What smells so "classic"?

    What smells so "classic"?

    Poll Results: whats stinks worse

    Poll expired: May 25, 2013  
    • 0% (0)
      aramis
    • 0% (0)
      aramis again
     
    post #1 of 14
    Thread Starter 

    How come when a frag is from the 90s or older it always has that old school smell to it? Was it the way fragrances were made back in the day that has changed or the perfumers taste that changed over time?

    post #2 of 14
    Perhaps a combination of both.
    post #3 of 14
    Both. I think its its the quality and type of ingredients and how they were used back then. Many ingredients today weren't even around back then and, many ingredients that were around, aren't now. Perfume goes through trends with the breakthrough of new ingredients and/or innovative new techniques of blending.

    In 10 years (hopefully) we should be smelling fruity florals and "clean" scents thinking "that smells so 2012". God, I hope that's the case...

    I have a feeling that the next big trend is going to be the rise of 'niche' (well, I think its already happening) and we are going see some new (cheaper) ingredients that will be used to emulate niche smelling scents on the mainstream market. Lots of synthetics that replicate naturals that are now banned and that will be banned fairly soon. I think that some niche houses are going to jump on the mainstream wagon too. Its going to be interesting to see what will be considered niche, in 20 years.
    post #4 of 14

    If you are smelling the fragrances in their vintage formulations I believe you are indeed most likely sniffing some of those rarely used raw materials nowadays due to cost, scarcity and/or IFRA restrictions as L'eaulita indicated in her prior post. 

     

    For example, a commonly used key ingredient back then, oakmoss, has all but been shelved from a usability perspective in current compositions and has forced re-formulations of many classics due to IFRA restrictions on the amount of the ingredient that can be used.  As a result most of the magic those classic fragrances once had in their original vintage formulas has been sucked away and many that remain still in production are regrettably a shadow of their former selves. 

     

    Just like anything else many of those formulas smell "old" to some of the folks nowadays because they are unaccustomed to the ingredients in them and as a result tastes have indeed changed to a degree.  Of course some of the reformulated classics just no longer smell good due to the missing/changed ingredients and some folks who never sniffed the vintage releases base their opinions on the classics derived from what they smell now, having no idea what they are missing.  Too bad really on all counts.

    post #5 of 14

    For some of the scents, the notes may also be deepening and otherwise changing over time, making an older bottle of a given scent smell very different than it did when that same bottle was first purchased.  If a person were to use or sniff at that bottle somewhat regularly, it's possible that he or she wouldn't notice the scent evolving in the bottle.  Then, when the bottle needs to be replaced, a new one will smell different, leading in such cases to inaccurate speculation about reformulated scents.

    post #6 of 14

    I'm kind of a fan of the classics both the lower priced and the higher end ones - not sure exactly why I think it may be that sense of history they provide, such as "Dietrich wore this, or Liz Taylor wore this or Errol Flynn wore this" etc and then there is that "test of time" thing - there is a reason things stick around, people like them, and people buy them, otherwise why continue to make them? Oh I know some are simply a statement of a perfumers art etc, but there are just so many and many are little unknown classics much like the pretty girl who lives in the tiny village who is known so well by the 300 or so people in her village but she has never been to the city or anywhere really so her beauty remains known only to the few - the world of scent is such a lovely and multifaceted thing.

    post #7 of 14

    Largely cultural.  But honestly, I prefer clean light scents and think that musty dirty powerhouses are just obnoxious.

    post #8 of 14
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by noirdrakkar View Post

    Largely cultural.  But honestly, I prefer clean light scents and think that musty dirty powerhouses are just obnoxious.

    I like both,  but I do know what you are saying about it being cultural and even regional to a degree

    post #9 of 14
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by drseid View Post

    If you are smelling the fragrances in their vintage formulations I believe you are indeed most likely sniffing some of those rarely used raw materials nowadays due to cost, scarcity and/or IFRA restrictions as L'eaulita indicated in her prior post. 

    For example, a commonly used key ingredient back then, oakmoss, has all but been shelved from a usability perspective in current compositions and has forced re-formulations of many classics due to IFRA restrictions on the amount of the ingredient that can be used.  As a result most of the magic those classic fragrances once had in their original vintage formulas has been sucked away and many that remain still in production are regrettably a shadow of their former selves. 

