This is a response to comments made in the "GIT: A Reevaluation and a Thanks" thread.
I decided to post it in a separate thread because it became a rather long essay instead of a response, and I didn't want my response to hijack the thread because it was after all a thread about GIT and my response isn't about GIT.
Probably the most oft-repeated misconception and misunderstanding on Basenotes and a dichotomy many just can’t seem to get away from in the obsessive compulsion to build up niche fragrances at the expense of designer fragrances. It’s as if niche fragrances can’t be left alone to fend for themselves without attacking their less prestigious brethren.
Having tried a couple of thousand designer and niche fragrances over the years, and having spent a life-time smelling fragrances, thinking about and reading about fragrances, talking to people in the industry etc., I will state categorically that this statement quoted immediately above as a general statement is not only fundamentally wrong; it is fundamentally misinformed. You won't hear anyone who knows anything about the fragrance industry and its development in the last 150 years using this false dichotomy and that includes every author of every book I’ve ever read on fragrances. Of course, the niche people can say what they want and usually do, but the majority of people who write about the development of modern perfumery and those in the fragrance industry, including the great noses, understand clearly that the skills set developed by noses creating for the non-niche industry is where the true originality and quality of composition lies.
When Frederic Malle commissioned noses to do his Editions de Parfums line, the majority of those noses, with the exception of Olivia Giacobetti, were people who had firmly established their credentials and creations in the world of designer fragrances. Dominique Ropion, the creator of Vétiver Extraordinaire, is touted as “one of the world’s greatest technicians”. Maurice Roucel is touted as having begun his career as a “chemist”; these are hardly your artisans who use rare, all-natural ingredients and move in the rarified world of royalty and yet they are the ones who produced two of the finest fragrances released in the last twenty years because of their non-aritisanal skills acquired in the world of designer aromachemistry, and, I might add, they created two of the most successful Malle fragrances. The Malle fragrances of Olivia Giacobetti, while beautiful in their rarefied and minimalist use of simple constituents just don’t do it for most people as fragrances one can wear especially if one is paying over $150.00 a bottle for them, and isn’t that the case with many niche fragrance; they’re beautiful, they’re made of quality ingredients, but they’re just a little too simple and don’t have the longevity and temporal development many of us want when we pay hundreds of dollars for a bottle. You can get away with two sprays when wearing Musc Ravageur or Vétiver Extraordinaire because these two noses know their aromachemistry and know how to produce fragrances with complex effects that evolve and last, which according to the doyen nose Bernard Chant, was and is the mandate of modern perfumery.
Incidentally, from his highly technical skills, Ropion, “one of the world’s greatest technicians” produced a very distinctive, full-bodied and highly synthesized vetiver of extraordinary quality, complexity, and character and made it far more distinctive by the addition of a number synthetic aromachemicals such as Floralozone, Cashmeran, Muske-tone, Tonalide with which he is obviously familiar as he inhabits the world of complex, cutting edge aromachemical technology found in world of designer fragrances and because he currently works for IFF as its lead nose. IFF (International Flavors and Fragrances) is one of the world’s largest manufacturers of flavor and fragrance ingredients that actually markets a number of the aromachemicals used in Vétiver Extraordinaire or their equivalents. If you take zztopp’s favorite nose, Olivier Creed, by Creed’s own admission of the modus operandi of his fragrance creation and his preference for natural ingredients, his fragrance creation is outside the larger movements and discoveries of twentieth and twenty first century aromachemistry and this is why if he continues on like he has, he will continue to produce limited combinations and rather simple (granted in some cases beautiful) effects that have appalling longevity unless they are loaded up with yet another variation of ambergris, vanilla and musk in the base. I have dealt with this limitation in another post, so there’s really no need to revisit it. Here’s the post should anyone care to revisit it:
http://community.basenotes.net/showt...ory+equivalent
Let me illustrate my point another way. If you look a Dominique Ropion’s impressive list of creations, you will see that when Frederic Malle and even when Serge Lutens (Ropion created Iris Silver Mist for Lutens) chose him to create fragrances for them, he had basically only created fragrances for designers. Why wasn’t the world’s self-professed greatest nose, Olivier Creed, chosen for the job. Because those in the know know that the real skill set is in the world of fragrance creation occurs in the technologically advance world of aromachemical creation found in designer fragrances.
