with high levels of it in the formula have to change again, those are the very perfumes which have already changed a lot, sometimes to the point of unecognisability as many fans have noticed! (Miss Dior, Ma Griffe, Cabochard etc.). After all the Scientific Committee on Consumer Products (SCCP) adopted the following during the 2nd plenary meeting of 7 December 2004: "The European Commission received a letter from the University Louis Pasteur, Strasbourg, France, with data demonstrating that chloroatranol is a potent fragrance allergen in cosmetic products. The European Flavour and Fragrance Association (EFFA) submitted a study “Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA) – Sensitisation dossier on Atranol and Chloroatranol” and information on the levels of these substances in oak moss and tree moss" (the latter is exactly the study on which Dr.Rastogi was featured and please read on to find out more). Therefore this is known since at least 2004! In fact there is a very brief post on this link that announces it (with an email to the proper recipient, so it's not like they couldn't have been contacted!): Department of Environmental Chemistry and Microbiology, National Environmental Research Institute, Roskilde, Denmark. (scr@dmu.dk) And another from 2003!
So do you think perfume companies hadn't already wisened up seeing the developments that were impending? Surely not! They were already doing reformulations!

On what concerns Mitsouko in particular Mme Sylvaine Delacourte (artistic director for Guelrain) had the good grace to provide a quote regarding the reformulation of Mitsouko with only tree moss, setting things straight (and I translate):
"Our house has honoured two values for decades: Tradition and Modernity. Tradition denotes the quality of olfactive construction of each of our perfumes with savoir-faire and heritage. Modernity denotes the scrupulous and rigorous respect of the European regulations in the constant concern for our clients. Mitsouko has benefited in 2006 from the most recent olfactory innovations which respect our heritage while at the same time repressing the incomfort tied to certain raw materials. Therefore current Mitsouko responds to the European directives".


Perfumes can theoretically still include oakmoss (evernia prunastri or mousse de chêne) in the formula at the approved levels and I quote from the 43rd amendment of IFRA:
“For this material, for pragmatic reasons, restrictive levels allowed by the QRA for certain categories but actually being higher than those already in place before applying the QRA, will temporarily not be implemented until the end of a 5 year monitoring phase. At the end of the 5 years the position will be reevaluated again. […]Introduction of an additional purity requirement in the Standards on Oak moss extracts and Tree moss extracts.”

And category 11 (encompasses all non-skin contact or incidental skin contact products) is unrestricted! If we solemnly swear to only spray on clothes? This is why Luca finished his article with the wittisism “don't spray on skin”.

The "black" point is that since 2007 IFRA accepts big boys as members and this is the real news: Givaudan, Firmenich, IFF, Takasago etc. can be members who have a say in the regulation of perfumes. The perfumes which they themselves produce. Is it about the concern for consumers' health? It might but most importantly it's about money. How could this happen?
Like Anya McCoy told me:


"Perfumery is being forcibly mutated into a beancounter-driven business with an extremely limited palette. Afraid of lawsuits from consumers if they dare refuse to reformulate classics or create new fragrances with the limits placed upon them, big perfume houses have capitulated. This is a quote from a retired perfumer I interviewed two years ago, the one who blithely answered "we were asleep at the wheel" when I queried why the perfume industry allowed so many regulations to pile up. IFRA, at first golden and shiny with the promise of providing an industry regulatory system that would give the world of perfumery professional and governmental status, botched the deal ~badly!"

There is a PDF available for download (mail me if you want to read it!): It’s the study that Luca talked about in his article, the one I referenced above and of which Dr Rastogi is one of the paticipants. It opens with:

"Based on the submission by EFFA1 of a study "Local nymph Node Assay(LLNA)-Sensitisation dossier on Atranol and Chloroatranol", the Scientific Committee on Consumer Products (SCCP) adopted at its 2nd plenary meeting of 7 December 2004 an opinion (SCCP/0847/04) on Atranol and Chloroatranol present in natural extracts (e.g. Oakmoss and Treemoss extract) with the conclusion:“Because chloroatranol and atranol are components of a botanicalextract, oakmoss absolute, it has been impossible to trace exposure. Chloroatranol was shown to cause elicitation of reactions by repeated open exposure at the ppm level (0.0005%) and at the ppb level on patch testing (50% elicit at 0.000015%). As chloroatranol and atranol are such potent allergens(and chloroatranol particularly so), they shouldnot be present in cosmetic products."

The study talks about 2 ppm though and I quote:"The main identified allergens in oakmoss are chloroatranol and atranol. The ‘typical’ levels of these chemicals have been reduced to levels described". And it concludes with the very logical matter which we tried to explain the other day on why a simple warning label doesn't cover the issue and I quote (bold is mine):

"In recognition of the fact that contact allergy to oakmoss/treemoss is important, product ingredient labelling is required. Such labelling, as a secondary measure to prevent disease, is helpful only to that group of the European population who have a recognised contact allergy to oakmoss/treemoss (following diagnostic clinical patch testing). Labelling is not helpful to the group who have unrecognised contact allergy".