    Just like anything else many of those formulas smell "old" to some of the folks nowadays because they are unaccustomed to the ingredients in them and as a result tastes have indeed changed to a degree.  Of course some of the reformulated classics just no longer smell good due to the missing/changed ingredients and some folks who never sniffed the vintage releases base their opinions on the classics derived from what they smell now, having no idea what they are missing.  Too bad really on all counts.
    . Nice summary. Saved me some typing.
    post #10 of 14
    Thread Starter 

    ok now i want to know why has oakmoss been restricted to a degree from the IFRA? Whats so bad with oakmoss?

    post #11 of 14

    Varvatos vintage 

    post #12 of 14
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jonslammer View Post

    ok now i want to know why has oakmoss been restricted to a degree from the IFRA? Whats so bad with oakmoss?

    There was apparently concern about skin reactions in combination with treemoss:

     

    http://legerdenez.blogspot.com/2006/03/oakmoss-is-not-banned-just-limited.html

    post #13 of 14
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jonslammer View Post

    ok now i want to know why has oakmoss been restricted to a degree from the IFRA? Whats so bad with oakmoss?

    Both Oakmoss and Treemoss extracts contain chemicals that are are sensitisers and can cause contact dermatitis and allergic reactions in some people.   IFRA restricted the use of these materials, allowing only a very small amount to be used in on skin fragrances.   IFRA is contemplating reducing the amounts used even further,effectively making it impossible to use them.  

    post #14 of 14

    If you could give us some examples that would help quite a bit, so let's consider some:

     

    Kouros:  urinous honey, civet, heavy musk, and a boatload of other things

     

    Givenchy Gentleman: patchouli, honey, and worn leather

     

    1-12: galbanum, oakmoss, etc.

     

    various "women's" scents such as the original Armani: oakmoss and lots of aldhydes

     

    Dali Pour Homme: castoreum

     

    JHL:  sandalwood, "dirty" jasmine

     

    Jako: rosewood

     

    The above either have a lot more of certain ingredients than you find in recent designers or the ingredients are no longer being used; or, what's being used is a pale imitation.  On the other hand, as others said, there are new molecules being used that many probably regard as "normal," such as calone, iso e super, various "laundry musks," what I call "cheapo cedar", etc.  Notions of "old" suggest cultural conditioning, and a few years back I also had such perceptions.  Today, to me smells have no connections.  In some cases I find them really "bad" but my mind says, "terribly unbalanced," such as with human waste.  My guess is that most perfumers come to that point as well.

    class="

    5/25/13 at 6:57pm

    Ryan247 said:



    How come when a frag is from the 90s or older it always has that old school smell to it? Was it the way fragrances were made back in the day that has changed or the perfumers taste that changed over time?

    5/25/13 at 7:33pm

    hednic said:



    Perhaps a combination of both.

    5/25/13 at 9:51pm

    L'eaulita said:



    Both. I think its its the quality and type of ingredients and how they were used back then. Many ingredients today weren't even around back then and, many ingredients that were around, aren't now. Perfume goes through trends with the breakthrough of new ingredients and/or innovative new techniques of blending.

    In 10 years (hopefully) we should be smelling fruity florals and "clean" scents thinking "that smells so 2012". God, I hope that's the case...

    I have a feeling that the next big trend is going to be the rise of 'niche' (well, I think its already happening) and we are going see some new (cheaper) ingredients that will be used to emulate niche smelling scents on the mainstream market. Lots of synthetics that replicate naturals that are now banned and that will be banned fairly soon. I think that some niche houses are going to jump on the mainstream wagon too. Its going to be interesting to see what will be considered niche, in 20 years.

    5/26/13 at 2:32am

    drseid said:



    If you are smelling the fragrances in their vintage formulations I believe you are indeed most likely sniffing some of those rarely used raw materials nowadays due to cost, scarcity and/or IFRA restrictions as L'eaulita indicated in her prior post. 

     

    For example, a commonly used key ingredient back then, oakmoss, has all but been shelved from a usability perspective in current compositions and has forced re-formulations of many classics due to IFRA restrictions on the amount of the ingredient that can be used.  As a result most of the magic those classic fragrances once had in their original vintage formulas has been sucked away and many that remain still in production are regrettably a shadow of their former selves. 

     

    Just like anything else many of those formulas smell "old" to some of the folks nowadays because they are unaccustomed to the ingredients in them and as a result tastes have indeed changed to a degree.  Of course some of the reformulated classics just no longer smell good due to the missing/changed ingredients and some folks who never sniffed the vintage releases base their opinions on the classics derived from what they smell now, having no idea what they are missing.  Too bad really on all counts.

    5/29/13 at 6:39am

    Jasman said:



    For some of the scents, the notes may also be deepening and otherwise changing over time, making an older bottle of a given scent smell very different than it did when that same bottle was first purchased.  If a person were to use or sniff at that bottle somewhat regularly, it's possible that he or she wouldn't notice the scent evolving in the bottle.  Then, when the bottle needs to be replaced, a new one will smell different, leading in such cases to inaccurate speculation about reformulated scents.

