The designer scent that’s a failed attempt at niche.

You may have heard the phrase, “a designer attempt at niche” before, but I often find it not to be applicable or to be at least somewhat misplaced, though I think this is the perfect way to regard Ferrari’s Essence Vetiver (though not successful, IMO).  Fragrantica.com lists the notes as:

…Calabrian bergamot, red and Sichuan pepper and cardamom. The heart includes aroma of coffee, orris root and essence of vetiver. Patchouli, tonka and hazel wood form the base of the perfume.

The first time I wore it, a dab sampling, I didn’t smell much at all, so the second time I decided to go with four sprays to the chest.  There’s an orange-ish quality that’s a touch sour and sort of bounces around at low volume, which is more odd than irritating or pleasant.  My review included the following:

… I can’t say I smell an obvious vetiver note but it does smell like an odd murky composition. Yes, it seems that spice, patchouli, etc. and even coffee is present, but it’s sort of like taking bright oil paints and blending them together until you get a medium brown color with just hints of the original pigments. So I do find it interesting but not all that enjoyable. It’s not sweet, nor animalic, at least not yet. I’ll update if anything changes. The dull color of the bottle certainly seems appropriate!

And it didn’t last all that long either, which was another disappointment.  If this was a typical Lutens with the same notes I would be really interested in sampling it, and I would be surprised if I didn’t like it.  Most likely it would have a heavy amber, patchouli, and/or tonka base, but this one just peters out over time, never really smell more than somewhat interesting.  Here’s another Fragrantica review that is similar:

Down right disappointing 😦
Nothing in this fragrance smells genuine!
Not the vetiver (what I bought it for.. no wonder people say “not for vetiver lover”), not the cardamon (silly me, hoping for something like Voyage d`Hermes), not the bergamot (I just smell something sour and fresh-ish green), and definitely not the potentially gourmand hazelnut and coffee (one can only hope)…
However, it does deliver the sharp peppers [opening] and the patchouli [drydown], which doesn’t help -_-
Interesting maybe, but overall a pretty messy cheap smelling commercial type

I wish I had perceived strong patchouli with the drydown, and I didn’t get the sharp pepper he did, but it does give me an idea!  Next time I should apply a strong patchouli scent underneath where I spray Vetiver Essesnce.  If and when I do that, I’ll update this post.  Otherwise, my experience is that these “niche-like designer” scents are really “hit or miss.”  Franck Olivier’s Oud Touch is really great for the $15 I paid for 100 ml, by contrast.  There were some very positive reviews, though, such as:

I really enjoy this fragrance, everything works well together and it’s almost like nothing I have smelled before, least in my neck of the woods. Drydown is amazing. Like what you like and wear it, I do…

And there was also the idea that it’s a good “starter vetiver” scent, but I got so little vetiver that I can’t agree with that notion.  However, I did pay less than $18 for 100 l new, and so if you like the note list and can sample it, I’d certainly say try it, but as a blind buy I can’t recommend it.  Even if you like the scent you might be disappointed with the longevity and/or projection.

 

Advertisements

You just can’t satisfy some people!

The title refers to the frequent one reads about generic scents.  I have no problem with that criticism, if it seems to make sense, but then you can’t turn around and say that this or that scent is too weird or vile.  There are only so many things the average human in the world today is going to like, and there have been thousands and thousands of scents released in the last decade, so how much variation can there be without word getting out that a whole bunch of them smell weird, vile, or whatever?  They are mostly “variations on a theme” at this point, with perhaps a new aroma chemical providing a slightly different take on one of those themes.  If you want to complain about a weird or vile scent, why don’t you take a moment to tell us what you think a really unique scent would be like?

I decided to write this post specifically after reading reviews for Horizon Extreme by Davidoff.  No, I don’t think it’s anything special (for me), but it is a bit distinct.  Some seem to think it’s another kind of  type scent, for example, here’s one Fragrantica review of it:

I wish it could be exaggeration when I say this smells absolutely fecal off of the skin. stick to davidoff horizon (the non extreme version).

Even if this were true, why smell it up close?  It’s clearly not going to smell that way from a distance (a company like Davidoff/Coty wouldn’t market such a scent in their mainstream lines). The listed notes at Fragrantica.com are:

…top notes of grapefruit, ginger and rosemary cross into the warm heart of cedar, cypriol, leather and nutmeg. Accords of amber and creamy sandalwood are to be discovered at the base.

