Testers and Official Samples Stronger than Actual Bottle???

    Testers and Official Samples Stronger than Actual Bottle???

    post #1 of 19
    Thread Starter 

    So maybe a few weeks ago I was in Sephora and asked them if they would make me some Allure Homme Sport in a sample from their tester. While sampling it projected very well, was strong and lasted all day, so much so that I finished the entire sample (about 2 days worth) and purchased a full bottle. Opened the full bottle did my regular sprays and the fragrance only lasted maybe 3 hours with no projection at all!!!! I ended up returning it.

    Recently I have went through 1 and a half official samples of Bond no.9 Coney Island and really enjoy it, performance was amazing. Just recently purchased a bottle from fragrancenet and I'm wearing it today. Juice smells exactly the same, but it doesn't smell as potent and I'm not getting the same projection I was from the sample. I will keep this though because it was a good price and I really enjoy the juice and it still projects and produces sillage.

    So my question is do you guys believe that official samples and testers may be a little more potent than bottles to purchase??? Possibly for the sake of someone testing it out and wanting to purchase once they see that it performs wonderfully......speak on it!


    Edited by frostyicy - 5/23/13 at 9:34am
    post #2 of 19

    Same thing.

    post #3 of 19
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by frostyicyView Post

    So my question is do you guys believe that official samples and testers may be a little more potent than bottles to purchase??? Possibly for the sake of someone testing it out and wanting to purchase once they see that it performs wonderfully......speak on it!

    No.

    post #4 of 19

    Have wondered the same thing in the past after having similar experiences to the OP.....

    post #5 of 19
    Have also thought the same thing, I really hope they don't do that, but a few times I have bought a bottle and thought it wasn't exactly like the tester. I don't really think there's a way to prove or disprove this
    post #6 of 19

    I think it would be easy for the perfume factories to implement technically, that's for sure. I've got some frags both as testers and as normal bottles, all about the same age, and they smell just the same to me though. For example M7 and Rive Gauche ph.

    I think in most cases the tester bottle can be an older even the vintage version and thats why it smells more potent, as the newer formulations are nearly always weaker.

    post #7 of 19

    Possible...

    I had actually read that in the past the opposite was true, that is, the tester was a little weaker, so as not to scare customers. But that was probably in the age of powerhouses.

    One thing that does happen with reformulations, though, is that the store keeps the old tester, from the original and good juice, while the bottle being sold is the new, watered down one.

    cacio

    post #8 of 19

    I have a travel size one of the one that lasts waaay longer than my big bottle. Ive gotten all day pretty easily with it before.

    Although since you mention fragrancenet I did buy a bottle of new harlem from them just beacuse I wasnt willing to pay a over a 100 bucks for it normally. And it most deffintly doesnt smell as good as the samples ive had of it.. The tonka bean in it and the lavender also kinda bother me in it. And doesnt last as long either. I wish I still had my samples so I could try each one on each wrist but I used em' all up. Im not sure why this is the case but I just assume they sell maybe old bottles or something and thats why they are cheaper dont smell as good? Though cologne should last awhile so im not really sure what to blame it on for sure. =/ I do know that for me personally it does make me hesitant to buy from them again because of this.

    post #9 of 19

    Random theory-thought: Testers have generally been used more, and thus more air has worked its way into the bottle. Like wine, maybe more air causes the aromas to be more dectable to the end user (identical fragrances tend to smell slightly different when sprayed via atomizer, rather than splashed on, for example). Obviously this only applies to a tester vs. a fairly new bottle but its a thought that makes sense to me. From what I've seen testers are often just opened straight out a retail box, not in a special "testers only" bottle.

    post #10 of 19

    Buyers remorse.

    post #11 of 19
    Sephora often makes testers from bottles they're selling. If they get a hundred in, they open one and it's a tester, and I assume they write it off as business expense or perhaps a chargeback to the distributor.

