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.

Advertisements

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.”

 

The difference between magical thinking and reasonable assumptions.

First, I suggest you read this blog post before reading what is below the link:

https://frompyrgos.blogspot.com/2018/01/understanding-difference-between-terms.html

In graduate school, I learned to investigate phenomena beyond textbooks.  Basically, you learn about the existing notions, then study the primary sources for yourself or possibly do studies/experiments.  And you have several professors who serve as advisors, formally or informally.  Today, you can do much of this online, but a major problem is that many if not most people don’t appear to be able to distinguish between those who have expertise and those who are pretending to be experts (if they are able to gain access to someone with expertise).  In this online world, though, one can try a different approach (at least with the fragrance industry, that is, if it’s difficult to find experts who are willing to speak “on the record” if at all), which is to go to the relevant “online communities” and ask questions.  If you don’t useful responses (even if that is due to poor explanations rather than lies, misinformation, etc.), you can then present a tentative conclusion of your own.  If it turns out you are incorrect, that’s fine, because you want to learn something, not impress others with your “expertise,” which you don’t possess, at least officially, anyway!

Now as to the subject of claims about how these kinds of olfactory concoctions are being “debased” or otherwise modified significantly in recent years.  Perfumer Chris Bartlett, who has been willing to answer questions at Basenotes.net if not elsewhere as well, has stated that traditional chypres are no longer possible if current IFRA guidelines are used, for example.  But this is not only an issue for naturals; there have been complaints about the “restriction” of certain aroma chemicals going back at least about a decade!  And one in particular that comes up every once in a while is Terre d’Hermes; the claim is that the first formulation contained 55% iso e super (ies), but that it contains much less now (along with other ingredients, possibly).  This passage from a blog is often quoted in this context:

Here is a table of Top Ten Fragrances with Regard to Their Content in Iso E Super
No., Fragrance Name (Company, launch year), Iso E Super
[NB. the percentage is in regards to compound, not diluted ready to use product]

1 Molecule 01 (escentric molecules, 2005) 100%
2 Perles de Lalique (Lalique, 2007) 80%
3 Poivre Samarcande (Herme`s, 2004) 71%
4 Escentric 01 (escentric molecules, 2005) 65%
5 Terre d’Hermes (Hermes, 2006) 55%

https://perfumeshrine.blogspot.com/2009/03/iso-e-super-its-merits-its-faults-geza.html

And here is the kind of concern one might encounter (from nearly five years ago):

A lot of people are anosmic to ISO E Super, (as well as certain musks).

I own Encre Noir and sometimes have a hard time detecting part of it.

It has a lot of ISO E Super in it. Terre d’Hermes does as well and the amount of ISO E Super in that one used to be even more significant until regulations curbed the usage of the chemical somewhat.

https://www.fragrantica.com/board/viewtopic.php?id=68003

Are a lot of people anosmic to it?  I would guess that is the case and would be very surprised if it weren’t the case, but could it just be the amount that is the issue?  Anyway, the key point here is the obvious misinformation, apparently: TdH has not been restricted in terms of at least the ies content.  Most likely, this person saw somewhere that TdH is 55% ies and that ies was now restricted to 21.4%, and so assumed that recent formulations were much weaker.  And one has to question why IFRA bothered to create this new guideline, since if a scent is “100% iso e super,” and it’s 80% alcohol, that means it’s around 20% ies (a bit less due to the water, and possibly preservatives/dyes), still under 21.4%!  What is the purpose of a “restriction” that has no practical use?  It almost seems like it was intended to be misleading.

Before going further with TdH and the ies content, I think it’s worth addressing an area of misunderstanding.  When one looks at a list of ingredients on a typical EdT box of today, which would be something like “alcohol, water/aqua, parfum/fragrance, linalool, citral, eugenol, etc. (possibly a preservative like BHT would be included, towards the end, and dyes are common, such as “yellow 5,” or tartrazine).  This means there is more alcohol than anything else in the liquid (clearly, the glass that comprises the bottle is not relevant here).  Also, sometimes we see “alcohol, parfum/fragrance, water/aqua…” and then the other items.  On the box, we see a number with the percentage symbol next to it, usually somewhere between about 80 and 90 (for EdT and EdPs), which represents the alcohol content.  Thus, we know that everything else listed makes up about 20% or less of the liquid within.

