Blog Comments

  1. MonkeyBars's Avatar
    Both fougeres and chypres both always have oakmoss; Lomani is without a doubt a fougere. To my nose, Lomani is not a chypre at all, as it lacks bergamot, whose resinous tone the lemon and tangerine in Lomani do not approach.

    There is a slight sweetness from the lavender and coumarin, and perhaps something like a touch of storax in the base, but imo Cool Water & GIT are at least 10x sweeter.
  2. MOONB's Avatar
    [QUOTE=MonkeyBars;bt5707]I have to disagree with your claims in this post. I haven't sampled vintage Lomani, but I can attest the new juice is far, far drier than GIT and Cool Water, which I find extremely similar to each other. Lomani is nearly devoid of sweetness and flowers, while GIT and Cool Water are full of them. Lomani is bold and manly, while I find GIT and Cool Water wussies.[/QUOTE]

    Lomani has oakmoss in its base, making it closer to a chypre than a fresh fougere, it's true. However, you don't smell any sweetness in Lomani? How about that massive lavender on top?
  3. MonkeyBars's Avatar
    I have to disagree with your claims in this post. I haven't sampled vintage Lomani, but I can attest the new juice is far, far drier than GIT and Cool Water, which I find extremely similar to each other. Lomani is nearly devoid of sweetness and flowers, while GIT and Cool Water are full of them. Lomani is bold and manly, while I find GIT and Cool Water wussies.
  4. ortho123's Avatar
    Thanks to shamu, santino and people like yourself, I AM suddenly someone who wears Lomani. Special mention should be made of Pollux's fine review. This is smooth, gentlemanly stuff...and I too prefer it to both Drakkar and Cool Water.
  5. MOONB's Avatar
    [QUOTE=Primrose;bt4493]Great post, [B]MOONB[/B].

    Companies out to put forth a pedigree desperately want to shore up their legitimacy. This is clearly not a Royal Warrant. (Truefitt & Hill and D.R. Harris, on the other hand, do display the Royal Warrant of Prince Philip/the Duke of Edinburgh and the Prince of Wales.)

    Turin stated that Guerlain makes bespoke fragrances for an elite stratum of clients.[/QUOTE]

    It's true, those companies do post royal warrants, as does Creed.

    The Welsh insignia is a case of good graphic design - perhaps someone should ask Olivia Creed about it. However, I never said it was a royal warrant, nor have I seen Creed specifically indicate this, either.

    I really have no further comment in regards to Turin in this debate.
  6. the_good_life's Avatar
    ...
    Updated 1st April 2011 at 12:13 PM by MOONB
  7. MOONB's Avatar
    ...
    Updated 1st April 2011 at 12:14 PM by MOONB
  8. Primrose's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by the_good_life
    Yes, there were warrants for perfume in the 18th and early 19th century held by various Eau de Cologne producers.
    The three ostrich plumes are part of the coat of arms of the heir to the British throne who holds the symbolic title of Prince of Wales. It is wielded by companies who hold a royal warrant by the Prince of Wales. Creed never did, but evidently thinks it can fool some naive Americans into believing it does. The plumes appear not just on RSL, as we all know. Just more tacky marketing, which is a shame in light of how great a fragrance RSL is.
    Great post, MOONB.

    The Creed "coat of arms," with its three plumes, is a parody of the arms of the Prince of Wales.

    Companies out to put forth a pedigree desperately want to shore up their legitimacy. This is clearly not a Royal Warrant. (Truefitt & Hill and D.R. Harris, on the other hand, do display the Royal Warrant of Prince Philip/the Duke of Edinburgh and the Prince of Wales.) The Parfums D'Orsay company also uses a "coat of arms" for their company, but it is not the arms of the Counts of Orsay. In fact, the company recently changed the coronet on this coat of arms. You can't just *change* a coronet (nobleman's crown), as it's an official form of heraldry. You can, however, easily change a company logo, just as Pepsi did recently.

    I am reminded of the "coats of arms" on Ralph Lauren's Safari (with rampant lions) and those on Juicy Couture (with rampant Scottie dogs!)