Here’s my review of it:

Fecal? Heavy leather? Vetiver? Fireside warmth? No, not for me. I can understand how one might detect this or that note, but none are strong. In any case, what I think this does well is to recreate those “old school” scents like Van Cleef & Arpels for Men, but without the lavender. I first did a dab sample, and after a while I could smell leather clearly, but then I wore it again, two sprays to the chest, and it’s mostly a “masculine” blend. At first I got something orangy, and the musk is there for a long time, first aiding with a dry/herbal quality and then after a couple hours it’s a bit powdery but otherwise quite blended. It’s never sweet and I never got anything fecal. Also, if you like the old school scents I doubt this one will be too much for you in any way. In fact, it might be a bit underwhelming. Now if I had used five or more sprays it might “bloom” differently. One person, I think at BN, said this was a dirty/oud type scent, but I have no idea where that perception could originate. I agree with the person who said there is a “coolness” to the drydown, and so I could not categorize this as an oriental. Overall, at a low price, it could be worth a blind buy for those who know what they want.

Just the diversity of the review suggest they were on to something with this composition, but when you go beyond generic you run the risk of not making enough sales because too few buy these concoctions for uniqueness!  Another scent of theirs, The Game Intense, also is anything but generic.  The notes for that one are:

Top note is gin; middle notes are orris and blackwood; base notes are labdanum and patchouli.

And here’s my review of it:

I agree with those who say to give this one some time and then it’s special. And while there may be a touch of this or that aroma chemical, it is blended very well, so that it’s not obvious. If you think you’ll like this, I’d say a blind buy is to be considered, but don’t think you are getting J. Bogart type strength here; instead, you are getting subtlety (something you don’t get with JB scents). Prices at the moment led me to a blind buy, and this is the kind of flanker that might not have been produced in large quantities, so waiting to find it in a bargain bin may not be wise! Also, as far as naming and marketing a scent is concerned, for me this would be best situated in the Varvatos Dark Rebel line; how about Dark Rebel Chain Smoker?

UPDATE: After several hours the chemical nature is apparent (though not strong), but it’s still a “dirty” scent with a touch of something sweet, and overall it holds together rather well, especially if price is taken into account (that is, comparing this one to similar niche).

So, if you want to complain about generic scents, then why don’t you tell us which ones you find so much more interesting and wearable?  At least then we would have a sense of your preferences and we could assess your reviews accordingly.  The same things goes when you say a scent is some sort of horror show.  I applaud Davidoff for releasing these two scents.  The original and Zino may not have been all that novel for the time, but both are among the all time greats, IMO, and while I don’t like Cool Water for Men, it certainly was a new kind of composition when it was released.  How many recent “masculine” designer releases are similar to 1 Million, Invictus, Bleu de Chanel, etc?  What would be the point of another one of those?  Truly novel releases are often related to new aroma chemicals, or at least the decision to use a huge amount of an aroma chemical that had previously been used judiciously.  Today, you can buy the aroma chemicals and more or less try to do it  yourself, if you have what you believe to be a unique idea that would work well.  But if, like most people, you’re not going to do that, don’t expect something incredibly novel and pleasant-smelling from mainstream designer lines.

The “technically incompetent” scent.

A couple of recent “super cheapo” didn’t work out to well for me.  Now it’s one thing to outright dislike a scent, because then you can swap it, sell it in a lot of others you dislike, or give it as a gift (or to charity).    But what happens when you read about the notes and some decent (or better) reviews, and you like the scent, but can barely smell it, and it doesn’t seem to matter how much of it you spray on yourself?  This is quite irritating!  And it’s what I consider to be due to technical incompetence, because at this point we know that these kinds of scents are all rather inexpensive to create (the liquid portion), and so one has to ask why these kinds of scents are marketed when a few cents more would make them strong enough to satisfy a lot more people.  Why take the risk of turning people off to an entire “house?”