So, why does anyone need to tell us that TdH isn’t or never was 55% ies; why don’t they say that the portion that is “parfum/fragrance” may be 55% ies?  Isn’t that obvious to those who know what “90% vol.” (or whatever amount) means?  But things get worse, for as you can read on the FromPyrgos blog page cited above, some people want to talk in terms of “of compound” and “in concentrate.”  This may be the way perfumers talk to each other, but it is not what consumers have been and are exposed to, and it obviously can be quite misleading!  For example, let’s say you buy some peach ice cream with this list of ingredients: “milk, cream, sugar,  artificial peach flavoring, peaches.”  When you eat it, you see bits of actual peach, but even in parts of the ice cream that have no visible peach bits, it still tastes strongly of peach.  You know that the artificial peach flavoring is responsible or largely responsible, because, being listed in front of peaches, there is more of it in the mix, and it’s not something you would be able to see, unlike the actual peach bits.  Do we need someone to talk of the elements that comprise the ice cream as “of compound” or “in concentrate?”  Wouldn’t that just make things very confusing for many if not most consumers?

Now let’s take a look at a comment by someone who was confused about this about a decade ago:

I was quite scared and angry until I read the comments. I thought it was a ban – I guess I jumped the gun. If comments by Alex (I’m guessing our Alex?) are correct, then the limitation on Iso E Super will be 20% of the final composition. He says that TdH is only 5% Iso E Super in the final product (based on 50% of concentrate, at 10% EdT strength). He says we should worry if the regulation was, say, 10%.

http://www.basenotes.net/threads/218008-IFRA-regulation-of-ISO-E-Super

But why does it need to be that complicated?  You can look at the box or label and see what the alcohol content is, and then you know the parfum/fragrance is going to be a percentage of whatever is left over, so if it says “90% vol.,” you know that the parfum/fragrance is less than 10% (since there is also water, probably other things that contribute to the smell – certainly the case with TdH – and possibly dyes and preservatives as well).  But now we need to understand what IFRA restricted, in terms of ies, and that apparently means that it can be used up to 21.4% of the entire content, not just the parfum/fragrance content.  Since TdH was one of the strongest ies scents of all time, “restricting” the ies content to about four times this is not what most people would consider any kind of “restriction” (especially compared to their most recent guidelines on oakmoss!).  Thus we have another area of potential confusion.  Also, if you want to blame someone for a reduction of ies in TdH, it would seem that would be Hermes.  Why not send them an email and ask, as a BN member did with Creed’s “80% natural ingredients in the parfum portion” claim” (to be addressed in my next blog post)?  And do we need to know about “dilution?”  Of course it’s diluted with the alcohol – otherwise when you sprayed it you would never know what you would be getting!  It would be like the peach ice cream, at least in terms of being able to pick out the peach bits and only eat those (if you decanted it and if the undiluted parfum/fragrance portion was visible).

As to claims that some people are imagining ies content, we only have to turn to the Wikipedia page on this aroma chemical to see the reality there:

…chronic exposure to Iso E Super from perfumes may result in permanent hypersensitivity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetramethyl_acetyloctahydronaphthalenes

And as is stated there, it seems to be dangerous as well:

Iso E Super is toxic and bioaccumulative in aquatic organisms and the environment, and is suspected to be bioaccumulative in humans.

So, I certainly would be one to applaud more restrictions of iso e super (because I seem to be one of the people have become hypersensitized to it), but unfortunately that doesn’t seem to be an issue with IFRA at the moment.  And now I’ll turn back to the title of this post.  There is no magical thinking on my part, nor has there been, in terms of at least ies.  That is, I have and am still trying to figure out what the reality is here.  For example, I still don’t understand why it’s necessary to talk in terms of “in concentrate” and “of compound” when we know the alcohol content is going to be so high, and we also know that of course it’s been diluted into the alcohol, or else it would smell differently when we sprayed it!

Misunderstanding that is due to experts not being able to explain well or not wanting to divulge “industry secrets” is like a poorly-written textbook that also may contain misinformation.  If that’s the case, you might want to investigate for yourself, and as part of that you might want to put forth a tentative hypothesis, to see what the responses are to it.  One of those responses might lead you to the truth, and so appearing to be “wrong” is a small price to pay.   If I was wrong, that involved making the reasonable assumption that the 21.4% ies “restriction” must refer to the parfum/fragrance portion, since otherwise it’s essentially a meaningless gesture, apparently.  Moreover, it’s often a good idea to continue to press the investigation forward, whereas magical thinking is characterized by a “closed mind.”  Overall, magical thinking seems to involve believing things that are inconsistent with what is known (in some cases including the “laws of nature”), as well as an inability to recognize that one’s  perceptions can vary significantly.  Perhaps worst of all, those who engage in it tend to persist stubbornly in their notions, assuming that what is at best a tentative hypothesis can’t possibly be wrong, which can mislead others too!