And tree moss which also contains the sensitisers has to be in tandem restricted so that the combined sum of essences does not exceed 0.1% in the formula.
Therefore since oakmoss is again to be reviewed in 2013, this means that there is a window frame for companies to conform and for us to think about this and decide with a cooler head than today's panic.

But there is hope for oakmoss notes yet! Although the patented synthetic Evernyl is not a satisfactory substitute, there is another oakmoss synthetic, Orcinyl 3, which if used together with Evernyl could do the trick.(And it’s only $2400/kilo).
Laurie Erickson, an artisanal pefumer from California for the Sonoma Scent Studio line, also told me: “The big difference for oakmoss with the 43rd amendment is that people who want to use natural moss have to switch to a low allergen moss like the Biolandes product with less than 100 ppm of atranol and less than 100 ppm of chloroatranol (the Biolandes is the only currently available natural moss I know of that meets this standard). If you use the low atranol moss below the maximum usage level and perhaps add a smidge of Evernyl/Veramoss and/or your other favorite mossy ingredients, you can create a pretty nice oakmoss note and still be within IFRA standards; I’m just starting to work with the new moss but so far I’m quite optimistic. I do wish they’d make some exceptions for the old classic formulas and I’m very concerned about the direction we’re heading with all these restrictions on so many materials, but I think we can still create moss notes in new perfumes even under the new guidelines if this low atranol moss turns out to be as promising as it seems right now. I’m just going through all my formulas to substitute the low atranol moss for the regular moss that I was using, and I’ll know more as I continue that process. I had been skeptical before sampling this moss because I’ve been disappointed with the low allergen versions of lavender and bergamot I’ve tried (though I hear better bergamot is available now), but I was pleasantly surprised when I sampled this moss and I ended up buying some.”

Ayala Moriel, another artisanal naturals perfumer has interesting commentary:
"As of the end of last year, neither of my oakmoss suppliers were no longer carrying complete oakmoss absolute. The sensitizing elements were removed, as per IFRA's regulations. Which is not surprising, since oakmoss is grown and harvested in the EU (mostly in former Yugoslavia), and most of the perfume industry at large is still concentrated on that continent. To my pleasant surprise, even at this manipulated state, oakmoss still presented the full spectrum of performance it always had, and was just as good as ever for creating chypres, fougeres and adding nuances to florals, orientals and citrus".
And she likes the Biolandes oakmoss as well! This is what she stated to me:
"1) IFRA is not scheduled to review oakmoss again until 2013, so I have no reason to believe there will be any changes to the current oakmoss regulations before than
2) I checked with my suppliers and they are not aware that this material is about to become unavailable in the near future
3) Since last year, the oakmoss absolute sold in the market was one with the sensitizing molecules removed, namely atranol and chloroatranol and resin acids. This
is also the reason why combining both oakmoss and tree moss is restricted (tree moss contains resin acids, so if it is used in a formula in a conjunction with oakmoss the concentration of oakmoss will be even lower). "

Roxana Villa of Roxana Illuminated Perfume has assured me that she has created an accord that mimics oakmoss sufficiently, composed of natural materials that are within limitations and if her Q is anything to go by on how her woody, green mossy blends go I am very optimistic! Liz Zorn of Soivohle' Perfumes is also another artisanal independent pefumer who is capable of creating oakmoss accords through the combinations of other ingredients: "It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out how to dupe oakmoss, or even jasmine for that matter. Natural a combination of natural and man made or all man made."

Alex, a perfumery student who writes J'aime Le Parfum had a lovely quote:
"I do not remember whether it was me or a fellow classmate who asked Jean Claude Ellena several months ago about his feeling about IFRA, and he basically said “I don’t really care, and it does not stop me from doing my work.” I think what he says is key here, and it has to do with creativity. You do not need jasmine to give your fragrance “naturalness” or “richness.” You do not need iso e super to do perfumery. You do not need oakmoss to do perfumery.You do not need majantol* to do perfumery." (*majantol is a synthetic lily of the valley ingredient.)
I have personably been in the fortunate position to have smelled the new Biolandes low-atranol oakmoss and compare it to the traditional oakmoss essence and it does seem to perform well, although perhaps not perfectly “photocopied” but a talented perfumer can certainly put it to good use. AlbertCan is also one who has worked with both and corroborates the potential. Technology is on our side if we give it time and who knows what the future holds?
Since reportedly the Chanel Company controls Biolandes, did they just opt for re-creating a chypre with no oakmoss in their 31 Rue Cambon instead of relying on this new low-atranol material? It goes to show how boundaries need to be crossed for something to be created anew or how they cannot be sure on further developments ruining a newly launched product.

The big news is however something else entirely: the raw materials suppliers at Grasse (who mostly dabble in naturals) have been bought out by the big companies! Laboratoires Monique Remy is owned by IFF. Robertet bought Charabot and so on...It figures, doesn't it.
Like Anya Mc Coy says again: "Another wrinkle is the buying up of all the small- to medium- size processing houses, from Charis to Charabot. The pipeline that is in place to bring the extracted aromatics to the perfumer, from the distiller with a field unit in the jungle of Indonesia, to the jasmine plants in Egypt are more and more under the control of corporate conglamorates. If they - the corporations - find it easier and cheaper to use synthetics and the demand for naturals dries up, so will the pipeline. Price fixing, as with vanilla absolute, is firmly in place, in my opinion."

