Designer or Niche: A Reevaluation (very long post) - Page 2

Originally Posted by jathanas

My collection includes niche and designer. I admitedly went through a "if it's designer it must be less than niche" phase. Today I find that a very limiting attitude.

Originally Posted by Renato

Scentemental,
I've reread your post again and quite frankly - why don't you send an email to Grant containing the post plus any further thoughts you've had, and submit it as an article on the main board?

I'd imagine that there would be many readers who only mainly visit the main site and don't go to the Discussion Boards. I think they'd benefit from your perspective.
Renato

Originally Posted by Ekove

This is an interesting topic that pops up frequently on this board. I do not want to claim that my opinion has more merit that that of others, but I do feel there are many points people who post these threads keep missing:

What is wrong with generalizing?

Stereotypes and generalizing are hardly criticized in todays society, and that is due to a lack of understanding, or rather ignorance of how the human brain works. This not only applies to fragrances, but any topic you can think of from politics, religion, racism (or rather what is racist), hobbies, or pretty much anything.

The human brain likes to categories information, that is why we generalize. Nothing is ever absolute and if you do think so, you are ignorant, however you're just as ignorant if you're going to argue against generalizing by saying it should not be used because it is not always correct. Generalization reflects how we categorical judge information. In this case, niche being considered generally better than designers, and that is true as I will explain later. Sure, maybe some people here think 95% of niche is better than designer, but I'm sure most people realize it's more like 70% vs 30% or so.

So why is niche better?

Let me define what I think Niche is; it simply means (to me) that the fragrance are more exclusive than designer and this is determined by these 3 main factors:

1. Niche has limited distribution/supply; sadly not many examples of that that I can think of today, except for frederic malle perhaps.

2. Niche is more unique and more risky, thus less people show interest in them. Only certain noses can appreciate them or are willing to take a risk in wearing them. Again, today this is more of a 50-50 thing, you've got creeds and bonds which are quite safe. And Serge Lutens/Amouage which do take some confidence and knowledge to appreciate.

3. Niche is more expensive. Really the only criteria some niche brands have to meet to achieve exclusivity, or the illusion of it.

So what are the expectations of Niche? they're more unique, more personal or risky, done better, well blended and of higher quality among other things. Do all Niche brands meet these criteria? of course not. And they don't really have to meet all of them either. Tom Ford is an example of a Niche brand I would consider not to be of high quality or complexity, but they make up for that by being very personal (due to simplicity) and very well blended. On the other hand, if you look at Amouage Gold and Chanel no5, you'll see the smell almost identical so no uniqueness there. Amouage makes up for that by the superb, very noticeable quality.

What are the expectations, or the objectives of a designer brand on the other hand;

1. Low price: Achieved by lower quality ingredients, perfume concentration and so on. Moreover, fragrance are more often reformulated than they are in niche, and without a good excuse since they use more synthetic materials than hard to find natural ingredients. And by no means I'm saying natural always smells better, or designer lacks natural/niche is always natural. Just speaking generally

2. Maximize profit: Making safe fragrance that are done many times before. Adding very little new and not bumping up quality to make up for that. There are exceptions as well, Chanel No.5 is high quality for example, YSL is a house that takes risk, and so on. Also, making countless flankers of best sellers that are completely forgettable. Sorry but flankers do on your resume and you know they're not expected to be that good or else they would not be limited. Of course there are important exceptions like pure malt, NR Musc EdP and so on.

My conclusion:

Niche is generally better than designer for reasons stated above. I don't know what the distinction between designer and niche came into existence. As a term, niche is just a word that means exclusivity and practically has little to do with how the fragrance smells. It's just there are expectations with that word that are usually met, at least are more met by considered niche fragrances than they are by designer fragrance. While Niche are becoming less exclusive and less risky lately, designers are still at a much worse state. Serge Lutens, Frederic Malle and Amouage continue to release master pieces, while Bond no.9 and creed hold niche stats for price alone. But compare that to the great designer houses: Chanel just released a completely boring, safe, done so many times before, but all around pleasant fragrance. YSL is not taking many risks with their new L' Homme line. And Guerlain, as much as it's brought over and over and over again in these discussions, have not released a classic for decades, get over the past please.

Also, while I do not understand your Ropion analogy. He created a few good/great designer fragrances, many forgettable ones, and a Niche masterpiece? how does that give any credit to designer fragrances? The nose behind them could be a master, but his skills are not shown due to the criteria he has to meet.

Anyway, I'll wrap this up by saying, yes people can be biased towards one opinion or another, one brand or another. Sometimes just for the price of the feeling of exclusivity the brand gives them in the case of Niche, people do not like being in the majority, they like to be anti-conformists. And every now and then, some anti-anti-conformists, who feel anti conformists are now the majority, will pop up and say look at guerlains master pieces, look at all the lies and synthetic boring crap creeds releases. Niche brands use bullcrap marketing just like designers do, with all the exclusivity, uniqueness, high quality claims that they do not necessarily meet. That still does not disprove the solid generalization that niche is better than designer fragrance in most cases. I'm of course saying this of 1. The present 2. in totality - Bleu de Chanel is not a bad fragrance, I'd give it a solid B- on it's own, but it has been done dozens of times before in the designer world, and thus it's certainly worse than say Ambre Sultan, which is a niche fragrance I'd give a B-

Originally Posted by Larwiz

Evoke, you don't think Guerlain Spiriteuese Double Vanille is a classic? What about L'Instant? Haven't tried this one yet, but a lot of folx seem to think it's great.

Originally Posted by jathanas

I might not agree with all your points but I thank you for making the effort to put them forward in that detailed manner.

I'd argue that there's a psychological trap with niche i.e. I'm paying more so it's better. Further, with fragrance it's not easy for the connoiseur to establish reasonable grounds for what constitutes quality when comparing niche with designer releases.

IMHO: Having no preconceptions is the "least limiting" attitude.

* Disclaimer: my wardrobe is mostly niche.

Originally Posted by pluran

Niche has never meant better, or more natural. L'Artisan fragrances were built on an extremely high level of synthetics, and still are. Creed perfumes make abundant use of synthetic materials, and are only slightly above average in the use of naturals. The term "niche" simply means that the fragrance is produced in limited quantity and sells in few shops. There are thousands of variables that lead to a great fragrance being made, whether designer or niche. Perfumers these days spend half their time designing fragrances in front a computer, and a lot of it depends on who the perfumer is, whether or not he has the materials he needs, and whether or not he has enough time. It can take years to make a great fragrance, but most designer and niche stuff is made in less than six months.

Whatever. I own a lot of niche, but wear mostly designer.

Originally Posted by moreda

Niche became Niche as we know it today because the designers took over
the perfume market. just like big super markets took the whole market and there for
there are smaller companies selling healthier and organic food .

i think in the past and as i know ti in the middle east
there were / are perfumers who make perfumes... just like an artist who makes a painting.
then a huge company wants to produce the same product not only because of the love for it
but also thinking what it delivers money / busyness wise. in this process something essential and real goes lost and dies .

i cant imagine calling my self a niche artist just because some huge company produces PRINTS and things that look like paint on canvas for the bigger mass .

same in perfume ,
designers took over the market and there for most people only know perfumes because of what they can buy in stores
under the name of designers. and no one invests time to search and research for the real thing whether it is food or perfumes.

so .. can u call an artist who paints with paint on canvas, some one who studied for it and who creates and take risks to what he loves and make art..... niche ?

Originally Posted by Ekove

This is an interesting topic that pops up frequently on this board. I do not want to claim that my opinion has more merit that that of others, but I do feel there are many points people who post these threads keep missing:

What is wrong with generalizing?

Stereotypes and generalizing are hardly criticized in todays society, and that is due to a lack of understanding, or rather ignorance of how the human brain works. This not only applies to fragrances, but any topic you can think of from politics, religion, racism (or rather what is racist), hobbies, or pretty much anything.

The human brain likes to categories information, that is why we generalize. Nothing is ever absolute and if you do think so, you are ignorant, however you're just as ignorant if you're going to argue against generalizing by saying it should not be used because it is not always correct. Generalization reflects how we categorical judge information. In this case, niche being considered generally better than designers, and that is true as I will explain later. Sure, maybe some people here think 95% of niche is better than designer, but I'm sure most people realize it's more like 70% vs 30% or so.

So why is niche better?

Let me define what I think Niche is; it simply means (to me) that the fragrance are more exclusive than designer and this is determined by these 3 main factors:

1. Niche has limited distribution/supply; sadly not many examples of that that I can think of today, except for frederic malle perhaps.

2. Niche is more unique and more risky, thus less people show interest in them. Only certain noses can appreciate them or are willing to take a risk in wearing them. Again, today this is more of a 50-50 thing, you've got creeds and bonds which are quite safe. And Serge Lutens/Amouage which do take some confidence and knowledge to appreciate.

3. Niche is more expensive. Really the only criteria some niche brands have to meet to achieve exclusivity, or the illusion of it.

So what are the expectations of Niche? they're more unique, more personal or risky, done better, well blended and of higher quality among other things. Do all Niche brands meet these criteria? of course not. And they don't really have to meet all of them either. Tom Ford is an example of a Niche brand I would consider not to be of high quality or complexity, but they make up for that by being very personal (due to simplicity) and very well blended. On the other hand, if you look at Amouage Gold and Chanel no5, you'll see the smell almost identical so no uniqueness there. Amouage makes up for that by the superb, very noticeable quality.

What are the expectations, or the objectives of a designer brand on the other hand;

1. Low price: Achieved by lower quality ingredients, perfume concentration and so on. Moreover, fragrance are more often reformulated than they are in niche, and without a good excuse since they use more synthetic materials than hard to find natural ingredients. And by no means I'm saying natural always smells better, or designer lacks natural/niche is always natural. Just speaking generally

2. Maximize profit: Making safe fragrance that are done many times before. Adding very little new and not bumping up quality to make up for that. There are exceptions as well, Chanel No.5 is high quality for example, YSL is a house that takes risk, and so on. Also, making countless flankers of best sellers that are completely forgettable. Sorry but flankers do on your resume and you know they're not expected to be that good or else they would not be limited. Of course there are important exceptions like pure malt, NR Musc EdP and so on.

My conclusion:

Niche is generally better than designer for reasons stated above. I don't know what the distinction between designer and niche came into existence. As a term, niche is just a word that means exclusivity and practically has little to do with how the fragrance smells. It's just there are expectations with that word that are usually met, at least are more met by considered niche fragrances than they are by designer fragrance. While Niche are becoming less exclusive and less risky lately, designers are still at a much worse state. Serge Lutens, Frederic Malle and Amouage continue to release master pieces, while Bond no.9 and creed hold niche stats for price alone. But compare that to the great designer houses: Chanel just released a completely boring, safe, done so many times before, but all around pleasant fragrance. YSL is not taking many risks with their new L' Homme line. And Guerlain, as much as it's brought over and over and over again in these discussions, have not released a classic for decades, get over the past please.

Also, while I do not understand your Ropion analogy. He created a few good/great designer fragrances, many forgettable ones, and a Niche masterpiece? how does that give any credit to designer fragrances? The nose behind them could be a master, but his skills are not shown due to the criteria he has to meet.

Anyway, I'll wrap this up by saying, yes people can be biased towards one opinion or another, one brand or another. Sometimes just for the price of the feeling of exclusivity the brand gives them in the case of Niche, people do not like being in the majority, they like to be anti-conformists. And every now and then, some anti-anti-conformists, who feel anti conformists are now the majority, will pop up and say look at guerlains master pieces, look at all the lies and synthetic boring crap creeds releases. Niche brands use bullcrap marketing just like designers do, with all the exclusivity, uniqueness, high quality claims that they do not necessarily meet. That still does not disprove the solid generalization that niche is better than designer fragrance in most cases. I'm of course saying this of 1. The present 2. in totality - Bleu de Chanel is not a bad fragrance, I'd give it a solid B- on it's own, but it has been done dozens of times before in the designer world, and thus it's certainly worse than say Ambre Sultan, which is a niche fragrance I'd give a B-

Originally Posted by md1grwl

And I could come up with just as lengthy a post with 3 reasons why designer is better.

Its all just objectives and opinions.

I own a good amount of both. I just judge on smell. Period.

I’ve gotten over the “nice must be better” mentality. There’s plenty of niche scents I just simply despise, like MKK.

There is no better. Just take each individual fragrance on its own.

Originally Posted by Ekove

I'm trying to make a point here, that there is a reason niche is generally better. Are you claiming it's 50-50? go ahead, I'd like to see your 3 reasons designer is actually GENERALLY btter.

From your post, you just seem to have no interest in this discussion to begin with, if you're going to go straight up to the conclusion and say judge each fragrance individually. This thread is about patterns and categorizing.

Originally Posted by md1grwl

I don't have 3 reasons designer is better. Thats because I don't believe it to be a true statement. Just like I don’t believe niche is better being a true statement..
There’s few of each, designer & niche, that I fall head over heals in love with. They both have a 10/90 % shot at pleasing or displeasing to me. 10% yes, 90% no.

Most designers smell to bland and ‘nice’. While most niche go too far and make themselves unwearable. Out of the hundres I've sampled, I select few I actually buy and wear. Thats goes for both sides of the coin.

And whats so wrong with me going right to the conclusion, right to the heart of the matter by stating the obvious? That there is no ‘better’.
I’m only allowed to make philosophical thoughts and not come to a conclusion? You did. You stated “niche is better”. You came to your conclusion. So did I. Mine is - there is no ‘better’.

Out of the two of us, guess who’s right and who's wrong?

Originally Posted by hirch_duckfinder

Ekove-
The Human brain does not "like to generalise" but human learning can be linked with an ability to catagorise. The effort we put into making detailed catagories in our understanding (i.e. noting differences rather than generalities) is a measure of the depth of our understanding. It is easy to see connections between things from a distance but these often end up being mistaken when a closer scale of anaysis is used.

Niche is definitely not better than designer. There are many designer fragrances made from better materials and better composed than niche ones.
However, I do agree that for new releases now it is much more likely that good ones will be in the niche area than the designer area as the regulations and economics of the industry make it almost impossible to use really good ingredients in designer frags (other than the cheap ones, like vetiver..). Conversely, niche frags are often not composed by noses with as much skill and experience as designer ones...

Originally Posted by mrclmind

How many times have we seen posts like "wow <insert designer fragrance> is really good. It is niche quality." I think the concept is erroneous. Niche fragrances often obviously work off of concepts that don't riff on "hit notes" like so many designer fragrances do so they can therefore be unique; but uniqueness and quality aren't necessarily synonymous.

Originally Posted by supperman

Unless uniqueness is considered part of the assessment for quality.

Originally Posted by mrclmind

Unique can be really bad too!!

Originally Posted by supperman

Still, if I would consider perfumery an art, being novel is actually an important part of my appreciation of it. But again, it's not the only criterion of it.

Originally Posted by mrclmind

Understood; however my point was that niche doesn't necessarily equal quality; and designer doesn't necessarily equal a lack thereof.

Originally Posted by rickbr

The opposite is true too...

Originally Posted by mrclmind

My point was that neither type of house guarantees a quality perfume, so I obviously agree with you.

Originally Posted by rickbr

I think the best way is to enjoy what both parts have to offer at best, don`t?

Originally Posted by mrclmind

Understood; however my point was that niche doesn't necessarily equal quality; and designer doesn't necessarily equal a lack thereof.

Originally Posted by supperman

Unfortunately, while I agree with you, I'd have to say that in general one can find more quality fragrances in niche houses compared to designer houses, especially modern releases. For this reason, I'm generally more excited about new releases from niche houses than designer ones. For example, I'm absolutely dying to try Bas de Soie, but I have little interest in something like Bottled Night. I'll try it if I pass it by at Sephora, but I won't purposefully seek it out.

I'm not talking about personal taste, I'm talking about the quality of composition and materials used. I think that there is a misconception that niche houses always use better materials and have better noses. That's simply not the case. I think that niche houses have more freedom to experiment
Now, even for modern designer fragrances that are considered good, one could possibly find better similar fragrances in niche houses. For example, I got to try Bang! when I was in Harrods, and I thought it was a nice peppery vetiver fragrance. But then I passed by the Ormonde Jayne counter and I got to try Zizan, which is another peppery spicy fragrance and it runs circles around Bang.

Originally Posted by mrclmind

Quality as a matter of taste is different from what I'm discussing. I'm talking about the inherent qualities of composition and fragrance materials. Many people prefer niche fragrances over designer and vice verse. That is a matter of taste. When we are talking about inherent quality of composition and materials, it is erroneous to say that niche is better than designer. When we are talking about personal taste, then of course such a statement is quite valid. Unless someone is able to have access to the data of the sourcing of materials from each house, than the idea of "quality ingredients" is purely subjective. As far as who employs the better noses, that is a matter of training. So many of the good selling niche scents are composed by noses recruited from the designer world. Don't get me wrong. I love a lot of niche fragrances. But I also love a lot of designer ones as well.

Originally Posted by rickbr

What really frustrates me is to see the best designer fragrances, that we could find for affordable prices, getting discontinued or destroyed by awful reformulations.

Originally Posted by mrclmind

Yes, that is one of the ugly facts of life, isn't it? Even the niche brands have been known to do some evil reformulations with no notice...

Originally Posted by mrclmind

Quality as a matter of taste is different from what I'm discussing. I'm talking about the inherent qualities of composition and fragrance materials. Many people prefer niche fragrances over designer and vice verse. That is a matter of taste. When we are talking about inherent quality of composition and materials, it is erroneous to say that niche is better than designer. When we are talking about personal taste, then of course such a statement is quite valid. Unless someone is able to have access to the data of the sourcing of materials from each house, than the idea of "quality ingredients" is purely subjective. As far as who employs the better noses, that is a matter of training. So many of the good selling niche scents are composed by noses recruited from the designer world. Don't get me wrong. I love a lot of niche fragrances. But I also love a lot of designer ones as well.

Originally Posted by Larwiz

Rickbr: "You have respectful houses, like Amouage, launching boring compositions like Reflection Man or Opus II, or houses like Le Labo, selling chemical bases in strict number of bottles and huge prices."

I'm sorry, but BOOOOOOOOOO on your comment. It's funny how people worship the really average niche fragrances, like GIT, but the really good ones like Reflection Man get comments like yours or no mentions at all. I have sampled many niche fragrances, and Reflection is by far amongst the top 3 that I have tried. And I tell you what: there is nothing boring about it! And talk about longevity! I applied it about 12 hours ago, and can still smell it , and it's not that faint either. Great composition, great smell, and great fragrance!