NOTE:  You might be asking yourself (as I did), whether certain aroma chemicals that appear on the ingredient list, such as linalool, are part of the parfum/fragrance portion but are just listed separately for some reason.  If so, doesn’t this violate the “rule” for listing ingredients, which is that the one that is most common is listed first and the one that is least common is listed last (and so forth)?  I asked a fragrance chemist whom I met during a swap, and this is the response I got:

They [that is, items like linalool, citral, and eugenol] are considered part of the parfum, but are listed for a number of reasons. The items listed tend to fall into a number of categories:  GRAS (generally recognized as safe), ubiquitous (long tail theory in action) and used primary as blenders/fixatives/stabilizers/preservatives. Listing them started as a way to show some transparency over what is going into their cosmetics while not giving much away at all. The industry was compelled to start the practice of throwing the consumer a bone a few decades past, and once rules get stuck in place they tend to take hold.

Apparently, “transparency” is not the real goal here, at least for those in the industry, but whatever the case may be, unless percentages are listed, we can’t know for sure (a GC/MS study can be useful here but is rarely done AND disclosed to the public) how much of anything is in the liquid, and when a percentage is given, as was the case with the ies content of TdH long ago, one might want to ask the source of the information (or misinformation) whether he/she is referring to all the liquid in the bottle or just the parfum/fragrance portion.

 

Cases of non-mysterious “Mysteries?”

 

I’ve read a lot of strange claims lately while perusing fragrance reviews (political news too, but I’m sure you’re already familiar with those items), for example, these are recent Creed Viking reviews on Fragrantica.com:

The British Creed site makes a point of noting that this is 80% natural ingredients. That’s an interesting decision on their part . I would guess it’s related to the explosion in popularity for Creed and niche in general over the last couple years – trying to make the point that they have not become a “mass producer” and forced to go synthetic because of it.

None of the ingredients in Viking have any real value – although if they continue to use an infusion process, that’s where the costs would really come from .
Anyway. Probably overall not a bad idea on their part. There will likely be more of it going forward.

One thing that did not surprise me about Viking – it was designed with ingredients that have not been part if the IFRA restrictions. Bergamot is the only exception – and the rose is probably synthetic for practical reasons.

And:

smelt it once, smelt very weak , went back 10 minutes later,nothing there. Creed is a joke, especially with their prices. People, we are all being fooled by these perfume houses. please take me back to the 70s and 80s, when colognes were real, not like these light petty lasting and projecting crap we have today. i would not have a Creed even if you bought it for me. Say what you want about me, i dont care. u want to spend hundreds on water, go ahead, i can get water for cheap at the supermarket.

As to the first one, yes, when you read something like “80% vol.” on a bottle or box, that means the alcohol content, and alcohol is “natural.”  That’s it.  Viking is a “highly synthetic” scent, AFAICT.  The wood note alone is laughably synthetic, IMO (though there could have been a mix of naturals and synthetics used to compose it).  An “interesting decision?”  No, if one could make that kind of powerful, “crowd-pleasing” scent using 80% naturals in the fragrance portion, that would be a great accomplishment, but only if it smelled entirely natural, which it clearly does not.  And the other day, I bought a bottle of Yacht Man Victory for less than $3 new total (100 ml and not a tester); the box says: “80% vol. alcohol of natural origin.”  The rest of his statement I can’t say I understand, but it sounds like “fanboy speak” to me, the interesting question being how does one become such a person, assuming he was not paid to do it (directly or indirectly).