So practical advice: If you need to stock up on favourites from big companies, don't rush to buy whatever has been produced in the last 6-7 years at least. And even then, it's good advice to save up your money for extrait de parfum only, the most concentrated version and therefore the one in which the limitations would pose a greater problem. Do continue to support the artisanal perfumers, now more than ever.
And another suggestion for the perfume industry this time: Have you thought of the vast potential of hair mists and oils?


To be continued with other questionable materials...

Tuesday, April 7, 2009

Why Crusading Against Perfumery Restictions is an Exercise in Omphaloscepis

In regards to my previous post Perfume Restrictions and Why Everything We Say in Public Matters, Tania Sanchez, the co-author of Perfumes the Guide and a logical mind to be reckoned with, had the good manners and grace to honour me with a direct response. She brought many interesting points to the discussion and although I replied to her in the comments section I do feel that some of my points deserve some air-time for the benefit of those who do not customarily read the comments section. So, bear with me and we might disentangle some finer points.

Tania told me:
"The *future* of perfumery is not the issue. Perfumers have a massive palette and their creativity is proven every time we sit down with new perfumes full of ideas we've never smelled before. It's the obliteration of the past that is the wretched shame. As someone who has suffered all my life from a lot of allergic contact dermatitis (oddly, not to fragrance but mostly to skincare and cosmetics) I understand from my own study and experience that it is impossible to create a product that causes no allergies. The word "hypoallergenic" has no regulated meaning and something that causes rash in one person of "sensitive skin" will be the perfect product for another such self-confessed. We understand, when it comes to all other cosmetics, that when we try something and it gives us a rash, the sensible thing is to abandon it. Not ban it. The question is why these grand works of perfumery art, about which some of us care very deeply and which give us such happiness, must be vandalized solely to prevent some people's rashes, when those people can simply avoid the product by choice. Toxins, carcinogens, and other things that cause irreversible injury absolutely should be eliminated from the perfumer's palette, no question. But skin allergens? Why, when there is a very simple alternative: (1) a full list of ingredients and (2) advising a 24-hour patch test?"
Certainly this is the level-headed approach it is a pleasure conducting dialogue with. So let's take the points one by one, so my ~perhaps nebulous before~ stance becomes clearer.

Since perfumery as an art form has been proclaimed dead, there is of course the rush of panic in an average person's mind of "Hell, what now?? Shall I abandon my pefume hobby? And will everything produced from now on be soul-less?" The focus of my article therefore was to dispel a little of that panic. I think it managed it in some degree, if I say so myself. Then, there is the greater issue of the massacre of classics. There is no dispute on that as I am as much a collector of classics myself, several of them vintage or rare. I collect them, dust them, look at them with dreamy eyes and wear them with a nostalgic pang of someone who was born long after the Summer of Love. A nostalgic pang which is unexplicably shared by many. It is the nature of man (and woman!) to "gloss over" the past and idolise it as better times. Ah, the Golden Age of Cronus...and the continuous decline of man... subject of mythological themes in as far back as 1000BC. Nothing new. We idolise that which we have not experienced first hand. But even if we have, psychology tells us we like to forget the bad, hold on to the good and reminiscence life in idyllic terms. The more we age, the more we do that and it is a sign of our vanity and coming to terms with mortality. We want to be able to say "I had it good, I saw the beauty, reaped its core!". It's understandable.

