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.
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:
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…
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,
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.”