The worst example of this I’ve encountered so far is Swiss Army Rock.  The price was low, about $10 total for 100 ml, and the notes sounded great (other than the lavender, which I find to be too strong in many “masculines”).  Parfumo.net has the following note list:

Top Notes	Artemisia, Caraway, Lavender
Heart Notes	Nutmeg, Cedarwood, Frankincense
Base Notes	Patchouli, Leather, Benzoin

Other than the lavender, I was also concerned that a nasty “white musk” might be used, but the musk is actually one of the few good things I can say about this one.  I could say it’s not woody, nor sweet, nor is there much if any patchouli, etc., but when I wore this (3 full sprays to the chest!), my thought was, What am I smelling here?  And then my next thought was, How can anyone release a scent like this?  Interestingly, it is similar (in terms of this quality) to another scent I’ve mentioned on my blog, Club Intense by Sergio Tacchini.  But compared to Rock, CI almost seems technically competent!  Now I have have some luck with recent blind buys; Playboy VIP Edition Black is great (about $7 for 100 ml), and not just for a super cheapo (though of course it might not be to everyone’s taste).  Bogart’s One Man Show Oud Edition is not too far from Dior’s Leather Oud (though after a while I do detect a little iso e super peeking through).

And speaking of iso e super, another blind buy that went wrong is Wild Forest by Armand Basi.  This one had a few reviews, which sounded good.  The notes for that one are:

Top Notes	Pepper, Nutmeg
Heart Notes	Violet leaf, Cedar
Base Notes	Vanilla, Frankincense, Leather, Patchouli, Ambergris, Musk

There was talk of wood, frankincense, pepper, and violet leaf.  Someone (at Fragrantica.com) mentioned.  One person compared it to Armani’s Privé Bois D’encens:

I use it as a more economical alternative to my Giorgio Armani Privé Bois D’encens. I love the frankincense note, really masculine.

And the bottle looks great (if you don’t mind that trees get destroyed for this purpose) – even the cap is wood and has some heft to it.  But while there was a hint of a kind of sparkling green quality at first, it soon became a weak iso e super “nothing scent.”  Despite coming across as little more than iso e super, it was so weak it didn’t bother me at all.  I had to use my hand to waft it up to my nose in order to detect the iso e super.  Is this supposed to be “nouveau minimalism?”  What a great idea (bottle, name, and concept) ruined by an apparent attempt to put almost nothing that can be smelled into the bottle, other than a hint of iso e super.

And while I would be the first person to say, “perhaps my sensitivity is just really low now,” this has not been happening with other scents.  In fact, a couple days before I wore Rock, I wore Unlimited, also from Swiss Army/Victorinox, and it was not only strong enough with one spray, but I was also able to detect the mild patchouli in the base, which imparted a subtle but great “dirtiness” to the scent.  Now that is the kind of dynamism and note contrast I enjoy!  This leads me to think I should “quit while I’m ahead” in the blind buying game.  There were a few others I could have bought at really low prices, such as One Man Show Ruby Edition, but the reviews held me back.  I’m thinking this may be part of a trend, and I don’t want to waste any more money on it!

I think we need a new designation for these scents.  And while “pre-formulation” would be something a jaded aficionado might suggest, I think nearly everyone would agree on “light musk” (I don’t think “light chemical” is going to work, though that’s what I got from Wild Forest, essentially).  That way I know that the notes will be blended nearly into oblivion, but that I will at least get a pleasant, though almost imperceptible scent as a musk that will emanate in wafts (and last quite a while).  For all I know, a lot of people want exactly this kind of scent!  And I should mention, as I have in past posts, that these kinds of scents can function well in layering combinations (as Club Intense has for me), but that doesn’t make it technically competent as a “personal fragrance,” IMO.   As things stand, if you say the scent is an Eau de Toilette and list notes such as the ones for Wild Forest or Rock, you are going to look quite bad when people compare them to scents that might even cost less, such as ones by Cuba, Playboy, Bogart, Lapidus, Jovan, etc., and possibly even some “our impression of” type scents (I really like Dark Flower and Slam, by Dorall Collection, for example).

 

 

An update on Halston 1-12 formulations.