So what does all this have to do with perfume? It does, in relation to our collecting classics and insisting on their unaltered state of eternal beauty, their own immortality being a small indication of the belief that we, too, can be immortal if only in a small, miniscule piece: that of the beauty ideal we hold. But here is the catch: When wearing a vintage classic I do not claim to re-live an experience of a woman who wore the same juice in the 1930s. It doesn't matter if my juice is authentic, if it is well-preserved, if I am in the right frame of mind or even if I am holding a bakelite cigarette case and wearing a Lelong gown! In essence (no pun intended) I cannot replicate the experience of wearing a classic of that time the way the people who wore it in that age did. Like we discussed with Jean Claude Ellena in our interview, it's not possible to make this "true" to either the maker's intention or the spitit of the era, as numerous factors conspire to make the experience different. How's that? One cannot have read Satre or Genet and go back to seeing things the way people saw them before WWII. The bleak and the existentialist gloom has changed our souls, even if though the memory of written, not lived, word. One cannot have lived through women's movement or reaped the benefits of it in their personal and professional lives and graft themselves back to the time of La Belle Epoque when women didn't always think for themselves. One cannot see the vintage classics (and for our purposes here I mean the ones which are bought in this almost contraband business of ebaying and antiques scouring) as anything else as a glimpse of history. Are they accurate? They are only in the degree which we allow them to be; which we are able to allow them to be. Seeing (even carefully touching, if you're on the inside frame of the business) the Cloisters Apocalypse manuscript at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC is not the same as being a monk fixing the gold-leaf in a musty, wooden bank-seat at Cloisters wearing the monk's cloak. The experience is vastly different! Imagine therefore how much more different the experience is when a classic pefume's formula has been already adjusted numerous times through its history ~sometimes even right after its official launch!~ and not only in the last 10-15 years!! Those reformulations, which ALL the classics have endured at some point or another, are due to other factors than the latest IFRA regulations: lack of "bases" for the perfumers ("bases" are ready-made and commercially available "accords" that give a specific "note" or effect, so that the perfumer doesn't have to sit down and start from scratch each and every time); loss of materials due to suppliers' changes; arid or wet seasons influencing the naturals' quality, yield or vibance, much like in wines; adjustments that have to do with economizing or tastes when the brand changes hands.... The hunt for the perfect photocopy of a 1919 Mitsouko (or any such) is therefore impossible! Unless we were transpoted back to 1919 à la H.G Wells ~while being at an age with our full capacities intact~ sniffed some, taken a little with us and then being transported back to the present to analyse, see how to replicate 100% and manage to actually do it, everything else is basically an exercise in futility. We can regard the classics not as the classics that were, but as the classics we loved. The one version which we have liked, which we have come to love ~whatever that might be and however time-specific it might be. (You all realize that it is getting more and more difficult, now I broke this down in those terms, huh?) Man and woman loves what they are familiar with. They love that which has first touched their heartstrings and even if it was not perfect it will always hold a dear place in their memories. It's almost impossible to pin down what version each of us loves however, so perfume companies adjust to the widest denominator. And plus, not even L'Osmotheque has the 1921 Ernest Beaux Chanel No.5 and that's a fact!

So, what do I propose? Eradicate the classics? Of course not! But insisting on our part, our perfume enthusiasts' part, our perfume connoisseurs' part (call it whatever you like) that we want the real Joy, the real No.5 etc is a populist stance that reminds me of a kind of "free fragrance!" activism. Is this viable and what's more is it effective? I think on the whole pefume companies want to please the consumers, if only because they rely on them for sales -yes, even the discerning ones sometimes!- and if they see an interest they will adjust to the best of their margins from a business point of view (I realize miracles cannot happen). Therefore it's good to provide some actual means of voicing that concern, which is what I did by providing some data on how to reach some people. I'm sure more people will chime in and offer theirs as well.

I don't know if the authors of the Guide are already lobbying in a "free fragrance" campaign and therefore are preparing us for something on which they will need our support in whatever form. I only recall the now defunct blog of Luca in which he had said something along the lines of there being an hierarchy of worries: First you worry about the really big things: war, death, famine, etc. Once those are out-of-mind, we start to worry about smaller things: cars, safety seats, allergens. In a turmoiled world in which the economic crisis is having several people sacked and jobless with families to raise and when earthquakes destroy whole blocks of flats collapsing in L'Aquila, Italy while the Baths of Carakalla in Rome suffer damages, the matter of IFRA and reformulating is becoming small potatoes. But even if there is a crusade going on concerning the irrationality of the spirit of the restrictions, the latest Spring Supplement to the Guide which is full of mentions of reformulations is proof positive that the previous pleas by the authors, in the first edition of Pefumes the Guide and before, have met with deaf ears.

Concerning allergens there is some confusion among the public. Let me straighten it out to the best of my non-medically trained ability. Allergen is something that causes an allergy. Allergy is according to Medicine Net:"A misguided reaction to foreign substances by the immune system, the body system of defense against foreign invaders, particularly pathogens (the agents of infection). The allergic reaction is misguided in that these foreign substances are usually harmless. The substances that trigger allergy are called allergen. Examples include pollens, dust mite, molds, danders, and certain foods. People prone to allergies are said to be allergic or atopic". Allergies are largely hereditary and usually manifest themselves fairly early on in life. Sensitizers on the other hand is a completely different issue and this is what IFRA is trying to regulate. Let's see the definition according to the Occupational Health and Safety Administration: "A sensitizer is defined by OSHA as "a chemical that causes a substantial proportion of exposed people or animals to develop an allergic reaction in normal tissue after repeated exposure to the chemical." The condition of being sensitized to a chemical is also called chemical hypersensitivity. Therefore here is the interesting part which a perfumer highlighted in the comments yesterday: "Sensitization is the term used to describe a sudden allergenic reaction to something that you previously tolerated well. The chemical substance builds up in your system, and then, on day 563 of use, perhaps 10 years in (days and years chosen randomly, of course) you get a bad response. It may even occur with a new perfume that you've never worn before, but it contains the lavender oil that you've been using for 10 years, and bingo - now you're sensitized to lavender. You're not allergic to it, you're sensitized."

