Basenotes › Basenotes Forums › Fragrance Discussion › Male Fragrance Discussion › MFD Archive › Scents of the '80s and the Dad smell
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Scents of the '80s and the Dad smell

post #1 of 18
2/6/07 at 9:23am
Thread Starter 
I'm finding it kind of amusing that I see so many references to fragrances dating from the '80s being referred to as like Dad's, or being for more mature men ;-) I can understand the Dad reference for obvious reasons, but don't understand why the scents themselves cannot stand on their own merits.

I wasn't exactly a scenthound back in those days, but I did wear Chanel Antaeus and Halston Z-14 regularly, in addition to the occasional dose of Knize 2, now discontinued. I don't have experience with other '80s vintage fragrances, but from what I've read on this website, several others such as Yatagan, Van Cleef and Arpels, etc. have similar characteristics.

I was in my late 20s then, frequenting discos and other clubs, picking up women as often as I could. Well, you know the routine ;-) I remember that back then those powerhouse scents were considered very sexy, and the girls really liked them. They were by no means considered old men's fragrances. Young, virile men wore them, and the women found us young and virile ;-)

It's strange how perception of these scents have changed over the past 25 years. Now if you wear one of these scents, formerly considered very studly and sexy and powerful, you are expected to be an old man ;-) Are our noses really that trendy? I still think these scents are better suited for the younger man than the older.

Why doesn't the younger generation have the same response towards these scents that we so-called old men did back then? Why do not today's girls eagerly rip off the shirts of young men wearing Z-14 or Antaeus as their mothers did 25 years ago? ;-)

I called wait til 20 years from now when Acqu di Gio will be considered an old man's scent ;-) But I'll be really old then, and will probably still prefer Antaeus ;-)

noggs
Reply
Reply

Features on Basenotes

Petals Falling From The Sky - A Report From The Cote d'Azur's Bataille De Fleurs
Basenotes Reader Awards 2013 - Finalists Announced.
Greatest Hits: Annick Menardo
post #2 of 18
2/6/07 at 9:54am
I am one of the strange ladies who definitely prefers Chanel Antaeus to Armani Acqua di Gio. I think fashion and peer pressure have a lot to do with the labelling and insults directed at the classic scents. My SO who is in his late 20s loves Antaeus, it is his signature scent and we have both recently fallen for the old world style Michael for Men by Michael Kors. But he doesn't run with the pack either. I personally wear and love Halston Z-14, Aramis for Men, Lancome Sagamore and Lagerfeld Classic. As I said - I am one of the strange ones...
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 18
2/6/07 at 10:14am
Wow, a woman that wears Lagerfeld Classic, now that's impressive! :-) I really must say that's one of my favourites as I'm kinda into the heavies from the eighties as well. They have some character, lacking from so many of today's fresh synthetic scents...
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 18
2/6/07 at 10:27am
Noggs, you smell mahwvulous dollink! I am not really all that old as the Hurt old lady thread might suggest, and my husband is even younger so he and I agree thankfully on what we like. If it clears out a room, hey, it can be fun, just kidding.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 18
2/6/07 at 10:34am
Yeah, why doesn't the younger generation dress like we used to either? It's the way it happens. We want to do something different and new. You didn't dress terribly back in the day, but we want to dress our own way. I personally love some of the older scents (Polo, Opium EDP, Eau Sauvage), but do you understand where we're coming from?
- Rich
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 18
2/6/07 at 10:38am
a lot has to do with where you hang out. There are different strata as far as money is concerned so different products seem normal at different strata.
Find a swing club in a big city and ask the bartender what people are wearing.
A lot different than a grunge metal club.
'
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 18
2/6/07 at 11:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by moondeva

I am one of the strange ladies who definitely prefers Chanel Antaeus to Armani Acqua di Gio. I think fashion and peer pressure have a lot to do with the labelling and insults directed at the classic scents. My SO who is in his late 20s loves Antaeus, it is his signature scent and we have both recently fallen for the old world style Michael for Men by Michael Kors. But he doesn't run with the pack either. I personally wear and love Halston Z-14, Aramis for Men, Lancome Sagamore and Lagerfeld Classic. As I said - I am one of the strange ones...


AND GOD SAID : LET THERE BE MORE STANGE ONES !

love you allready ;-)
the 80ies were so.......80ies :-))
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 18
2/6/07 at 11:37am
Aaahhh the 80's. I think of it a very sexy decade, probably for the same reasons as Noggs - that's when I started going out, wearing astonishingly stupid clothes, chasing women and getting into trouble. The scents were more musky, brash and patchouli based than now (see recent threads on Givenchy Gentleman - a groin thrusting nightclub king when I was a lad and now only to be worn with a pinstripe suit and silver highlights!).