    I don't know if they always do this, but I've been in the store when they've taken a box off the shelf, opened it up and - presto change-o! - it's a tester. I'm pretty sure the box wasn't immediately thrown away, which makes me assume it was scanned for the sake of accounting.
    post #12 of 19
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Greek TrojanView Post

    Random theory-thought: Testers have generally been used more, and thus more air has worked its way into the bottle. Like wine, maybe more air causes the aromas to be more dectable to the end user (identical fragrances tend to smell slightly different when sprayed via atomizer, rather than splashed on, for example). Obviously this only applies to a tester vs. a fairly new bottle but its a thought that makes sense to me. From what I've seen testers are often just opened straight out a retail box, not in a special "testers only" bottle.

    This exactly.My guess is when you decant a perfume using the sprayer SOME (not much but enough to make a noticeable difference) of the alcohol evaporates out. In fine liquors they call this "the angel's share", perhaps we need a term for the perfume version? I noticed a thread on here not too long ago where he said several bottles he decanted had less juice than advertised. I wonder if some of this is explained through the loss via evaporation. Alcohol evaporates FAST FAST FAST. Sometimes we get too used to how fast it dries on our skin. If you have a spare bottle or sample with a sprayer, fill it with water and spray the water on your hand and watch how long it stays wet. Spraying high volume alcohol through mist sprayers over and over will certainly create a bit of evaporation. It's impossible not to.

    I'm willing to bet if you took two identical bottles, filled one to the top with perfume, then sprayed every last spray into the 2nd bottle, it wouldn't come quite up to the same level the 2nd time due to the loss, and since the only thing that could quickly evaporate at that moment is the alcohol, the perfume oils themselves are still all there just trapped in a slightly lesser amount of alcohol. Translation, the potency is slightly increased because the overall alcohol volume has slightly decreased. If you have a perfume bottle with a screw off lid you can use a disposable pipette so you can transfer it that way without having to worry about this.

    I don't think this is anything malicious by perfume producers, plus I doubt they pay to create 2 separate concentrations for every release and if they did then this industry secret wouldn't be very secretive at all. If you insist your perfume smell like your sample the easy fix is to decant it into another sprayer just like your sample was.

    post #13 of 19
    Maybe since you dabbed from the tester vial, you had a more intense experience. As opposed to spraying.
    post #14 of 19
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hedonist222View Post

    Maybe since you dabbed from the tester vial, you had a more intense experience. As opposed to spraying.

    THIS.

    With a dab, you're applying liquid directly on skin.
    With a spray, you're applying a mist over a larger area of skin.

    Here's an example of the difference. Take a pen and draw a wavy line on a sheet of paper. Keep the pen moving for ten seconds. Move the penn all over the place. Now, let's try that again. This time, for ten seconds draw a tiny circle and fill it in, as if you're filling in a circle in a multiple choice test. In both experiments, you used the same amount of ink but one is clearly more concentrated than the other. Spraying vs dabbing is kind of like that. Different method. Different results.
    post #15 of 19
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by L'Homme Blanc IndividuelView Post


    THIS.

    With a dab, you're applying liquid directly on skin.
    With a spray, you're applying a mist over a larger area of skin.

    Here's an example of the difference. Take a pen and draw a wavy line on a sheet of paper. Keep the pen moving for ten seconds. Move the penn all over the place. Now, let's try that again. This time, for ten seconds draw a tiny circle and fill it in, as if you're filling in a circle in a multiple choice test. In both experiments, you used the same amount of ink but one is clearly more concentrated than the other. Spraying vs dabbing is kind of like that. Different method. Different results.

    So are you suggesting spraying extremely close to your skin?

    post #16 of 19

    I've come across the same thing.

    The samples, from my experience, tend to be more potent and "fuller."

    post #17 of 19

    5/23/13 at 5:48am

    frostyicy said:



    So maybe a few weeks ago I was in Sephora and asked them if they would make me some Allure Homme Sport in a sample from their tester. While sampling it projected very well, was strong and lasted all day, so much so that I finished the entire sample (about 2 days worth) and purchased a full bottle. Opened the full bottle did my regular sprays and the fragrance only lasted maybe 3 hours with no projection at all!!!! I ended up returning it.

    Recently I have went through 1 and a half official samples of Bond no.9 Coney Island and really enjoy it, performance was amazing. Just recently purchased a bottle from fragrancenet and I'm wearing it today. Juice smells exactly the same, but it doesn't smell as potent and I'm not getting the same projection I was from the sample. I will keep this though because it was a good price and I really enjoy the juice and it still projects and produces sillage.

    So my question is do you guys believe that official samples and testers may be a little more potent than bottles to purchase??? Possibly for the sake of someone testing it out and wanting to purchase once they see that it performs wonderfully......speak on it!


    Edited by frostyicy - 5/23/13 at 9:34am

    5/23/13 at 6:00am

    sjg3839 said:



    Same thing.

    5/23/13 at 7:16am

    hednic said:



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by frostyicyView Post

    So my question is do you guys believe that official samples and testers may be a little more potent than bottles to purchase??? Possibly for the sake of someone testing it out and wanting to purchase once they see that it performs wonderfully......speak on it!

    No.

    5/23/13 at 7:28am

    Davem81 said:



    Have wondered the same thing in the past after having similar experiences to the OP.....

    5/23/13 at 8:18am

    foughare said:



    Have also thought the same thing, I really hope they don't do that, but a few times I have bought a bottle and thought it wasn't exactly like the tester. I don't really think there's a way to prove or disprove this

    5/23/13 at 8:24am

    dofa91 said:



    I think it would be easy for the perfume factories to implement technically, that's for sure. I've got some frags both as testers and as normal bottles, all about the same age, and they smell just the same to me though. For example M7 and Rive Gauche ph.

    I think in most cases the tester bottle can be an older even the vintage version and thats why it smells more potent, as the newer formulations are nearly always weaker.

    5/23/13 at 8:44am

    cacio said:



    Possible...

    I had actually read that in the past the opposite was true, that is, the tester was a little weaker, so as not to scare customers. But that was probably in the age of powerhouses.

    One thing that does happen with reformulations, though, is that the store keeps the old tester, from the original and good juice, while the bottle being sold is the new, watered down one.

    cacio

    5/23/13 at 9:49am

    seekritdude said:



    I have a travel size one of the one that lasts waaay longer than my big bottle. Ive gotten all day pretty easily with it before.

    Although since you mention fragrancenet I did buy a bottle of new harlem from them just beacuse I wasnt willing to pay a over a 100 bucks for it normally. And it most deffintly doesnt smell as good as the samples ive had of it.. The tonka bean in it and the lavender also kinda bother me in it. And doesnt last as long either. I wish I still had my samples so I could try each one on each wrist but I used em' all up. Im not sure why this is the case but I just assume they sell maybe old bottles or something and thats why they are cheaper dont smell as good? Though cologne should last awhile so im not really sure what to blame it on for sure. =/ I do know that for me personally it does make me hesitant to buy from them again because of this.

    5/23/13 at 9:56am

    Greek Trojan said:



    Random theory-thought: Testers have generally been used more, and thus more air has worked its way into the bottle. Like wine, maybe more air causes the aromas to be more dectable to the end user (identical fragrances tend to smell slightly different when sprayed via atomizer, rather than splashed on, for example). Obviously this only applies to a tester vs. a fairly new bottle but its a thought that makes sense to me. From what I've seen testers are often just opened straight out a retail box, not in a special "testers only" bottle.

    5/23/13 at 11:47am

    outline said:



    Buyers remorse.

    5/23/13 at 12:00pm

    L'Homme Blanc Individuel said:



    Sephora often makes testers from bottles they're selling. If they get a hundred in, they open one and it's a tester, and I assume they write it off as business expense or perhaps a chargeback to the distributor.

    I don't know if they always do this, but I've been in the store when they've taken a box off the shelf, opened it up and - presto change-o! - it's a tester. I'm pretty sure the box wasn't immediately thrown away, which makes me assume it was scanned for the sake of accounting.