Potential allergens therefore do not perform in the either/or way suggested. One thing could be perfectly all right for yeas and through repeated exposure it can escalate into becoming a sensitiser. So a patch-test is not enough. Even in hair-dyes where a patch-test is de rigeur, one can accumulate a sensitivity and it might burst at any second (this is why they advise doing a patch test EACH AND EVERY TIME! Even for products which you have been using all the time) Can you imagine that for perfume use? I can imagine the labels "Spray the product on a dot on your elbow or behind the ear each time you want to wear the perfume and if you feel no redness, prickling or burning sensation within the next 24 hours, you can wear your perfume ~THIS TIME!" Yeah, great bunch of help that would be!! So, although theoretically I am agreeing that labelling is allowing an informed choice (and I'm all for informed choices!), the matter is more complex than that. Simplistic "easing it up" along the terms of "just slap on a label, for Pete's sake!" is not very helpful.

Listing the full ingredients list isn't very helpful either. First because of the obvious, as explained above: one can be perfectly fine with something and yet get a reaction out of the blue. Life is scary and then we die. We all take our risks and I don't advocate not to. But perfume companies already list the most common allergens and therefore if one knows about something specific not agreeing with them, they can avoid it. The rest they have to risk. Yet the full ingredients list is not something companies want to do for another two reasons: Even in food-stuff (which is scarier to use compared with perfume) you cannot find out the exact formula down to percentages or origin of any ingredient. And sometimes there are cryptic labellings such as "natural aroma of fruit" (what exactly? how was it derived? how much?) or even misleading "no added salt" (yeah, but the sodium percentage is huge anyway!). Fragrances are not going to list everything because the mystique is a great part of the whole business. And also because the consumer is not at ease or has sufficient knowledge to know what anisaldehyde or Iso-E Super is etc. Several people ~on perfume boards even~ protest "I don't want my pretties converted into a chemistry lesson!". And just think what the listing of a full list of ingredients would do to consumers and a few perfume critics as well: No more smart-ass stuff!!

Basically the outcry for the latest regulations is justified because they stand to close some of the little guys (always a bad thing in a democracy), and they are threatening to have several raw materials suppliers out of business ~and therefore even if the little guys want to construct a perfume that bypasses the regulations they will not have the materials to do so!

But it also opens up two interesting arenae, which to me sound full of job potential for specific people: legislative consultants (people who will deal with all the paperwork necessary for the implementations in big companies and with prior experience in law, insurance, that sort of thing) and an ultimate atbitrer of taste who is equipped in chemistry, has a connoisseurship of perfume and a couple of publications on the subject under their belt.


We will continue with posts on the oakmoss and other ingredients problem and offer some clarification and altenatives.

Thursday, September 11, 2008

Shalimar Eau Legere, Shalimar Light and Eau de Shalimar: Review,Comparison & History

Why would a legend need modernising? Why would anyone take a mythical perfume such as Shalimar and create lighter versions of it?
The answer is simple and rather alarming on certain levels: the modern young consumer doesn't especially like the original Shalimar by Guerlain. I said "alarming" because the passing of years and change of tastes means a diminished turnover for the product and because it entails tampering with a landmark in the history of perfumery. However surely the presence of flankers (follow-up fragrances that share some common traits with the mother-fragrance in terms of name and design) means that the original fragrance is successful and well-known by reputation. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense commercially!




The Problem of Shalimar: Today's Fickle Times & Young Audiences

Indeed Shalimar presents a difficult problem: its status makes it iconic, but the modern consumer too often perceives it as musty, terribly old-fashioned, with too much "skank" (the term Americans use for heavy, pungent animalic scents, but also for exhibitions of vulgarity by non-ladylike women). Although, as previously discussed, it has been tampered with through the years ~for both reasons of allergens being included in the original formula and unavailability of certain key ingredients~ Shalimar still retains its aura of decadent lack of inhibitions and musky radiation of predatory élan. Therefore Guerlain embarked on an adventure of modernisation.

Historical Efforts to Modernise Shalimar

The first attempt in Shalimar's modernisation was introduced in 2003, created by Mathilde Laurent (who also created the formidable Guet Apens/Attrape Coeur for Guerlain) and was baptised Shalimar Eau Légère. Arguably the name sounds like anathema to hard-core perfumistas everywhere: who has ever thought of a Diet Shalimar? The cornering of an alternative market however proved to be a wise decision and a good move in terms of business stategy: Shalimar Eau Légère appealled to younger women who had only vague recollections of the original or even actually found the original difficult to wear yet were keen to own their own Guerlain piece of history. And it also appealed to a certain Rock n'Roll side of some of us, with its print ads featuring Patti Hansen with her two daughters by husband Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones, Alexandra and Theodora. The setting of boho-chic clothes and luxurious baroque interiors touched a sensitive chord: tradition and modernity could co-exist!

How is Shalimar Light/Eau Legere different than classic Shalimar?
The effervescent composition of Shalimar Eau Légère sidetracks the musky, animalic base in lieu of a lemon-cupcake accord that is deliciously cool, folded into a fluffy vanilla cloud with abstract woody and lightly smoky tonalities. The opening, sustained for several minutes, is refreshing and yummy like so many modern compositions that focus on that accord, with I Love Love by Moschino and Light Blue by Dolce & Gabanna being prominent commercially successful examples. Whether that was at the back of the minds at Guerlain headquarters or not, is debatable.
It certainly smells like a modern fragrance, but at the same time it retains some of the haunting recklessness of the original mysterious beast with its recognizable sweet-ish oriental and sandalwood notes. That could be attested by testimonies of its underlying naughty nature still being perceived by people who have smelled it on my person. The DNA, the pneuma is there but the offspring is its own person and it lends itself to some wonderful wearability on the part of many perfume lovers such as myself.