Here is Ropion’s list so that you can see what I mean:
Alexander McQueen MyQueen (2005, with Anne Flipo)
Burberry Burberry London for women (2006)
Cacharel Amor Amor (2003, with Laurent Bruyere)
Cacharel Amor Amor Elixir Passion (2006, with Laurent Bruyere)
Calvin Klein Euphoria (2005, with Loc Dong & Carlos Benaim)
Caron Aimez Moi (1996)
Christian Dior Pure Poison (2004, with Carlos Benaïm & Olivier Polge)
Escada Casual Friday (1999)
Escada Sentiment Pour Homme (2002, with Laurent Bruyere)
Escada Sexy Graffiti (2002, with Laurent Bruyere)
Frederic Malle Carnal Flowers (2005)
Frederic Malle Une Fleur de Cassie
Frederic Malle Vetiver Extraordinaire (2002)
Giorgio Armani Armani Code for women (2006, with Carlos Benaim & Olivier Polge)
Givenchy Amarige (1991)
Givenchy Very Irresistible for women (with Sophie Labbe & Carlos Benaim)
Givenchy Very Irresistible Sensual (2005)
Givenchy Ysatis (1984)
Givenchy Ysatis Iris
Jennifer Lopez Live (2005)
Kenzo Jungle L'Elephant (1996)
Kenzo Jungle Tigre
Krizia Krazy (1991)
Lalique Le Parfum (2005)
Lancome Miracle Forever (2006, with Olivier Polge)
Lancome Tresor Eau de Printemps Sheer (2006)
Maxims de Paris (1984)
Nam Long Miss Saigon
Ralph Lauren Safari (1990, with others)
Thierry Mugler Alien (2005, with Laurent Bruyere)
Vivienne Westwood Anglomania (2005)
Yardley Lace (1984)
Yves Saint Laurent L'Homme Yves Saint Laurent (2006, with Anne Flipo & Pierre Wargnye)
Yves Saint Laurent Paris Premieres Roses (2003, with Sophia Grojsman & Laurent Bruyere)
[List courtesy of Now Smell This: A Blog about Perfume]
In a recent thread, when someone commented that Ropion’s resumé looked rather thin before he made Vétiver Extraordinaire, I reminded that person that if Ropion had only made Ysatis, which he did for Givenchy, then that would have been enough.
I’ll just quote what I said about that:
There are many, many designer fragrances whose quality of composition far exceeds that of many niche designer composition, which given the propensity to use more natural ingredients tends to produce more simple compositions and effects in the niche fragrances. I am very careful here, as others are not in many cases, to make a distinction between the complexity of composition and the effects achieved by such complexity and the aesthetic value of the fragrances, which is after all a far more subjective/personal reality. I am also trying hard not to conflate my argument about the quality and complexity of composition over whether nature-derived smells are superior to synthetic aromachemically created smells not found in nature. Clearly, nature specific smells have certain advantages and certain disadvantages and aromachemistry has already closed the gap in large part in terms of advantages and certain has closed the gap entirely in terms of disadvantages.
Creeds are a classic example of the point I am making. With Creeds there is many times a confusion of the quality of ingredients with quality of composition. Any one Creed fragrance might trump Nino Cerruti Pour Homme on the quality of its ingredients, but there is no Creed, in my considering opinion, that comes close to the quality, complexity, and artistry of Nino Cerruti Pour Homme's composition. There is a real and important difference in such a distinction. I also don’t buy the quality argument in and of itself. It’s a false and misleading argument as I show later when I discuss the false valorization of natural over synthetic.
Furthermore, I would also argue, could argue in detail if need be, that there isn't a L'Artisan fragrance, in my considered opinion, that can hold a candle to the original 1976 Signoricci 2 formulation in terms of the quality of composition and the level of complexity and the sheer artistry of composition. I also happen to think that the 1976 formulation of Signoricci 2 is one of the most beautiful fragrance creations ever, but that’s a personal opinion I could only support by saying that’s what I feel, but I could definitely argue why and how in terms of the sheer genius and skill of its composition it exceeds anything L’Artisan has made hitherto. If L'Artisan were to put out such a fragrance today, and Signoricci 2 is very L’Artisan in its feel, everyone on the board would be agog over it. I can come up with many such instances and, in each instance, I'd be happy to explain why and how the designer fragrance in terms of the sheer quality of the artistry involved is a superior fragrance in that regard. Of course, this not always the case with all designer fragrances, clearly there are many poorly made designer fragrances, but to build an abstract hierarchy on the basis of "lesser" fragrances versus "niche" fragrances is patently misleading. “Lesser scents and niche”; worse than its unselfconscious, and maybe even unintentional, elitism is its reductionism.
Now the astute observer, would have noticed and could say to me, hey, isn’t that what you are doing; aren’t you working within a dichotomy between designer and niche. I have two answers to that question:
The first would go something like this, yes I am, and I wouldn’t argue that such a dichotomy doesn’t exist nor that it’s not a valuable taxonomic distinction, but I am also showing why designer fragrances are not by nature lesser fragrances in as non-reductionist a manner as I can. I am trying to make differentiations and distinctions and give reasons why I believe designer fragrances can and often are more complex in their quality of composition and in the complexity of their effects, not to mention the degree of their artistry, and I hope no one would accuse me of being reductive in doing so.
I might cite my recent post on aldehydes as an example of the claim above:
http://community.basenotes.net/showthread.php?t=187374
By niche companies’ own definitions, they don’t use aldehydes, which could be construed as limitation on the quality and the complexity of effects they can achieve. I can’t see how designer fragrance are intrinsically “lesser” fragrances when compared to niche when they have some much more to offer if, of course, they manage to offer it successfully, which they don’t always do, but, by the same token many times do manage to do.
The second response to the charge above would go something like this: I have always tried to show in all my posts that niche fragrances are not always what they claim to be and that, in fact, there is more overlap between them and the aromachemistry of designer fragrances than many allow or even admit to. I’ll let my posts speak for themselves on this point, but I will illustrate this claim with two examples. Shiseido’s creation by Christopher Sheldrake and Pierre Bourdon (creator of Kouros, Live Jazz, Iris Poudre among others) of Féminité du Bois under the direction of Serge Lutens, is cited by many Lutens fans as an precursor of Lutens fragrances in its niche like originality and purity of ingredients. It’s a foreshadowing of things to come: the partnership of Lutens and Sheldrake, the use of high quality ingredients, the originality of composition. Sorry, but with regards to the use of high quality natural ingredients alone, always a favorite among niche heads, 43% of Féminité du Bois's perfume oil volume is made up of one of the most commonly used and synthetically created, non-nature specific aromachemicals, Iso E Super®. So much for niche continuity; actually, score one for designer niche overlap. It wouldn’t surprised me at all if many of Serge Lutens’s fragrance contained similar synthetically derived or synthetically produced aromachemicals components; I haven’t found any claims to the contrary. Nor would it surprise me if Creeds do. In fact, I have argued in other posts that they do and they surely must, particularly with regards to ambergris.
My second example is Diptyque’s most successful and most beautiful creation, and arguably Olivia Giacobetti’s best to date, and, furthermore, her most synthetic. It’s the fragrance Philosykos, which revolves around a fig note which cannot be isolated from nature but which has to be recreated synthetically by the marvels of aromachemistry. I explain this paradox in my review in the Basenotes directory in the following manner:
Olivia Giacobetti, I would argue is one of the greatest perfumers alive precisely because she is at ease in the world of natural and synthetic aromachemicals and can use them to great effect through her artistry, but then again so are all the great noses who create for niche houses. The quality lies not necessarily and only in the ingredients but in how they’re used, and for the highest manifestation of how those ingredients both natural and synthetic are used complexly, qualitatively, and in terms of artistry, we will always look to noses and not to artisans. The concept of the artisan is a quaint and for many a compelling one, but the great noses of the modern era are not artisans, they are a combination of technician, chemist, and artists. It’s what and how they create not for whom they create that matters.
An interesting final point I hope: has anyone ever noticed that the posters who consistently post interesting, informative, differentiated, thoughtful, and informed posts are those who hold to no clear cut hierarchy between niche and designer? In fact most of these kind of posters, would, if hard pressed, refuse to say which they preferred and would mostly say that for them it was the individual fragrances and not the category that matters. What I have also noticed about such posters is that they are rarely dismissive of niche fragrances, even the ones they don’t like, and they are always the most interesting posters on the niche fragrances they do like. I have made this point countless times when arguing with Creed heads, who can’t manage to say anything about Creed that doesn’t sound like anything more than a publicity blurb for Creed and a clichéd one at that and who confirm my main point, time and time again, that if one really wants to know about and understand fragrances, I mean really wants to know and understand, one needs to keep an open mind and lose the clichéd dichotomies and the false hierarchies. They don’t even begin to address the marvel which is fragrance creation. My harshest criticism of this falsely dichotomous view is that it produces very little sense of wonder. Everything is too clear cut for that. You can’t have wonder in such a world.
scentemental
I decided to post it in a separate thread because it became a rather long essay instead of a response, and I didn't want my response to hijack the thread because it was after all a thread about GIT and my response isn't about GIT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zztopp
If you take a bottom-up approach (i.e., lesser scents -> niche) when venturing into the world of fragrances, you incrementally begin to appreciate the steps up in quality of the composition . . .
If you take a bottom-up approach (i.e., lesser scents -> niche) when venturing into the world of fragrances, you incrementally begin to appreciate the steps up in quality of the composition . . .
Probably the most oft-repeated misconception and misunderstanding on Basenotes and a dichotomy many just can’t seem to get away from in the obsessive compulsion to build up niche fragrances at the expense of designer fragrances. It’s as if niche fragrances can’t be left alone to fend for themselves without attacking their less prestigious brethren.
Having tried a couple of thousand designer and niche fragrances over the years, and having spent a life-time smelling fragrances, thinking about and reading about fragrances, talking to people in the industry etc., I will state categorically that this statement quoted immediately above as a general statement is not only fundamentally wrong; it is fundamentally misinformed. You won't hear anyone who knows anything about the fragrance industry and its development in the last 150 years using this false dichotomy and that includes every author of every book I’ve ever read on fragrances. Of course, the niche people can say what they want and usually do, but the majority of people who write about the development of modern perfumery and those in the fragrance industry, including the great noses, understand clearly that the skills set developed by noses creating for the non-niche industry is where the true originality and quality of composition lies.
When Frederic Malle commissioned noses to do his Editions de Parfums line, the majority of those noses, with the exception of Olivia Giacobetti, were people who had firmly established their credentials and creations in the world of designer fragrances. Dominique Ropion, the creator of Vétiver Extraordinaire, is touted as “one of the world’s greatest technicians”. Maurice Roucel is touted as having begun his career as a “chemist”; these are hardly your artisans who use rare, all-natural ingredients and move in the rarified world of royalty and yet they are the ones who produced two of the finest fragrances released in the last twenty years because of their non-aritisanal skills acquired in the world of designer aromachemistry, and, I might add, they created two of the most successful Malle fragrances. The Malle fragrances of Olivia Giacobetti, while beautiful in their rarefied and minimalist use of simple constituents just don’t do it for most people as fragrances one can wear especially if one is paying over $150.00 a bottle for them, and isn’t that the case with many niche fragrance; they’re beautiful, they’re made of quality ingredients, but they’re just a little too simple and don’t have the longevity and temporal development many of us want when we pay hundreds of dollars for a bottle. You can get away with two sprays when wearing Musc Ravageur or Vétiver Extraordinaire because these two noses know their aromachemistry and know how to produce fragrances with complex effects that evolve and last, which according to the doyen nose Bernard Chant, was and is the mandate of modern perfumery.
Incidentally, from his highly technical skills, Ropion, “one of the world’s greatest technicians” produced a very distinctive, full-bodied and highly synthesized vetiver of extraordinary quality, complexity, and character and made it far more distinctive by the addition of a number synthetic aromachemicals such as Floralozone, Cashmeran, Muske-tone, Tonalide with which he is obviously familiar as he inhabits the world of complex, cutting edge aromachemical technology found in world of designer fragrances and because he currently works for IFF as its lead nose. IFF (International Flavors and Fragrances) is one of the world’s largest manufacturers of flavor and fragrance ingredients that actually markets a number of the aromachemicals used in Vétiver Extraordinaire or their equivalents. If you take zztopp’s favorite nose, Olivier Creed, by Creed’s own admission of the modus operandi of his fragrance creation and his preference for natural ingredients, his fragrance creation is outside the larger movements and discoveries of twentieth and twenty first century aromachemistry and this is why if he continues on like he has, he will continue to produce limited combinations and rather simple (granted in some cases beautiful) effects that have appalling longevity unless they are loaded up with yet another variation of ambergris, vanilla and musk in the base. I have dealt with this limitation in another post, so there’s really no need to revisit it. Here’s the post should anyone care to revisit it:
http://community.basenotes.net/showt...ory+equivalent
Let me illustrate my point another way. If you look a Dominique Ropion’s impressive list of creations, you will see that when Frederic Malle and even when Serge Lutens (Ropion created Iris Silver Mist for Lutens) chose him to create fragrances for them, he had basically only created fragrances for designers. Why wasn’t the world’s self-professed greatest nose, Olivier Creed, chosen for the job. Because those in the know know that the real skill set is in the world of fragrance creation occurs in the technologically advance world of aromachemical creation found in designer fragrances.
Here is Ropion’s list so that you can see what I mean:
Alexander McQueen MyQueen (2005, with Anne Flipo)
Burberry Burberry London for women (2006)
Cacharel Amor Amor (2003, with Laurent Bruyere)
Cacharel Amor Amor Elixir Passion (2006, with Laurent Bruyere)
Calvin Klein Euphoria (2005, with Loc Dong & Carlos Benaim)
Caron Aimez Moi (1996)
Christian Dior Pure Poison (2004, with Carlos Benaïm & Olivier Polge)
Escada Casual Friday (1999)
Escada Sentiment Pour Homme (2002, with Laurent Bruyere)
Escada Sexy Graffiti (2002, with Laurent Bruyere)
Frederic Malle Carnal Flowers (2005)
Frederic Malle Une Fleur de Cassie
Frederic Malle Vetiver Extraordinaire (2002)
Giorgio Armani Armani Code for women (2006, with Carlos Benaim & Olivier Polge)
Givenchy Amarige (1991)
Givenchy Very Irresistible for women (with Sophie Labbe & Carlos Benaim)
Givenchy Very Irresistible Sensual (2005)
Givenchy Ysatis (1984)
Givenchy Ysatis Iris
Jennifer Lopez Live (2005)
Kenzo Jungle L'Elephant (1996)
Kenzo Jungle Tigre
Krizia Krazy (1991)
Lalique Le Parfum (2005)
Lancome Miracle Forever (2006, with Olivier Polge)
Lancome Tresor Eau de Printemps Sheer (2006)
Maxims de Paris (1984)
Nam Long Miss Saigon
Ralph Lauren Safari (1990, with others)
Thierry Mugler Alien (2005, with Laurent Bruyere)
Vivienne Westwood Anglomania (2005)
Yardley Lace (1984)
Yves Saint Laurent L'Homme Yves Saint Laurent (2006, with Anne Flipo & Pierre Wargnye)
Yves Saint Laurent Paris Premieres Roses (2003, with Sophia Grojsman & Laurent Bruyere)
[List courtesy of Now Smell This: A Blog about Perfume]
In a recent thread, when someone commented that Ropion’s resumé looked rather thin before he made Vétiver Extraordinaire, I reminded that person that if Ropion had only made Ysatis, which he did for Givenchy, then that would have been enough.
I’ll just quote what I said about that:
Quote:
Ysatis is considered by lead perfumers and those in the industry to be a thoroughly original modern interpretation of the traditional chypre accord that opened many possibilities for the further development of other fragrances [along novel lines]. In this sense, it's a benchmark fragrance in the history of fragrances of the twentieth century. It is this fragrance on which Ropion's reputation is primarily based. The trouble when you get into slanging matches about which house is better than which or which perfumer is better than another perfumer is that the focus is taken away from the fragrances. You have confined one of the most respected fragrances of the last 30 years to mediocrity on the bases of what? On the basis of a cursory look at a list of fragrances.
There are many, many designer fragrances whose quality of composition far exceeds that of many niche designer composition, which given the propensity to use more natural ingredients tends to produce more simple compositions and effects in the niche fragrances. I am very careful here, as others are not in many cases, to make a distinction between the complexity of composition and the effects achieved by such complexity and the aesthetic value of the fragrances, which is after all a far more subjective/personal reality. I am also trying hard not to conflate my argument about the quality and complexity of composition over whether nature-derived smells are superior to synthetic aromachemically created smells not found in nature. Clearly, nature specific smells have certain advantages and certain disadvantages and aromachemistry has already closed the gap in large part in terms of advantages and certain has closed the gap entirely in terms of disadvantages.
Creeds are a classic example of the point I am making. With Creeds there is many times a confusion of the quality of ingredients with quality of composition. Any one Creed fragrance might trump Nino Cerruti Pour Homme on the quality of its ingredients, but there is no Creed, in my considering opinion, that comes close to the quality, complexity, and artistry of Nino Cerruti Pour Homme's composition. There is a real and important difference in such a distinction. I also don’t buy the quality argument in and of itself. It’s a false and misleading argument as I show later when I discuss the false valorization of natural over synthetic.
Furthermore, I would also argue, could argue in detail if need be, that there isn't a L'Artisan fragrance, in my considered opinion, that can hold a candle to the original 1976 Signoricci 2 formulation in terms of the quality of composition and the level of complexity and the sheer artistry of composition. I also happen to think that the 1976 formulation of Signoricci 2 is one of the most beautiful fragrance creations ever, but that’s a personal opinion I could only support by saying that’s what I feel, but I could definitely argue why and how in terms of the sheer genius and skill of its composition it exceeds anything L’Artisan has made hitherto. If L'Artisan were to put out such a fragrance today, and Signoricci 2 is very L’Artisan in its feel, everyone on the board would be agog over it. I can come up with many such instances and, in each instance, I'd be happy to explain why and how the designer fragrance in terms of the sheer quality of the artistry involved is a superior fragrance in that regard. Of course, this not always the case with all designer fragrances, clearly there are many poorly made designer fragrances, but to build an abstract hierarchy on the basis of "lesser" fragrances versus "niche" fragrances is patently misleading. “Lesser scents and niche”; worse than its unselfconscious, and maybe even unintentional, elitism is its reductionism.
Now the astute observer, would have noticed and could say to me, hey, isn’t that what you are doing; aren’t you working within a dichotomy between designer and niche. I have two answers to that question:
The first would go something like this, yes I am, and I wouldn’t argue that such a dichotomy doesn’t exist nor that it’s not a valuable taxonomic distinction, but I am also showing why designer fragrances are not by nature lesser fragrances in as non-reductionist a manner as I can. I am trying to make differentiations and distinctions and give reasons why I believe designer fragrances can and often are more complex in their quality of composition and in the complexity of their effects, not to mention the degree of their artistry, and I hope no one would accuse me of being reductive in doing so.
I might cite my recent post on aldehydes as an example of the claim above:
http://community.basenotes.net/showthread.php?t=187374
By niche companies’ own definitions, they don’t use aldehydes, which could be construed as limitation on the quality and the complexity of effects they can achieve. I can’t see how designer fragrance are intrinsically “lesser” fragrances when compared to niche when they have some much more to offer if, of course, they manage to offer it successfully, which they don’t always do, but, by the same token many times do manage to do.
The second response to the charge above would go something like this: I have always tried to show in all my posts that niche fragrances are not always what they claim to be and that, in fact, there is more overlap between them and the aromachemistry of designer fragrances than many allow or even admit to. I’ll let my posts speak for themselves on this point, but I will illustrate this claim with two examples. Shiseido’s creation by Christopher Sheldrake and Pierre Bourdon (creator of Kouros, Live Jazz, Iris Poudre among others) of Féminité du Bois under the direction of Serge Lutens, is cited by many Lutens fans as an precursor of Lutens fragrances in its niche like originality and purity of ingredients. It’s a foreshadowing of things to come: the partnership of Lutens and Sheldrake, the use of high quality ingredients, the originality of composition. Sorry, but with regards to the use of high quality natural ingredients alone, always a favorite among niche heads, 43% of Féminité du Bois's perfume oil volume is made up of one of the most commonly used and synthetically created, non-nature specific aromachemicals, Iso E Super®. So much for niche continuity; actually, score one for designer niche overlap. It wouldn’t surprised me at all if many of Serge Lutens’s fragrance contained similar synthetically derived or synthetically produced aromachemicals components; I haven’t found any claims to the contrary. Nor would it surprise me if Creeds do. In fact, I have argued in other posts that they do and they surely must, particularly with regards to ambergris.