In the second “review,” it sounds like a newbie who experienced olfactory fatigue (I had the same problem back in 2008, but then not long thereafter, became hyper-sensitized!).  At the very least, this person should tell us which scents he has found to be very strong and also if he tried to approach his claim systematically.  That is, one could wear the supposedly weak scent on Monday, then the supposedly strong scent on Tuesday, then the weak scent on Wednesday, then the strong scent on Thursday, etc.  If you want to make this claim you need to make sure it’s not you rather than the scent!  Another amusing and strange thing I noticed were how many people took great offense at obviously humorous reviews (on Fragrantica) of Sauvage Parfum, which has yet to be released.  Many droned on and on about how terrible it was that SP has so many “dislikes,” yet “loves” soon surpassed the dislikes!  This led me to write up a couple of humorous reviews of my own, which were voted off the page, so I decided to try “reverse psychology,” posting this non-review:

What’s with all the hate, people? Dior is a great brand, always has been, always will be! The haters spend so much time making fun of a scent they never tried, it’s just ridiculous. Why don’t you people find something better to do with your time them coming to a review page for a fragrance that has yet to be released and just blathering on and on? You know it’s going to be a huge hit and everyone’s going to love it, and it makes you jealous, doesn’t it? Well, grow up for goodness sake; if you don’t like it then just don’t wear it. Why is that so hard to do? Why spend all that time and effort just typing up the hate? I just don’t understand it. Nobody cares about that stuff; they’re going to go to the local stores and buy up all the bottles, and there’s nothing you can do about it!

I thought it was would get voted off too, but last time I looked it had two balloons!  Finally, somebody said what my non-review implied:

Amusing that you all complain about ‘hate votes’ while complicit of love and like votes. So it’s ok to like and love it before release but not dislike? I personally don’t vote on anything I haven’t smelled myself, but if you want to maintain the integrity of the system, you should be upset about any votes before release- good or bad.

We shall see how long it lasts before it gets voted down.  Why can so few people see the obvious, or the likely obvious?  This is not a new problem, but it’s become very obvious with all the people who want to share their views online these days.  And it’s not difficult to find research that demonstrates this, for example:

A new study from the University of Iowa finds that once people reach a conclusion, they aren’t likely to change their minds, even when new information shows their initial belief is likely wrong and clinging to that belief costs real money.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151116143602.htm

But why are the beliefs there in the first place?  Of course, for many if not most of us, there are things we would like to believe, such as that if we spend a lot more money on a scent than most others do, there is a good reason for the decision (“it’s more natural and it was produced by people who have hundreds of years of tradition behind them,” for example).  There’s some interesting research on this as well:

It has been well established that people have a “bias blind spot,” meaning that they are less likely to detect bias in themselves than others…

They also found that people with a high bias blind spot are those most likely to ignore the advice of peers or experts, and are least likely to learn from de-biasing training that could improve the quality of their decisions.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150608213028.htm

When I was quite young, I was exposed to various movies and TV shows about “mysteries,” such as “Big Foot,” supposed UFO sightings, “ESP,” ghosts, spontaneous combustion, etc., which was not “age-appropriate,” IMO.  However, it led me to be quite critical of not just extraordinary claims but also mundane ones.  If you are not aware of it, there is at least one “mystery,” that has led to all kinds of extraordinary speculation (at least in the USA), the Dyatlov Pass Incident (Soviet Union, 1959), a photo from which is posted above:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyatlov_Pass_incident

I saw the author of a book on this subject discuss it on a daytime TV show a couple of years ago (the book is titled “Dead Mountain”).  Like those who make all kinds of incredible claims about scents, those who tried to understand why the group left the tent without proper clothing have not looked at the evidence as a whole, and instead assumed the people must have been frightened terribly.  The author of “Dead Mountain” suggests the people were in a state of confusion due to a sound phenomenon (apparently this would be the first time it occurred in recorded human history), but when you look at the evidence, the inside of the tent was as orderly as anyone could imagine (and look at how small it was, considering nine people had to sleep in it):

Moreover, the tracks away from the tent demonstrate that they weren’t running away, but divided into two groups for a while (suggesting that two factions had formed).  The author mentions that some Russians thought it was due to a fight involving the two women (meaning one or more of the men were harassing them, presumably – see the quotes below), but there is evidence that the men were not getting along all that well either (the photo I used for this post, which seems to show one man glaring at another).  Here are some passages from the group’s diary entries that suggest things may have “spiraled out of control:”

Yuri [not the same Yuri who became ill and didn’t die on the trip] moves to the second compartment with terrible cursing and accusation that we betrayed him.   We can’t fall asleep for awhile and arguing about something…

And (written by one of the two women):

The curtains hung in the tent are quite justified.

And (also written by one of the two women):

Yuri Yudin [who became ill] now goes back home. It is a pity, of course, that he leaves us. Especially for me and Zina, but nothing can be done about it.