Comparing Shalimar Eau Legere with Shalimar Light: How to Spot Versions


In what was a business decision when Mathilde Laurent fell out with Jean Paul Guerlain, a rejingled version was issued about one year later and credited to Jean Paul Guerlain. Although the two are very close, the later interpretation is even more restrained and less complex in the base with a lime-like top note that echoes sparkly beverages instead of lemon and bergamot.

This small difference in smell presents a problem of differentiation between batches, since the resulting version is widely known as Shalimar Light, yet it appears that both that name and Shalimar Eau Légère Parfumée appear on the bottle with a line break.

The best way to ascertain which batch you are smelling or buying is looking at the colour: the earlier version is straw-coloured in a bottle with a blue-ish edge along the sides and bottom, while the later version is somewhat bluer.
The fragrance came in a light blue box with a light-golden-beige interlay where the traditional black was, different from the usual Guerlain boxes and featured the name Light on one side and Eau Légère Parfumée on the other.

Neither Shalimar Eau Légère nor Shalimar Light are in production, both being limited editions of Eau de Toilette, but erratic batches of the discontinued fragrances do turn up on Ebay, peripheral stores and discounters from time to time.

The Introduction of Eau de Shalimar, a 3rd Version

Eau de Shalimar is the latest version in the Shalimar flankers stable, introduced in April 2008. Curiously it is attributed to Mathilde Laurent, who however left Guerlain for Cartier 4 years ago. Whether its juice is the same as any of the previous attempts has been the focus of a search for minutiae among perfumephiles who pay attention to every move of their favourite house, myself included.  

Eau de Shalimar seems like a face-lift that has resulted in too attenuated features: there is nary a little frown and that deducts something of the lived-in quality that Shalimar possesses. The rumour of an inferior bergamot essence replacing the vintage ingredient and the shortages on Mysore sandalwood, as well as the lightening of the powdery aspects of coumarin and iris, might account for the effect.

Between the different batches I appreciate the original Shalimar in vintage extrait de parfum and parfum de toilette, but I find myself wearing Shalimar Eau Légère by Mathilde Laurent more comfortably, especially in the summer months.

So is Eau de Shalimar that different? The official response by PR official Isabelle Rousseau is categorical: "Je vous informe que la fragrance Eau de Shalimar est la même que Shalimar Eau Légère Parfumée, réalisée par Jean-Paul Guerlain." (ie. I inform you that the Eau de Shalimar fragrance is the same as Shalimar Eau Légère Parfumée, created by Jean Paul Guerlain.) Taking into account that this is the woman who had specified to me when exactly the reformulated batches of Mitsouko Eau de Parfum started circulating (June 2007, for those who missed it), I have no reason to doubt her credibility or sincerity. Still, a miniscule variation might be due to different batches of ingredients.

The bottle of Eau de Shalimar is easy to distinguish among its predecessors: made of transparent glass but in a different colour. The label with the fragrance name is in midnight blue color, while it is enclosed in a white outer box. It is available at major department stores as 50ml (1.7 fl.oz.) of Eau de Toilette.

Official Notes for Shalimar Light/Eau de Shalimar: lime, bergamot, orange, rose, iris, jasmine, vanilla


Pics via parfumdepub, ebay and fragrantica

Monday, March 10, 2008

Chloé: New vs Old

There are perfumes that know what they are doing and there are perfumes on an identity crisis. The latest Chloé belongs to the latter category. You're probably asking yourselves "the latest? Isn't there only one Chloé"? No, actually there are three of them simply named Chloé! Confusing, isn't it? Let's help make the disctinctions.

Michael Edwards lists five Chloé fragrances in total in his compendium: Chloé Narcisse, Chloé Innocence, Chloé Classic (presumambly the original by Karl Lagerfeld: a white floral),Chloé (Collection 2005), and one just called Chloé listed among rosy fragrances (therefore the newest one, out February 2008). The first two are easy to distinguish, the rest not as much.
But let's take matters at the top.

Jacques Lenoir and Gaby Aghion were the designers responsible for the prêt-a-porter fashion house Chloé, founded in 1952. The fashions focused on a romantic vein inspired by the art which had been prompted by the bucolic idyll of antiquity by Longus, Daphnis and Chloe. The dreamy ballet Daphnis et Chloé by French imporessionist composer Maurice Ravel, often collected in romantic compilations helped consolidate an oneiric inpterpretation of what Chloé stands for: fluid, gauzy designs, chiffon and mousseline fabrics, pastel colours.