    As an aside, I understand that Guerlain's Mouchoir de Monsieur (after its initial release) was made only for King Juan Carlos of Spain, and then re-released. This was in Turin and Sanchez' "The Guide." Turin stated that Guerlain makes bespoke fragrances for an elite stratum of clients.
    Updated 1st April 2011 at 05:59 AM by Primrose
  9. the_good_life's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by MOONB
    It's a fair question. I tend to think another question comes before it, though, in dealing with the issue of royal warrants for perfumery, which is, did royal warrants for perfumery exist prior to the late 1800s? If so, which houses have them?

    The Welsh symbol is interesting, but it's tied directly to Royal Scottish Lavender, as per this publication in Sniffiapalooza Magazine: http://www.sniffapaloozamagazine.com/creedROBERTO.html

    As you can see in the second article down, it was commissioned by the Prince of Wales. It's true that Wales is a different country (I've been there), but in all honesty it's integrated into British and English culture as though it's the same place. There isn't much of a stretch there.
    Yes, there were warrants for perfume in the 18th and early 19th century held by various Eau de Cologne producers.
    The three ostrich plumes are part of the coat of arms of the heir to the British throne who holds the symbolic title of Prince of Wales. It is wielded by companies who hold a royal warrant by the Prince of Wales. Creed never did, but evidently thinks it can fool some naive Americans into believing it does. The plumes appear not just on RSL, as we all know. Just more tacky marketing, which is a shame in light of how great a fragrance RSL is.
  10. MOONB's Avatar
    Yikes . . . where have I heard all of the above arguments before???
    The account of the police station suggests that royals don't make people privy to relatively important things. Therefore, the assumption that they'll make people privy to minor things, like privately commissioned fragrances, doesn't hold.
  11. Ekove's Avatar
    You can't compare royalties not letting creed show pictures or evidence of their perfume purchases to Queen Elizabeth not letting everyone know about her presence in said police station. And it is not like Creed doesn't brag about the whole Royalty thing. Not that I care...

    The issue with creed to me seems to be the dates on some of their creations that smell like other cheaper designer alternatives. While the dates on them suggest their older (green irish tweed vs cool water, Orange Spice vs Kouros), there's no evidence those perfumes were actually produced before. If they were exclusive to royalties, then how did they get copied?

    Also I would like to specify, it is one thing to be a tailoring house that happened to create perfumes casually, and an actual perfume house. My Great Grandfather was a tailor for royalties was well, and he occasionally gifted them with his personal blends, as he had access to rare oils at the time through those he imported his tailoring supplies from. But you've got to keep in mind as well that many of those tailoring materials come from local farmers, or from asia or what have you....the same places that might also produce perfume oils. So those perfume gifts might have been oils from a producer rather than a personal mix. You can never know, it's all speculations, until solid evidence is provided..

    Now, if I decide to establish a perfume house, do I have the right to claim that it's a 100 years old house? And mass produce a few perfumes, claiming that they were created by my great grandfather a 100 years ago for the member of the royal family in Kuwait, when I have no evidence to support that these perfumes are actual representation of the 100 years old blend, if that blend existed to begin with.

    It is also worth mentioning that I know a person who dealt with Olivier Creed at a personal level in the 70s/80s, and he was his distributor in a country that shall be unnamed. According to him, Olivier offered only one perfume when they began distributing for him. So again, we go back to the fact that these perfumes created prior to 1960s were not mass produced, to be copied by perfumers such as Pierre Bourdon.

    I just do find it dishonest to take credit for 250 years of tailoring, plus a few ammature perfumes on the side. That's not how honest marketing works. Going back to my grandfather example, he also used to fixed watches, even though he's first and foremost a tailor. So, do I have the right to claim my grandfather was a tailor, a perfumer and a watchmaker for royalities, and establish a watchmaking or perfume company under the claim it has a history of 100 years? I mean there are still a few small tailoring stores under the name of my great grandfather.