My second example is Diptyque’s most successful and most beautiful creation, and arguably Olivia Giacobetti’s best to date, and, furthermore, her most synthetic. It’s the fragrance Philosykos, which revolves around a fig note which cannot be isolated from nature but which has to be recreated synthetically by the marvels of aromachemistry. I explain this paradox in my review in the Basenotes directory in the following manner:
Quote:
Finally, don’t look for the white cedar (Thuja occidentalis) listed in Diptyque’s official description of this scent to make an appearance in the basenotes. White cedar is nothing like the Texas Cedar or Atlas Cedar notes that are used frequently in men’s fragrances as standard basenotes. White cedar, or cedar leaf oil as it is commonly known, can be pungent and balsamic, bitter, sharp and fresh, and even camphoraceous. It is a principle ingredient in Vicks Vap-O-Rub©. The white cedar is more than likely used to give complexity and amplitude to fig note effects in *Philosykos*, which achieves such effects so artlessly. Such an achievement is even more laudable when one remembers that there is no such thing as fig essential oil or even fig leaf oil. Fig leaves are abrasive and sticky and have a sappy, milky liquid in them that is an irritant, and they don't smell figgy at all. In fact, figs themselves don’t smell figgy. The tend to have a bland, barely detectable vegetal smell to them. It’s only in the preserving of figs in jams that the aroma we identify as a fig is brought out and intensified, and so it’s important to note that the complex fig note one smells in *Philosykos* is a marvel of aromachemical invention and Olivia Giacobetti’s art, and *Philosykos* is the paragon of such invention and art.
While science and art are definitely behind the genesis of this paragon, the experience of *Philosykos* is the experience of Nature, of airy, fleeting summer fruit and vegetal greenness softened, mellowed, transfigured, purified, and made white by late afternoon Mediterranean wind and sun. It is the fig tree, its fruit, and its leaves magically transformed into breath.
While science and art are definitely behind the genesis of this paragon, the experience of *Philosykos* is the experience of Nature, of airy, fleeting summer fruit and vegetal greenness softened, mellowed, transfigured, purified, and made white by late afternoon Mediterranean wind and sun. It is the fig tree, its fruit, and its leaves magically transformed into breath.
Olivia Giacobetti, I would argue is one of the greatest perfumers alive precisely because she is at ease in the world of natural and synthetic aromachemicals and can use them to great effect through her artistry, but then again so are all the great noses who create for niche houses. The quality lies not necessarily and only in the ingredients but in how they’re used, and for the highest manifestation of how those ingredients both natural and synthetic are used complexly, qualitatively, and in terms of artistry, we will always look to noses and not to artisans. The concept of the artisan is a quaint and for many a compelling one, but the great noses of the modern era are not artisans, they are a combination of technician, chemist, and artists. It’s what and how they create not for whom they create that matters.
An interesting final point I hope: has anyone ever noticed that the posters who consistently post interesting, informative, differentiated, thoughtful, and informed posts are those who hold to no clear cut hierarchy between niche and designer? In fact most of these kind of posters, would, if hard pressed, refuse to say which they preferred and would mostly say that for them it was the individual fragrances and not the category that matters. What I have also noticed about such posters is that they are rarely dismissive of niche fragrances, even the ones they don’t like, and they are always the most interesting posters on the niche fragrances they do like. I have made this point countless times when arguing with Creed heads, who can’t manage to say anything about Creed that doesn’t sound like anything more than a publicity blurb for Creed and a clichéd one at that and who confirm my main point, time and time again, that if one really wants to know about and understand fragrances, I mean really wants to know and understand, one needs to keep an open mind and lose the clichéd dichotomies and the false hierarchies. They don’t even begin to address the marvel which is fragrance creation. My harshest criticism of this falsely dichotomous view is that it produces very little sense of wonder. Everything is too clear cut for that. You can’t have wonder in such a world.
scentemental
(which I think not many people do since, as I have stated before, Basenotes is the only fragrance site where Creed is discussed in detail...elsewhere, its mostly lutens, chanel, or L'Artisan)
I would also like to read (again) the differences between the old and new Signoricci. I think you have written such a piece earlier.