And so in 1975, when Karl Lagerfeld was designing for them before going on to Chanel, the house came out with its own perfume, simply named Chloé by Chloé : a white floral centered on tuberose, flower of spiritual ruin, carnal, feminine and feisty.
Taking its name from the Greek, which means "green shoot" it was composed by Betty Busse. The original Chloé married the subtle green tinge of leaves and aldehydic peach on top of an avalanche of jasmine, ylang-ylang, honeysuckle and narcissus, with just a whisper of exotic coconut. The drydown of warm skin and a little dry orris powder was indeed memorable. Thus it managed to mark an era, becoming a cult item, none the less because of its weird award-winning bottle designed by Joe Messina which was depicting the stem of a calla lily on the extrait de parfum stopper. It could also be interpreted as an aorta sprouting from a heart, if one is twisted enough...

Although the original Chloé has had many ardent fans through the years I always found that warm, radiant and feminine through it undoubtedly is, it possessed a tad sticky vulgarity that announced its wearer a bit earlier than would be the height of good manners: when within an arm's length, that is! Rumours have been circulating about a reformulation in the 1990s that left something to be desired for those who were devoted to the scent of their youth.
Compared to other tuberose vignettes,the original Chloé is an amateur 9mm to Carnal Flower's 3D-Techicolor and it lacks the rubber gloves of kink that Fracas is hiding beneath its femme façade. Nevertheless it executed its message with conviction and admirable flair.

The new version after 10 years of seeming inertia, alas, does not; and on top of that it marks the discontinuation of the old, classic tuberosey Chloé. The press release by Coty promised:
"The amber floral by Michel Almairac and Amandine Marie at Robertet is meant to embody the classic modern scent. It features a bouquet of powdered florals composed of peony, lychée and freesia. Notes of rose, magnolia and lily of the valley make up the heart over an amber and cedar wood base".

Personally I would not categorise the new Chloé in the ambery floral family. In fact it starts with an hydroponic* freesia accord that reminded me of the intense aqueous opening of L'eau d'Issey as well as its fantasy woody base. The pastel fruit-jelly accord (of which lychee is officially mentioned) has a passing resemblance to the fruity floral character of Cool Water Woman. Bearing in mind that those two are fragrances which I have smelled to death in the 90s, I could do without. There is also no prominent rosiness, at least no next of kin to the noble Bulgarian attars and the whole expires in little saccharine puffs of no great consequence. The attention which had been given to the exquisite, hefty bottle showing love for the detail (the grosgrain ribbon) was sadly lacking in the production of the jus.

No less than three egeries front the new Chloé campaign: American cult icon Chloë Sevigny, model Anja Rubik and French actress Clemence Poesy — "each chosen to represent a different facet of the Chloé woman: romantic; edgy, and sexy and sensual" — they all star in the black & white ad campaign, which you can watch here.


(uploaded by carriefan8890)

It is especially interesting to note that Chloë Sevigny, notorious for her outré performance in the Brown Bunny by Vincent Gallo is from now on and for as long as her contract is valid forbidden to star in comparable projects that might harm the reputation of the fragrance and consequently its sales. "It's very flattering," said Sevigny on being picked to represent Chloé Eau de Parfum, before adding, with a laugh, "I'm concerned that the customers might be confused, though; I have the umlaut in my name while they have the accent. I'm Chloë, not Chloé."
I was also surprised by her comment that Chloé has an edible quality about it in the above clip: I certainly didn't detect anything of the sort!
No wonder Chandler Burr slain the new fragrance in his article in The New York Times.

There is yet a third Chloé fragrance that might be confused with both, usually referred to on etailers as Chloé collection 2005, from the year it launched (it was a spring edition). The info from Parfumessence states that it features
"top notes of water lily, passionfruit, and pear, with a heart of tuberose & gardenia over a base of white woods and musk".
I haven't tried it but it is worth bearing in mind, should one be before a counter on which the sales assistant is not completely in tune to the goings-on in the house of Chloé . And why would she?


{*Hydroponics is a method of growing plants using mineral nutrient solutions instead of soil}.


Pic of ad through Threadtrend.com, of original bottle through Amazon, of new bottle through Glam.com and of collection 2005 through Parfumessence.

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Lament for a Fragrance in Sepia ~Cabochard by Gres: fragrance review

“Headstrong” or “stubborn” is not the first thing that comes to mind when I contemplate on my mother’s personality. Yet it was the formidable, petulant perfume thus named, Cabochard, that had won her heart and ~along with Dioressence~ became her insignia. The Grecian-inspired fluted designs of Madame Grès which were cut directly on the body would have suited the Dorian drama of her beauty. Her dreamy flair for romanticism however betrayed appearences and made a fascinating juxtaposition with her bombshell fragrances. Thus the merest whiff out of her now almost empty bottle never fails to bring back poignant memories of my childhood with a Proustian rush. Talking about it dews my eyes like writing the obituary on an era: trying to recapture those sepia memories like a faded vignette is doomed to fail due to the fragrance being irrecovably changed.