I wrote up a long post about my perceptions of changes in Halston’s Z-14 and 1-12, which you can read here:

https://bigslyfragrance.wordpress.com/2013/05/19/the-disintegration-of-the-fabulous-halston-brothers-z-14-and-1-12/

The other day I had an opportunity to buy an EA formulation of 1-12 at a good price.  That’s not uncommon right now, but what was is that it was in a box with the “short list of ingredients.”  I did some research and found this in a review of 1-12 at Fragrantica.com:

It has, without a question been reformulated. The result is a lot thinner, weaker, less ‘gutsy fragrance’. The boxes look similar except for the fact that evernia prunastri (oakmoss) and evernia furfuracia (tree moss) are not listed as ingredients on the new box. Also, Benzophenone 2 ( a UV absorber) is not on the new box, while butylmethoxydibenzoylmethane, ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate, ethyl salicylate are new ingredients listed. The first two are something to do with absorbing UV (they are used in sunscreens) and the ethyl salicylate smells like wintergreen. It seems that the Benzophenone 2 was removed as it is not approved for use in US sunscreens as it is a possible hormone disruptor.

I hadn’t sampled an older EA formulation of it, so I was curious, but after reading the above and also having learned that the short list of ingredients means the scent was made somewhere between 1998 and 2003 (or so many claim), I thought I’d get a “vintage” formulation.  The batch code is 3HA, and one of the batch code sites says 2013, which likely means 2003, because some companies reuse them every ten years.  Benzophenone 2 is listed but butylmethoxydibenzoylmethane, ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate, and ethyl salicylate are not.

This does indeed smell like my “true vintage” bottle, with strong galbanum.  It may be at touch less complex, rich, and/or strong.  Prices on ebay can be great if you just have patience and wait for a listing that is “vintage.”  Other information about this box/bottle (125 ml size):

On the front of the box it says Natural Spray Cologne Vaporisateur.

The label on the bottom of the bottle says French Fragrances, not EA Fragrances, but it was sealed in plastic so the seller likely would not have been willing to open it up to look, though it may not matter.

The most important thing seems to be to find a box with the “short list of ingredients.”  This one has five items listed in total.

The “nothing fragrance.”

First let me make clear that what might be a “nothing fragrance” for me, might be a “masterpiece” for you, or vice versa.  As you might have guessed, this 2007 release, Jil Sander Man, is one such scent for me.  But what’s interesting is the glowing reviews for it.  Before I get to those, let me me disclose the notes (from Fragrantica.com):

Top notes are lavender, violet and bergamot; middle notes are sage and vetiver; base notes are cedar, myrrh and russian leather.

Just as Fragrantica alone, we can read reviews that include the following:

…a remarkable fragrance.

…Rubbery? Yes. Smoky? Yes. Unique? absolutely.

…It opens with an aromatic flowery phase (bergamot, lavender & violet – one of my preferred flowery notes) then switch on a bitter rooty-spicy one (sage & vetiver). In the drydown, when the sweet woody-incensy combo arises (myrrth & cedar) it feels very smooth, elegant and also a bit leathery.

…I use this only at special occasions when I want to feel this wonderful smoke and leather.

…This is one of the most delicious scent I have ever felt!

…basically a woody-leathery violet scent with vetiver and cedar (“pencil”) notes and a slight smoky fog.

…It is too heavy sweet and without interesting individuality. Seems even unisex because of that sugar sweetness.

…Love this! What a nice smoke, vetiver, wood combo!

…This is such a overwelaming scent ! Truly a Masterpice.

…Very much like Cacharel NEMO, about the same sillage. Also, there are a few aspects of this fragrance that remind me of Vintage YSL M7. The biggest is the AWESOME powdery drydown, not a talc, but a wonderful leathery powder. It is just awesome!

…The drydown is good and surprising. Do not let the opening fool you.

…Truly a hidden GEM ! Dark…sexy…masculine…mysterious.

My review is:

For a while I was thinking, a smoother Rochas Man, but without a coffee note (or one that is very mild). However, there is also a “fresh” element (“old school” style, not a bunch of powerful/nasty aroma chemicals). I’d say the sweetness is moderate, and it’s not a strong scent overall, perhaps an “office friendly” version of Rochas Man. I’m not getting a smoky quality, as others have, and I certainly wouldn’t call it a remarkable scent, though I can understand how some might really enjoy it (“dark,” “sexy, or “masculine:” I’d say a “big no” to those descriptions). Don’t expect to clearly smell some or even most of the listed notes – this is more of a “classy” designer blend scent. This is not the kind of scent I’d wear often, if ever really, because when I want at least some of those notes I want them to be more obvious or stronger.

To be fair, there were a few reviews that included comments that I agree with, but overall I was thinking, “how could such a ‘meh’ scent be described in these ways?”  In some ways, I’d say this is a good example of a scent that was blended “into oblivion.”  But I can’t say anything else “bad” about it, other than it may have been a scent of its time (or perhaps the time had passed it by before it was released).  The youngsters would likely say it’s too “old” or “mature,” and it’s not what I would call an aficionado or “niche crowd” scent.  It certainly could be a good “office scent,” but only in the sense that it’s weak and nondescript, at least at this point in time.  Since it was released the same year I first started reading about fragrances (and in my case it was at the very end of 2007), I can’t say it was perceived as an “office scent” with a bit of an edge at that time.  However, I purchased a bottle as part of a lot, so I’m not too disappointed.  I’ll likely move it out by swap or sale soon, but I’m almost regretful that I “wasted” a day wearing it when I could have worn something I’d have enjoyed!

Viking’s “naturalness:” let’s ask an expert.

This post is a continuation of the last one.  First, I’ll mention that the point is to address the claim that 80% of the non-perfumer’s alcohol content of a Creed Viking bottle is “natural.”  The “problem” is that this is not consistent with “modern perfumery,” which relies on synthetics to provide potency to these concoctions.  Without these, one is very limited in terms of the kinds of compositions one can create that will satisfy consumers’ expectations of longevity and projection.  And what makes the 80% claim especially ridiculous, IMO, is how powerful Viking is, and it doesn’t smell at all natural to me (the wood notes in particular seem highly synthetic), unlike some other Creed scents, which are impressive in terms of blending the naturals with the synthetics.  What percentage “natural” are those?  Perhaps a reader would like to contact Creed and ask them how natural this or that scent of theirs is, relative to Viking.  If nothing else, that might provide some humor.

The fragrance chemist I interviewed for a post on this blog a while back was willing to speak to this issue, and here’s what this person said:

I have not had the chance to try it yet, and the claim about being 80% natural is akin to the legal notion of being within the scope of the law but not in keeping with the spirit of the law. Technically they could be telling the truth because so many aroma chemicals are derived from natural sources, but to use that as a selling point is somewhat lazy and disingenuous (like saying that cheetos are made of whole grain, etc.) Also, it’s a very low stakes claim for them to make, because you’d need to do a great deal of leg room to disprove it (and would need some expensive equipment and a fairly deep knowledge of chemistry) so they clearly don’t mind casually throwing out claims that sound impressive to the average joe.

That said, Creed is known for their truth-adjacent marketing, so you’re right on the money to be skeptical.

It’s very rare that a company would use most of the naturals found in one of these blends for any commercial fragrance (or for the parfum in a functional product), for a number a reasons:

1. Cost. Most naturals have synthetic counterparts that are cheaper. Easy enough.

2. Sourcing. It’s very hard to ensure consistent quality when dealing with naturals and is very costly (see reason 1.)

3. Regulation. The rules on safety are tight (and getting tighter every day) for cosmetic products. A place like the perfumers workshops sell their stuff as educational tools and not functional products, which allows them to sidestep the testing you’d normally have to undergo to put a product to market.

4. Technical aspect. Naturals, while often providing a nice finishing touch to a composition (in small doses), can interact with each other in weird ways and tend not hold up as well over time (this applies mostly to high volatility stuff, hence why your vintage perfumes top notes tend to go off.) For companies looking to create a product that can sit in warehouses for years, this is not an ideal setup.

However, as perfumer Chris Bartlett points out, in the industry, a natural ingredient means:

Aroma chemicals isolated to various levels of purity from natural starting materials by means that do not involve chemical transformations. Also in this category are individual aroma chemicals produced by means of bacterial fermentation.

https://pellwall.com/product-category/ingredients-for-perfumery/natural-ingredients/naturalisolates/

So as I’ve said before, if Creed could produce Viking this way, they have done nearly the equivalent of deriving a pound of gold from a few pounds of lead!  If they haven’t had a major scientific breakthrough at their lab, then the list of ingredients on the box may help us out here.  For Viking it is:

alcohol, parfum (fragrance), aqua (water), limonene, linalool, ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate, ethylhexyl salicylate, butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane, geraniol, eugenol, coumarin, cintronellol, citral, cinnamyl alcohol, farnesol, isoeugenol, benzyl alcohol, BHT.

Now this may not mean much to you, but I think that if we look at the labels of other scents, ones that are “mass market” and with no claims to 80% “naturals,” things might make more sense.  For example, the ingredients for Calligraphy Rose by Aramis are:

alcohol, parfum (fragrance), aqua (water), butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane, ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate, cintronellol, ethylhexyl salicylate, geraniol, linalool, benzyl benzoate, coumarin, cinnamyl alcohol, eugenol, benzyl cinnamate cinnamal, benzyl alcohol, citral, limonene, isoeugenol.

Generally, the list of ingredients can provide some idea of what the scent smells like, but more importantly in terms of this blog post, such a list tells us that it’s likely the was made the way other mass consumer scents are.  My guess is that polysantol or another powerful sandalwood synthetic (perhaps more than one) was used in Viking, but that would not be listed unless it was considered a potential allergen, from what I understand.  And remember, there is something called “natural perfumery;” here is what one natural perfumer stated on his site:

As Luca Turin explained, mainstream fragrances simply cannot afford anymore to use them because of their price: “The big six perfumery firms are aroma chemicals manufacturers, and it is in their interest to keep naturals, with their attendant problems of price and quality fluctuations, to a bare minimum.

He discloses exactly what he uses to make his fragrances:

Absolute as defined by ISO 9235
Alcohol natural
Animal Extracts and tinctures: (civet, Castoreum, Hyraceum, Ambergris, Honey bee).
Concrete: as defined by ISO 9235
Essential oils: as defined by ISO 9235
Extracts: as defined by ISO 9235
Propylen Glicole (PG) (with my cocoa extract only) 
Resinoids: as defined by ISO 9235
Tinctures: as defined by ISO 9235
Water

https://attarperfumes.net/guaranty-of-naturality/

Why can’t Creed tell us how they define natural?  If you are interested in natural perfumery, there’s a New York Times article about it that mentions this perfumer:

NOTE:  I have no affiliation with this or any perfumer, other than a small number of  messages exchanged with Chris Bartlett quite some time ago through the Basenotes.net message service, though that’s not an affiliation, as far as I know (and I also disclosed obtaining samples and a bottle from the M. Cross company when I reviewed his offerings).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aggressively negative responses to reality: Are we now living in the age of “unhealthy skepticism?”

After learning that on a UK Creed web site, their Viking scent was described (in a highly misleading way, IMO) as 80% natural and that my 100 ml bottle of Yacht Man Victory (which cost me less than $3 total for 100 ml, new) had this stated on the box, “80% vol. alcohol of natural origin,” I decided to write this post.  Here is what that Creed page looked like (and perhaps it still does at time of publication):

I decided to post a thread at Basenotes.net pointing this out.  I expected that a “Creed fanboy” or two might have something nasty to say, but it soon became clear that I had become some kind of negative emotion scapegoat for quite a few people there.  It’s not entirely surprising, as it’s a well-known psychological phenomenon.  Let’s start with:

Many of us take criticism more personally than we should, and that’s where we’re getting it wrong. Dr. Paulus says that it’s important for us to separate criticism from our sense of self. We don’t want to view it as criticism about who we are as a person, but rather, as feedback about an individual action, a specific event or a particular situation.

https://crew.co/blog/handling-criticism-better/

However, the “80% natural incident” reveals that some people can’t even accept obvious and deserved criticism of some of the products that they use!  Apparently, they can’t separate themselves from the product, which seems very similar to the way quite a few fans of sports teams act.  They also seem to personify the company, so that when a real person (like me in this case) rightfully criticizes that company, it’s as if they view it as a big muscular guy pushing around a child!  That is, they totally reverse the reality of the situation.  And in this case, the company in question has a history of making up history!  It also has a motivation, which is to try and “cash in” on the people who like to buy items with “natural ingredients.”  What’s my motivation?  I hate it when people try to mislead others, especially when it seems like “corporate greed” is the only reason, but I still have no interest in trying to make one company appear worse than is the reality of the situation.