And there’s this short, “mysterious” statement (written by one of the men), that suggests there could have been internal strife that he tried ameliorate:

I can’t, although I tried.

And here the group leader, Igor Dyatlov, seems to be saying that this trip is not as easy as previous ones he has led (two days before the deadly incident), which could relate to the photo I included above:

Tired and exhausted we started to prepare the platform for the tent. Firewood is not enough. We didn’t dig a hole for a fire. Too tired for that.

This is consistent with the possibility that the World War II veteran decided to show the “youngsters” that Igor Dyatlov was incompetent but that he could show them how to survive, as he had done during the winter days he experienced during the war.  When the veteran was found, it was clear that he and those who went with him tried to dig out a shelter the way Russian soldiers did.  The author of “Dead Mountain” mentions that people can survive for 6-8 hours outdoors under the conditions that existed on that night, so it seems as though the group had split into at least two factions and had decided to go outside to demonstrate or “settle” something (there were injuries on the hands, arms, and head of several of the men that suggested rather savage fighting!).  After two men died sitting at a fire they started, three of the group (including Igor) decided to try and get back to the tent whereas four others, including the veteran, decided to go off in a different direction, and may only have died because of a fall into a ravine (they were clothed better than the others, for some reason).

Most people (including adults) seem to want to believe that there is still some kind of “magic” in the world.  Some experience it by watching cute kitten videos on Youtube, but others appear to seek literal magic!  And the magic is there, though not of supernatural origin – it involves the unique way our minds/brains perceive the world and how we can change that perception.  When I began learning how to paint portraits and landscapes  naturalistically, for instance (circa 2000), I needed to “rewire my brain” so that I could look at an object or scene in “values” rather than what I thought were colors.  In one experience, subjects were asked to paint a tree, and they used brown for the trunk.  However, after you “rewire your brain” for the task, you see the “real color” (often colors) involved, and that is not just “tube color” but you think in terms of what mixtures you will need (usually some white is included).  Someone who insists that color perception is “objective” would likely have great difficulty painting naturalistically.  For those who want many examples of our “flawed” perceptions, the TV show “Brain Games” is probably the best to watch (there are likely free episodes on Youtube).  One BNer, however, prefers to think it’s something “magical:”

…I used to think I had bought fakes, early on in the hobby when I would open a bottle and barely be able to detect anything. But then the scents would change over the next month or two. I’ve never been able to figure out if it’s some kind of maceration process where the fragrance, for lack of a better word, “blooms” or whether or not it’s the nose deciphering some kind of scented code and being able to make sense of it with repeated wearings. But HERE is where I believe it’s the former: I’ll open something and wear it and it will seem sort of flat and uninteresting, and then when I use it a month later it’s very different. Now my nose has still only smelled it that one time before (this time being the second). Is that enough for the nose to “decipher the code” so to speak, or is it more likely that it’s because the fragrance has had a month to macerate after being exposed to a significant influx of air?

http://www.basenotes.net/threads/432653-Do-Creed-fragrances-quot-Mature-quot-in-the-bottle-Royal-Oud

Haven’t all adults (who can hear) heard something that wasn’t real (such as thinking that you hear someone call out your name)?  Researchers point out that auditory hallucinations are the most common and nearly everyone has had them.  And for those who drive cars, haven’t you ever seen what appears to be a large puddle ahead, only to realize that there isn’t any water there at all?  We know that many people can experience greater olfactory sensitivity when ill, and that sometimes the smell of a certain food is not as pleasant (or outright revolting) as it is at other times?  My guess is that with many people who make the claim, top notes are mostly what they experience.  Thus, if/when they become more sensitive to the base notes, they think the scent has become considerably stronger.  I certainly experienced this, as a newbie, and was quite surprised.  My suggestion:  take a step back and don’t jump to conclusions.  Work on self-awareness, which is something nearly everyone can benefit from; the problem seems to be that those who are least self-aware think they are the most self-aware (and watching a few episodes of “Brains Games” couldn’t hurt either)!