    5/23/13 at 12:14pm

    kende said:



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Greek TrojanView Post

    Random theory-thought: Testers have generally been used more, and thus more air has worked its way into the bottle. Like wine, maybe more air causes the aromas to be more dectable to the end user (identical fragrances tend to smell slightly different when sprayed via atomizer, rather than splashed on, for example). Obviously this only applies to a tester vs. a fairly new bottle but its a thought that makes sense to me. From what I've seen testers are often just opened straight out a retail box, not in a special "testers only" bottle.

    This exactly.My guess is when you decant a perfume using the sprayer SOME (not much but enough to make a noticeable difference) of the alcohol evaporates out. In fine liquors they call this "the angel's share", perhaps we need a term for the perfume version? I noticed a thread on here not too long ago where he said several bottles he decanted had less juice than advertised. I wonder if some of this is explained through the loss via evaporation. Alcohol evaporates FAST FAST FAST. Sometimes we get too used to how fast it dries on our skin. If you have a spare bottle or sample with a sprayer, fill it with water and spray the water on your hand and watch how long it stays wet. Spraying high volume alcohol through mist sprayers over and over will certainly create a bit of evaporation. It's impossible not to.

    I'm willing to bet if you took two identical bottles, filled one to the top with perfume, then sprayed every last spray into the 2nd bottle, it wouldn't come quite up to the same level the 2nd time due to the loss, and since the only thing that could quickly evaporate at that moment is the alcohol, the perfume oils themselves are still all there just trapped in a slightly lesser amount of alcohol. Translation, the potency is slightly increased because the overall alcohol volume has slightly decreased. If you have a perfume bottle with a screw off lid you can use a disposable pipette so you can transfer it that way without having to worry about this.

    I don't think this is anything malicious by perfume producers, plus I doubt they pay to create 2 separate concentrations for every release and if they did then this industry secret wouldn't be very secretive at all. If you insist your perfume smell like your sample the easy fix is to decant it into another sprayer just like your sample was.

    5/23/13 at 1:02pm

    hedonist222 said:



    Maybe since you dabbed from the tester vial, you had a more intense experience. As opposed to spraying.

    5/23/13 at 1:12pm

    L'Homme Blanc Individuel said:



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hedonist222View Post

    Maybe since you dabbed from the tester vial, you had a more intense experience. As opposed to spraying.

    THIS.

    With a dab, you're applying liquid directly on skin.
    With a spray, you're applying a mist over a larger area of skin.

    Here's an example of the difference. Take a pen and draw a wavy line on a sheet of paper. Keep the pen moving for ten seconds. Move the penn all over the place. Now, let's try that again. This time, for ten seconds draw a tiny circle and fill it in, as if you're filling in a circle in a multiple choice test. In both experiments, you used the same amount of ink but one is clearly more concentrated than the other. Spraying vs dabbing is kind of like that. Different method. Different results.

    5/23/13 at 1:24pm

    noideawhatimsaying said:



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by L'Homme Blanc IndividuelView Post


    THIS.

    With a dab, you're applying liquid directly on skin.
    With a spray, you're applying a mist over a larger area of skin.

    Here's an example of the difference. Take a pen and draw a wavy line on a sheet of paper. Keep the pen moving for ten seconds. Move the penn all over the place. Now, let's try that again. This time, for ten seconds draw a tiny circle and fill it in, as if you're filling in a circle in a multiple choice test. In both experiments, you used the same amount of ink but one is clearly more concentrated than the other. Spraying vs dabbing is kind of like that. Different method. Different results.

    So are you suggesting spraying extremely close to your skin?

    5/23/13 at 1:35pm

    TheBlackAdonis said:



    I've come across the same thing.

    The samples, from my experience, tend to be more potent and "fuller."

    5/23/13 at 2:17pm

    L'Homme Blanc Individuel said:






Loving perfume on the Internet since 2000