The marketing of many fragrances is sometimes ludicrous, so singling out one company is not fair; it’s an “industry issue.”  However, Creed seems to try and market to those who think they can encounter “royal” experiences by spraying on one of their fragrances, which isn’t all that common, though plenty has already been said about such claims.  Nobody, to my knowledge, has yet to address this “natural” claim, so I wanted to make sure I got the word out about it, and then readers can decide for themselves.  In fact, that one Fragrantica reviewer (that I quoted two posts ago) was spreading this notion, which while perhaps not an outright lie, is an excellent example of a misleading statement, IMO.  If you can’t just accept this without getting very angry, I suggest seeking therapy, because you are “cheating” yourself, nobody else.  If you want to argue that it’s not all that misleading, then we can simply “agree to disagree.”  Why attack people personally, or act like you can read their minds (and conclude the person is a “hater” of a particular company), or go off on irrelevant tangents in an attempt to deflect attention, etc.?  Don’t cheat yourself!  Here is the thread in question, so that you can see what I’m referencing:

http://www.basenotes.net/threads/448296-The-quot-naturalness-quot-of-fragrances-don-t-be-fooled-!

In the case of Viking, there are some apparent wood aroma chemicals I found to be rather irritating, but I don’t hold that against them.  They’ve likely done quite a bit of testing and most people don’t have any issues with these.  However, it seems that many people react negatively to the fact that this is not the case for everyone, despite evidence suggesting this is just reality, for example:

Do you get a headache from the perfume of the lady next to you at the table? Do cleaning solutions at work make your nose itch? If you have symptoms prompted by everyday smells, it does not necessarily mean you are allergic but rather that you suffer from chemical intolerance…

The results were observed using methods based on both electroencephalography (EEG) and functional brain imaging technology (fMRI). The EEG method involved placing electrodes on the heads of trial subjects and registering the minute changes in tension in the brain that arise following exposure to smells. Unlike the people in the normal group, Linus Andersson explains, the intolerant people did not evince a lessening of brain activity during the period of more than an hour they were exposed to a smell. The inability to grow accustomed to smells is thus matched by unchanging brain activity over time.

“These individuals also have a different pattern in the blood flow in their brains, compared with those who perceive that a smell diminishes. A similar change can be found in patients with pain disorders, for example.”

Sensitivity to smell impacts the entire body A further finding in the dissertation is that chemical intolerant people also react strongly to substances that irritate the mucous linings of their nose and mouth…

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120120182914.htm

Back to the point about the apparent attempt to mislead now.  As is stated on page 31 of Turin’s/Sanchez’ “Perfumes: The A-Z Guide:” “…synthetics usually make up more than 90 percent of fragrance;” this refers to the fragrance/parfum portion, as many scents are around 90% perfumer’s alcohol overall (“by volume”).  Thus, a “very natural” scent of this type (meaning not one that is made by “natural perfumers”) would be one that included naturals at more than 10% of the fragrance portion, perhaps even 15% or so, but now “things get really weird.”  That is, a Basenotes member emailed Creed (at the UK site, I believe), and received this response, or so he claimed:

We can confirm that the 80% of natural ingredients refers to the perfume concentrate rather than the final product.

We hope that the above information has been of use to you and that you enjoy trying our new Viking fragrance.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any further queries,

With best wishes,

Customer Services
creedfragrances.co.uk
p: 020 7630 9400
a: 2nd Floor Peregrine House, 26-28 Paradise Road, TW9 1SE
w: http://www.creedfragrances.co.uk e: customerservices@creedfragrances.co.uk

This is simply not consistent with modern perfumery, and note that we don’t even know who this person is or what his/her position at Creed is.  Even who marketed a vintage scent like Red for Men claimed that their concoction contained a “blend of 551 ingredients, including 35 naturals” in the press release.  And while Viking’s notes are a bit different, these are similar scents compositionally (though to me, vintage  Red clearly smells more natural), especially in terms of complexity,  and so note that the number of ingredients of synthetic origin in Red are much more numerous than the naturals.  If the fragrance portion of Viking is more than 80% natural (in the way most of us think of the concept and how it is applied to food items in the USA), then Viking would be an incredible new development in the history of modern perfumery.  Do you have any doubt that they would want everyone in the world to know?  In my next post I will provide more information, including what a fragrance chemist thinks about this claim (80% of the fragrance portion/concentrate).

NOTE:  I also believe that quite a bit of thought was put into making Viking and that they wanted to do something at least somewhat interesting and with good performance.  So, price aside, I have nothing “objectively bad” to say about the scent itself, at least relative to what one has come to expect these days from many “houses.”