NOTE:  In the photo (at the top of this post) it appears that the young leader of the group, Igor Dyatlov, is surprised that the World War II veteran (in his late 30s) is angry with him.  Supposedly, Dyatlov was a stern leader.  To me, the look on the veteran’s face says, “you think you are going to boss me around?” or “you think you know better than me?”  The veteran had seen fierce fighting during the war, the odds of him being alive at this time were calculated to be around 3% (meaning that 3% of the men who were born in the year he was survived the war).  When the bodies were found, it appeared that Dyatlov was heading back to the tent whereas the veteran was heading in the opposite direction.  Many of the other photos show the group members, including these two, acting quite jovial, even silly (or doing mundane thing), making this photo quite out of character.  To me the mystery is why this is called a mystery, other than never being able to know exactly what led to the decision to rip open the test and go outside in sub-optimal clothing (the rips are always interpreted to be due to fear rather than anger).

UPDATE:  One reviewer of Queen Latifah’s Queen of Hearts wrote this review, with an update:

I’m stumped. I tried it yesterday and there was absolutely nothing masculine about it. Instead, I smelled a very strong but really nice warm bouquet of white florals. After two hours or so, when I got to the drydown, it was really lovely because it got a little mellower. It still retained that white floral vibe though.

As a fan of both masculine and cinnamon notes, I’m actually a little disappointed. Although the white florals were really pretty, I do hope to get something different next time I spray it on… But if I don’t, it’s okay too!

UPDATE: Okay, I’m wearing it to bed right now, and it’s completely different from the last time I wore it. The white florals are still there, but they are in harmony with the soft, sweet woody base notes. The cinnamon is only detectable when I press my nose against my skin, but it’s lovely.

Did the molecular composition inside her sealed bottle change or is it a change in perception, perhaps due to how our brains get wired?  In a previous post I cited a scientific study that showed how perfumers had less brain activity in relevant areas relative to perfume school students, indicating that the students needed to “work harder” to understand what they were smelling.  During that process, “the mind can play tricks on us.”  Some people, however, can’t imagine this possibility, apparently, suggesting (at least to me) a low level of self-awareness.

UPDATE #2: This Fragrantica review of Vizzari Homme apparently thinks that there will be extensive oxygen exposure if some liquid is decanted, leading to certain molecules becoming more numerous while others become less numerous (or perhaps he thinks that vanillin will be magically turned into linalool, or something along those lines):

…On my skin its just so nice for a many many hours but the vanilla in the base shows up eventually & prevents this from stardom. .
Had the top/middle been more potent & the vanilla less prominent , this would be in my top 25 of all time .
Edit …. I have worn this quite a few times & also decanted around 15ml out of the bottle & i beleive something remarkable has happened to the scent .
I don’t know what but the vanilla now is seemlesly integrated int the base accord & this fragrance is absolutely stunning !!

And here is yet the latest iteration of this myth, suggesting that seems more unbelievable than the claims of some Medieval alchemists, from a Fragrantica.com review of Armaf’s Club de Nuit Intense for Women:

LEAVE the CAP off!
When I had first gotten this — yes- it smelled good but the longevity was poor. After about 10 months- and tossing the cap in the trash- VIOLA! This has LONGER staying power–like times 5 !!
Wow!

But perhaps the most perplexing thing I’ve read on this subject is the combination of the claims that vintage, even in sealed spray bottles and store properly,  will “spoil” whereas oxidation will “help” a recent release smell better and/or much stronger!   These molecules are either going to change or they are not, and the only change that is realistically possible nearly all the time is oxidation (and it doesn’t matter if oxidation occurs in two months or two decades – it’s the same chemical reaction to the same or similar molecules).  How can it be good for some scents but bad for others?  In fact one person claims that it is good for most Creeds he has tried, but Creeds are known for “naturalness” and often possess citrus-dominant top notes, so his claim is in opposition to what perfumers tell us!  Why would citrus top notes only oxidize in a “good” way in Creeds?  I guess magic is real, and at least the people at Creed know about it!

UPDATE #3:  These recent reports may be of interest in this context:

Many consumers have found a way to cope with the knowledge that products they like have been made unethically: They simply forget they ever knew it.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/01/180109112417.htm

Many people are prone to ‘remembering’ events that never happened, according to new research by the University of Warwick.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/12/161207101433.htm

 

How can one review a scent for newbies: the Dior Homme Intense example.

I’ve wanted to sample Dior Homme Intense for years, but every time I got close it alluded me, such as a few swap negotiations that fell through, and one ebay purchase that the seller refused to honor (she claimed her grandmother accidentally listed it at the wrong Buy It Now price).  Still, I decided it made sense to wait, because what would be the best result?  I’d like it and buy a bottle, then wear it once or twice a year?  But recently I was able to try the 2015 formulation, and while I was thinking about something else crossed my mind: would my review of it make sense to a newbie?

First, I’ll start with my Fragrantica.com review of DHI:

…I wore that 2015 batch of DHI. I’m getting a kind of neutered version of original DH (I used two sprays to the chest half an hour ago), but it does seem to have more of a gourmand element, though nothing all that special to me. So far, I’d say I’d buy this at a low price or swap for it, because it is reasonably pleasant, an okay winter office scent, but I think I’d rather wear something like Magnet for Men by Eclectic Collections because I prefer the notes in that one and the “quality” seems to be the same. I’ll update if I get something different as it develops.

UPDATE: I can understand the appeal, as the balance is nice, but I don’t find it especially interesting, and there’s a touch of what I perceive as “laundry musk.” What Luca Turin said about Jaipur Homme, that it feels like it’s part of a group of items that comprises a gift set (something to that effect) is how I think about DHI. Vintage Jaipur Homme, though (at least EdP), is something at least relatively unique, and it does take chances, so to speak. How things have changed since the Turin/Sanchez “guide” book was published, nearly a decade ago!  At this point, if asked, I’d have to say I prefer Halloween Man Shot to this 2015 batch of DHI, because it develops into a more compelling blend of similar notes, and also doesn’t have the lavender (which I think is just a distraction in DHI).

The listed notes for DHI are:

Top note is lavender; middle notes are iris, ambrette (musk mallow) and pear; base notes are vetiver and virginia cedar.

The notes for Halloween Man Shot are:

…brisk lemon daiquiri cocktail notes with spices of cardamom and black pepper. The aromatic – floral heart of iris and sage is placed on the intensive base of leather, vanilla and amber wood.

To be blunt, I have no idea why anyone would spend more than $20 or so for a bottle of DHI (let’s say at least 50 ml), and I would just swap or sell a bottle if I obtained one really inexpensively.  But how do most “newbie noses” experience DHI?  Is it some sort of olfactory revelation, since all he might know are Cool Water and its clones, Curve type scents, obnoxious party room clearers, and “grandfatherly” fougeres?  I remember not being ready for it in the early days – I couldn’t even detect sweetness in a scent!  Instead, I was more interested in the unique note combinations, not having even heard of a gourmand scent, for example.  It took me at least several months to detect “quality” differences, but then that was mostly about vintage versus recent.  I only rarely thought that a recent “top designer” was obviously “higher quality” than the best of the “lesser designers,” “celebuscents,” etc., from what I can remember.  Perhaps that was the thinking behind creating “exclusive”‘ designer lines.  But the most important thing (for me) was the decision not to spend too much before I thought I understood the significant differences.

I also remember seeing the vast price differences, but decided not to buy anything beyond the “cheapo” range, because I didn’t think I would be able to appreciate the supposedly significant differences that warranted the higher prices.  I did read a post or two at Basenotes.net, in which people were talking about how great this or that “cheapo” was, but I still couldn’t imagine it being “better” than a “top designer,” let alone niche, just very good for the price range.  But especially now, with IFRA guidelines more or less funneling any “mainstream” release into one of several directions, I see even less difference.  For example, inexpensive “oud scents” like Jovan’s Intense Oud, are fine for when I want that “punch in the face” synthetic oud experience (anything stronger wouldn’t work for me anyway).  And something like Magnet for Men by Eclectic Collections (which cost me around $8 for 100 ml, IIRC) is right up there with just about any other scent I’ve got (in terms of complexity, naturalness, dynamism, etc.), for my purposes (of course it’s not what I would reach for when I want to wear something like Leather Oud by Dior).

Now if I want some really rich and natural smelling notes, I’m going to reach for a vintage bottle, and I mean it’s probably going to be a batch from the early 1990s or earlier (or perhaps ten years later if made by a company like Guerlain, but of course there are some possible exceptions).  However, I usually want a more “modern” composition these days, and I’m quite content with the variety available at “cheapo” price levels.  I don’t know why anyone would seek to pay the higher prices, other than for psychological reasons that they are not aware of (or for “status” reasons that they are all too aware of!), again with a few possible exceptions.  But how do you communicate this to people who are convinced that the “big name” is meaningful?  I’m not sure there is a way, though a few of those people will likely “get it” and be very thankful once they realize what the reality is!  Again, why not wait until you are able to detect clear differences, and if you never can, why not just wear an inexpensive but similar scent?