    5/29/13 at 7:05am

    Katana said:



    I'm kind of a fan of the classics both the lower priced and the higher end ones - not sure exactly why I think it may be that sense of history they provide, such as "Dietrich wore this, or Liz Taylor wore this or Errol Flynn wore this" etc and then there is that "test of time" thing - there is a reason things stick around, people like them, and people buy them, otherwise why continue to make them? Oh I know some are simply a statement of a perfumers art etc, but there are just so many and many are little unknown classics much like the pretty girl who lives in the tiny village who is known so well by the 300 or so people in her village but she has never been to the city or anywhere really so her beauty remains known only to the few - the world of scent is such a lovely and multifaceted thing.

    5/29/13 at 9:47am

    noirdrakkar said:



    Largely cultural.  But honestly, I prefer clean light scents and think that musty dirty powerhouses are just obnoxious.

    5/29/13 at 10:22am

    Katana said:



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by noirdrakkar View Post

    Largely cultural.  But honestly, I prefer clean light scents and think that musty dirty powerhouses are just obnoxious.

    I like both,  but I do know what you are saying about it being cultural and even regional to a degree

    5/29/13 at 10:39am

    Profumo Saggio said:



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by drseid View Post

    If you are smelling the fragrances in their vintage formulations I believe you are indeed most likely sniffing some of those rarely used raw materials nowadays due to cost, scarcity and/or IFRA restrictions as L'eaulita indicated in her prior post. 

    For example, a commonly used key ingredient back then, oakmoss, has all but been shelved from a usability perspective in current compositions and has forced re-formulations of many classics due to IFRA restrictions on the amount of the ingredient that can be used.  As a result most of the magic those classic fragrances once had in their original vintage formulas has been sucked away and many that remain still in production are regrettably a shadow of their former selves. 

    Just like anything else many of those formulas smell "old" to some of the folks nowadays because they are unaccustomed to the ingredients in them and as a result tastes have indeed changed to a degree.  Of course some of the reformulated classics just no longer smell good due to the missing/changed ingredients and some folks who never sniffed the vintage releases base their opinions on the classics derived from what they smell now, having no idea what they are missing.  Too bad really on all counts.
    . Nice summary. Saved me some typing.

    5/29/13 at 6:45pm

    Ryan247 said:



    ok now i want to know why has oakmoss been restricted to a degree from the IFRA? Whats so bad with oakmoss?

    5/29/13 at 8:45pm

    CologneFan85 said:



    Varvatos vintage 

    5/30/13 at 4:51am

    Jasman said:



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jonslammer View Post

    ok now i want to know why has oakmoss been restricted to a degree from the IFRA? Whats so bad with oakmoss?

    There was apparently concern about skin reactions in combination with treemoss:

     

    http://legerdenez.blogspot.com/2006/03/oakmoss-is-not-banned-just-limited.html

    5/31/13 at 1:14am

    David Ruskin said:



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jonslammer View Post

    ok now i want to know why has oakmoss been restricted to a degree from the IFRA? Whats so bad with oakmoss?

    Both Oakmoss and Treemoss extracts contain chemicals that are are sensitisers and can cause contact dermatitis and allergic reactions in some people.   IFRA restricted the use of these materials, allowing only a very small amount to be used in on skin fragrances.   IFRA is contemplating reducing the amounts used even further,effectively making it impossible to use them.  

    5/31/13 at 5:15am

    Bigsly said:



    If you could give us some examples that would help quite a bit, so let's consider some:

     

    Kouros:  urinous honey, civet, heavy musk, and a boatload of other things

     

    Givenchy Gentleman: patchouli, honey, and worn leather

     

    1-12: galbanum, oakmoss, etc.

     

    various "women's" scents such as the original Armani: oakmoss and lots of aldhydes

     

    Dali Pour Homme: castoreum

     

    JHL:  sandalwood, "dirty" jasmine

     

    Jako: rosewood

     

    The above either have a lot more of certain ingredients than you find in recent designers or the ingredients are no longer being used; or, what's being used is a pale imitation.  On the other hand, as others said, there are new molecules being used that many probably regard as "normal," such as calone, iso e super, various "laundry musks," what I call "cheapo cedar", etc.  Notions of "old" suggest cultural conditioning, and a few years back I also had such perceptions.  Today, to me smells have no connections.  In some cases I find them really "bad" but my mind says, "terribly unbalanced," such as with human waste.  My guess is that most perfumers come to that point as well.