    Also, the second dishonest thing, and perhaps the more important aspect to look at is evidence for the specific blend age. Fine, the Creed family might have made perfumes for royalties, and some might go as far as to call them a perfume house. And let's say vintage tabarome existed in 1875. Where's the evidence that the vintage Tabarome released 2 years ago is the same blend as the one in 1875? Sure it was created by someone from the same family, but there's no evidence Mr Olivier Creed has access to the recipe.

    I still like some of creeds creations, and almost all perfume houses have a lot of bullshit in their marketing (%100 natural ingredients, the use of real Mysore Sandalwood, Ambergris, Oud...etc). Creed just takes it a little too far with their marketing and pricing, for fragrances that are mediocre at best save for 2 or 3 exceptions.

    And remember, if creed had any actual evidence to back up their many claims, they wouldn't thinking twice about shoving it up your face.
  12. MOONB's Avatar
    It's a fair question. I tend to think another question comes before it, though, in dealing with the issue of royal warrants for perfumery, which is, [I]did royal warrants for perfumery exist prior to the late 1800s?[/I] If so, which houses have them?

    The Welsh symbol is interesting, but it's tied directly to Royal Scottish Lavender, as per this publication in Sniffiapalooza Magazine: [URL="http://www.sniffapaloozamagazine.com/creedROBERTO.html"]http://www.sniffapaloozamagazine.com/creedROBERTO.html[/URL]

    As you can see in the second article down, it was commissioned by the Prince of Wales. It's true that Wales is a different country (I've been there), but in all honesty it's integrated into British and English culture as though it's the same place. There isn't much of a stretch there.
  13. JaimeB's Avatar
    Interesting post. The royal family do allow companies from whom they buy to display "By Appointment to..." on their packaging, advertising, etc.

    The funny thing about Creed is that they display the three ostrich feathers (which is the heraldic badge of the Prince of Wales) on their perfume boxes and bottles, but, apparently, not the the royal warrant words "By Appointment to... ."

    In looking up their claims about royal warrants, I saw that the copy of Victoria's royal warrant is for them as tailors, not perfumers. The royal warrant they have from María Cristina of Spain also says "sastre" which is Spanish for "tailor."

    Can anybody show a Creed perfume item with the "By Appointment to.. " on it, or produce a copy of a royal warrant to them as perfumers?

    I wonder...
  14. MOONB's Avatar
    Thanks for reading. Yes, I still love OV. Still my favorite Creed, too.
  15. Topsail's Avatar
    wow... this is an amazing piece. i don't know if you are as self-aware as you come across, but if so, congrats. most 50 year olds don't have the sense of self that you seem to.

    it's been a while... do you still love OV?
  16. Sunsetspawn's Avatar
    You talk pretty!
    Me like OV too.
    Smell pretty, like you talk.
  17. Flaconneur's Avatar
    Your conclusion seems completely possible and would explain why this scent is much more sophisticated in its violet note. I am enjoying a little journey into the mid 70's. Thanks
  18. MOONB's Avatar
    That's interesting to know, and thanks for reading. I've always wondered about the original formulation. I'm a violet-lover, and the violet in GF always seems well blended, typically powdery, and nowhere near overly-sweet. My theory on why the violets in the original version were harsher rests with technology - violets don't offer much in the way of essential oil/aromatics, and it takes a good chemist in his laboratory to "reconstruct" the scent of violets, either from scratch, or using the essence as a base to be built upon. Back in the mid '70s, the chemicals available and procedures for reconstructing violet were not as advanced as they are today. I'm sure sometime in the last 15 yrs, Grey Flannel got an overhaul and was given a solid facelift in the violet/violet leaf department. Hope you enjoy your new bottle.
  19. Flaconneur's Avatar
    dito
  20. Flaconneur's Avatar
    Thanks for the interesting read on Grey Flannel. As one of the first customers of this fragrance back in 1976, I can tell you in all honesty that today's version is better. I found that the violet notes in the original were a bit harsh and could be burning to the nose at times. I just purchased Grey Flannel for myself, maybe living in the past a little, but found the new version to be much more balanced that the one I remember. Grey Flannel was my first fragrance and I have a soft spot for this fragrance but still feel that it is a great addition to anyone's collection that loves violet.
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast