This is probably the last place to ask this...

(cross-posted with the Female board)

...but how do you feel about "signature" scents? I.e., I've been pretty torn recently - I'm very old-school on this and believe (truly) that one should have one signature scent. Maximum two - a daytime fragrance and an evening fragrance.

"Riiiiiiiight," - you'll say, looking at my collection.

But it's true. I've just not found that "signature" to replace my last signature (I've noticed that my signature scents change from time to time, and I don't think it's a mere coincindence that those changes happen when I have a major change in my life).

Well, maybe I have - Cuir de Russie and Bois des Iles are very serious contenders, but I've been tricked into thinking I've found my scent several times before, only to find out when I've finished the bottle that I can take it or leave it.

Anyway, how do you feel about the concept of "signature"? I'm leaning in the direction that - varied as our fragrance libraries are - we still all have a signature, since we all tend to be partial to a certain direction. I think that when we say "signature" in our days, it's more of a "signature note" rather than a "signature scent". Or "signature house" (for example, those who use Creed).

Any opinions on this?

But they're all Creed. So you do have a signature, if not scent, then house.

Oh, I agree. But I easily see myself owning a lot of scents, but using only one or two. That's the way it's been most of my life, anyway.

True, but - this is kinda what I'm trying to figure out - the set that a specific individual uses should, in theory, have some sort of note or combination of notes in common. Â*There must be something that unifies a particular set, I believe.

Signature scents at a time when there was not as much of them made perfect sense. Â*Now we have a wider range to choose from, hence the number of our "signature" scents increases. Â*Still, there must be some kind of tendency in how we choose those scents for ourselves. Â*"It smells good on me," - usually means that our bodies accept a certain element of a scent better than others.

Geez, I find it incredibly difficult to express what I mean.

Let me try doing this differently. Â*For example, someone is partial to a combination of musk and amber. Â*So he or she may have a gazillion fragrances, but there would be that combination of musk and amber in all of them, because it is that combination of musk and amber that this individual's chemistry works best with, and they act as an "introduction" to the skin of the other elements of a fragrance.

Oh, I disagree. The difference can also be in the way that one scent is used; i.e., as a standalone, layering, "clouding", etc. I've had ONE signature scent for long periods of my life, just varied the way I used it. The one that lasted the longest was Obsession - I find it incredibly easy to play around with.

Oh, I think the same concept as the one I'm trying to relay applies to clothes as well. We all have our "personal style" with clothes, wouldn't you agree? The same black sweater can be worn a gazillion different ways by a gazillion different people.

I do, actually. I have a signature ring (two, actually) that I wear all the time, no matter what.

I understand you're trying to be sarcastic, but I've addressed this a bit earlier - while we, of course, change our clothes, the majority of us has a personal style; I, for one, wouldn't be caught dead wearing something along the line of dungarees (while I certainly don't mind that others wear them). ;D

A personal style of clothing does not really equate to a signature scent. It may, however, equate to a personal style of scent e.g. you're mainly into florals or orientals or chypres.
Renato[/quote]
Renato, you're not reading all of my genius thoughts. I said specifically that earlier - because our selection of scents right now is much more varied, we have more of them; but there still must be something in common between them. So the "signature scent" nowadays becomes a "signature note" or a "signature house" or something along those lines.

Not fair - I didn't mention rings.
Renato
P.S. Â*I feel like we're in the Chat room.[/quote]
Fine. You mentioned necklaces. I have one that I wear day in and day out. I always have it on. I MAY take it off if I'm wearing a very open dress and pearls (like, for evenings), but that's an exceptionally rare occasion; otherwise, I always have it on.

I think you're proving my point, if you have two necklaces you wear, you don't have a signature necklace. Â*

But then again I think where we are differing is in our interpretation of the application of the word "signature" to scents. To me, you only have one signature - no exceptions - else your cheques start bouncing and the banks and creditors get very angry with you. But it does also have the meaning of "significant appearance" (as opposed to it's other meaning of "significant mark&quot, which is the sense that you are using it in (in case you can't tell, I've just looked up the dictionary). ;D
Renato[/quote]
Again, I have way more than two necklases - at least 20, I'd estimate, but I only wear ONE all the time (and take it of very rarely).

Speaking of which, now that you mention it, I do have more than one signature. Â*I have a "full" version, a "shortened" version, and an "abbreviated" version. Â*

P.S. I thought about it and realized that I actually have more signatures than that: I have two sets in two languages. That makes 6. So, there.

Actually I have three signatures as well, my Australian one, my Italian one and a hybrid (if I didn't have them I'd get into strife every time I hit a bureacrat) - they arise because the Italians don't recognise any name other than that assigned to me at birth, and my mother's not liking the name my father gave me. But regardless of my three or your six, there's only one we use for cheques or buying property if we want to avoid serious problems.

Anyhow, back to signature necklaces. You go out and meet the groups of people you only see at the special occasions where you don't wear your standard necklace, but instead wear your pearl necklace. Would they not think that your "signature" necklace is your pearl one, instead of the other one they've never seen you wear? If so, do you not in fact have two totally different "signature" necklaces?
Renato[/quote]
I have several bank accounts in several countries; I have different signatures for them.

Back to the necklace: if I'm meeting someone once and never going to see him/her again, what does it matter whether or not they know my signature necklace? Those I see on a permanent basis know I always wear it; in fact, if, by chance, they see me without it, they ask about it.

Same applies to scents; my ex-hubby still cannot understand any other woman wearing Obsession. It freaks him out. And it would completely freak him out if I wore anything else. Fortunately, I don't see him, so his sanity is safe; however, if I do eventually meet him, I'd probably wear Obsession, or he might not recognize me.

How did I miss this one? This is approximately what I am saying. For example, there is no way anyone I know could see me wearing something babypowder like or a strict floral. I lean towards earthy smells, the "fresh" ones really don't suit me at all.

I'm also interested in the historical aspect of this topic. I feel that we had one or two "signature" scents earlier because there really wasn't as many to choose from as there are now.

Now there are more scents that appeal to us, hence, we tend to have more "signature" scents.

To me, I think what I'm trying to achieve is a balance between my need to have a "signature" scent and my desire for variety. What I think I want to happen is for me to establish a pattern in which I chose my scents, and, in that, discover that "signature" feeling without actually limiting myself in my fragrance wardrobe.

LOL!!!

OO, you really should see someone about this. Â* ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Methinks your position has changed considerably in the course of this discussion.
Specifically, contrast what you write above with what you started off saying,
" I'm very old-school on this and believe (truly) that one should have one signature scent."

Congratulations - you are no longer old-school, but very modern.
Renato

[/quote]
Again, Renato, you misread me. If you re-read carefully, while I said that I believe that, I also said that I don't follow that rule recently; in order to justify my horridly un-signature behaviour, I'm trying to develop the theory of a "signature scent" into a theory of a "signature something". That way I won't feel as guilty

LOL!!!

OO, you really should see someone about this. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D[/quote]
Heheh.. perhaps that came out the wrong way.



Or perhaps it didn't!!! BUH-WAH-HA-HA-HA-HAAAA!!

Seriously though, no one I know gives a basenote what I wear. Savages.



[/quote]
It was cute.

I'm not sure I have misread you, anyway we'll have to agree to disagree on that very fine point.

However, I'm puzzled again. What's this guilt business? Where does that enter the equation?
Renato[/quote]
Yes, Renato, I can tell there's some Italian blood mixed in there somewhere. "I'm not sure I have misread you, 'cause I know better what you meant when you wrote what you wrote." Luv it! ;D ;D ;D

"Guilt", perhaps, is not the right word. As I've said in my initial post, I feel torn, not guilty. On the one hand, I do believe in signature scents, on the other, I'm not sure I'll find just ONE.

Actually, it's "I'm not sure I have misread you because I'm pretty sure you meant what you wrote when you wrote it."
You were firmly old school yesterday, turned new school overnight, but seem to want to incorporate some of what you liked most about the old school tradition into your new school ways. Which all seems pretty reasonable and practicable to me.
Do you still wear Obsession?
Renato[/quote]
Geez, Renato, re-read my first post. I still consider myself old school, i'm just looking for a cover.

Yeah, I still wear Obsession.

It's still a fabulous scent.
Renato[/quote]
I think it's much better now that not every other person is wearing it.

Do you find they have anything in common that you think appeals to you?

BTW, I've analized my "signatures" and realized that I seem to favor Bergamot a lot, as well as Musk and Amber. But mostly Bergamot. Sandalwood and Orange blossom also seem to be quite popular with yours truly.

The only one that completely doesn't fit the picture is Michael (Kors).