Cabochard comes from the old French word “caboche”, meaning "headstrong" or "self-willed", according to the Petit Robert dictionary. It was Alix Grès, neé Germaine Emilie Krebs and formally trained as a sculptress, who opted for it, to accompany the independent nature of her couture. Alix Barton was her first business pseydonum. But she later took her husband’s ~Serge Czerefkov, a Russian painter ~ first name and with a partial anagram settled on Grès, opening la maison Grès in 1942, amidst the German occupation of Paris. Soon she was dressing everyone, from the Dutchess of Windsor to Marlen Dietrich and Greta Garbo.

The story of creating Cabochard
The credit into making Cabochard a success is attributed to Guy Leyssène, who met Madame Grès at a dinner part two years prior to the perfume’s launch, per Michael Edwards. It was Guy's suggestion that she should issue one because it was a profitable enterprise which all the other fashion designers of the times had embarked on. It took only a month for Grès to ask him to help her create her own perfume. {interestingly, according to history of fashion.com the first perfume was called Muse in 1946}. However, nothing is as simple as it might look. "Cabochard is a miracle of complexity […] the secret life of a Parisian woman with no age and no illusions" wrote Luca Turin about its scent in 1994 and its story is just as complex.

The perfume that was in works was a composition by legendary perfumer Guy Robert, called Chouda. Robert was young and under the guidance of mentor Andrée Castanié, then editor of L'Officiel de la Mode et de la Couture, had been introduced to Mme Grès in 1956. But it took a trip to India, the land of exoticism, which prompted Alix Grès to further her plans on the house’s fragrance. The visit had begun innocuously, invited by the Ford Foundation to assess Indian brocades. It was there that Alix Grès discovered water hyacinth: a flower she became enraptured with. It has a sweet odour, rich like tuberose, yet with a fresher top and slightly warmer. The experimentation of Guy Robert yeilded rich fruits: Alix loved it, however Chouda was almost exclusively used by her (only five litres of Chouda were ever made) as it was too flowery for the tastes of the 50s which veered towards classic chypres. She launched another fragrance under the pressure of public input: the mod of what was to become Cabochard, made by Bernand Chant of IFF, was received much more favourably and thus the plan to push Chouda was ultimately abandoned, although the two were issued almost simultaneously in 1959. It comes as a surprise that there were focus groups even back then, but it is a fact that puts things into perspective: public reception is (and will always be) the moniker of how things work in a sector that, although hinges on art, is also largely a business.


The story of the bottle for Cabochard, as well as Chouda, is also extraordinary in that it was the already made and discarded stock of Guighard, a small glass manufacturer later acquired by Pochet. They had made the bottles for another company who never bought them and in order to save costs, Grès bought all 500 of them for both perfumes. The difference was the little bow that adorned the pharmaceutical stopper: grey for Cabochard, green for Chouda. The Cabochard success (it sold 250 bottles in the first week of its launch alone!) secured numerous backorders to the glass manufacturer. In a way, the commercial success owed to the enthusiasm with which it was promoted by a commission salesman formerly working for Piguet (whose biggest seller at the time was Bandit). According to Leyssène the demand was so pressing the sales were doubled each year for the following ten years!

Scent Considerations: A Leathery Chypre Marvel
Cabochard utilised the same aromachemical with Bandit: isobutyl quinoline, a harsh green and pungent, dry leather aroma, yet fanning expensive, precious, sweet flowers over it. Inspired by the archetype it muted the smokiness until the drydown. Cabochard offers a capricious bitter orange opening instead, with the illusion of wading through wild bracken catching a distant whiff of clove and hairspray. The crackling leather, powdery afterfeel of face cosmetics was sustained for hours on skin, emitting grace and confidence in a similar manner to Chanel’s Cuir de Russie, although with rather more sweetness and less birch. To Gres it recalled a walk along a deserted Indian beach:
“the crispness of the early morning air, the warmth of sandalwood, a hint of far-off flowers, and the dry caress of sea breezes”.

The parfum sitting on the dresser of my mother ever since I can remember was so warm and rich than mere drops were enough to scent her hair and garments, retaining the essence of who she was into my heart of hearts. The eau de parfum in older versions is also exceptionally good, while the eau de toilette has a lighter but sharper quality.

The difference between the vintage and the recent re-editions can be traced back to 1984 when Beecham Cosmetics acquired British American Cosmetics, who had bought the Grès brand in the interim after Alix closed the couture house. To celebrate Cabochard's twenty-fifth anniversary, they changed the grey velvet bow into frosted glass, encased the bottle in a black instead of a black-and-white one and brightened the citrus top while also restraining the animalic accord. The 40th anniversary of Cabochard was celebrated in 1999 with a Bacarrat crystal flacon, designed by Serge Mansau and what seems yet another re-formulation which finally put the tombstone on one of the best in my opinion perfumes of the 20th century.

Official notes for Madame Gres Cabochard:
Top: aldehydes, bergamot, mandarin, galbanum, spice
Heart: jasmine, rosa damscena, geranium, ylang-ylang, iris
Base: patchouli, leather, vetiver, castoreum, oakmoss, tobacco, musk, labdanum, sandalwood

Pic of bottle from official Gres site

This Month's Popular Posts on Perfume Shrine