BUT Rich makes a top point.

Don't you remember how older people told you that the 60s was where its at, baby, and the 70s still had drugs and long hair and disco and punk, and how sorry they were they you were growing in this grey decade? And how much you hated them? Now we've grown up and are news editors and film producers and make sentimentally ironic movies about how pop-tastic the 80s were.

I look at my students slouching before me and feel sorry for the homogenised sanitised (aspects of the) culture they are growing up in, but then pinch myself and remember those sneery older folks. The kids are bound to want different styles including in their scents - fair play to them.

(Still ... Antaeus, Polo, GG ... I am tempted to get that boating jacket of the back of the wardrobe and stick on some Duran )
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 18
2/6/07 at 12:20pm
Personally for me - scents that were popular in the 80's were men's scents that were strong powerful scents. I wore a few of them (I loved Obsession for Men & Grey Flannel)

I am really not interested in revisiting those scents. One reason:

It was not OK for a "man" to wear floral complex or light scents back in the 80's - nor was any fragrance house releasing unisex scents (I think the first I remember was CK one, right?) It was NOT OK for a man to talk about wanting to wear floral, light scents either (if a man found himself shopping in the ladies fragrance counter...well they got strange looks). There was no internet forum like BN...cause the internet hadn't been around yet.

Now (in the year 2007) I have the opportunity to wear any fragrance I want, and to communicate with other men who are like me that it's OK to wear any fragrance I want, plus get ideas, get samples, etc...

I'm still trying to sample/smell/discover all of the European & domestic niche fragrances that everyone else here in BN is so excited about...frankly I don't want to have to revisit eighties scents.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 18
2/6/07 at 3:54pm
Not too much i can add that others haven't already said. It's natural for a new generation growing up in different circumstances to seek their independence and break away from us "old men". They want things which are their own, to define themselves. Part of that definition means they prefer to smell like a vanilla cookie or watermelon. (haha) Kidding. ... i do that.

Oh, and shirts do still get occasionally ripped off. Except any woman that does that best know she'll be sewing on the buttons at daybreak. (haha) Kidding. That's only if i'm serving "sleep time". Kidding again. ... i'm perfectly capable of sewing on my own buttons - it's a required skill taught in 1st or 2nd grade. How else is a young'un going to mend his uniform in the field? At least that was the thinking under Brezhnev. Still a fine skill to have though.

There's an interesting history of fragrance on OsMoz. I'm not saying i agree or disagree, and perhaps i'd add or take away from their write-up, but (quoting loosely): the 80s were characterized by individualism and strong sensations. Think about the things that were happening in that decade, globally. The nineties ... back to basics it seems. People wanted "freshness" ... i'd say they got it. More power to 'em.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 18
2/6/07 at 4:08pm
  • kbe
  • offline
  • Gender:
I read somewhere years ago that teenagers were God's way of making sure the population of the Earth spread out quickly.

Every generation seems to want to be different in most ways, and probably it is a genetic trait favoring testing the envelope for the new and maybe more advantageous way to live.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 18
2/6/07 at 5:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbe

I read somewhere years ago that teenagers were God's way of making sure the population of the Earth spread out quickly.

Every generation seems to want to be different in most ways, and probably it is a genetic trait favoring testing the envelope for the new and maybe more advantageous way to live.

I think this is on the right track.

I have a theory about fashion that one day I'm going to publish . The standard view is that fashion is dictated by companies wanting to market new things so that they have rapid turnover of stock. I think that is only a part of it. The fashion cycle is dictated by young people: it is a way of distinguishing those who are in the sexual availability market from those who are not. Can you keep up with the fashion? Then you are still on the hunt for a mate. Can't keep up? Wearing something that is three years out of date? Then you are part of the herd that is not sexually prime. It needs to change constantly so that the opposite sex can see who is and who is not sexually out front. It is, metaphorically, a churning river that some will be able to ford, and others will get stuck on the bank.

Scent is part of this, though it is less conspicuous: the "new" smell is that which the young wear, and it must be different enough from what those older people wear so that the young can tell who is, and who is not, one of them.

Companies are rushing to predict and keep up, trying to supply the water for this churning river but they can be caught off guard at times and get it wrong.

It's all the Darwinian struggle to find the best mate but played out with consumer goods.

That is my theory by :cough: Ann Elk.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 18
2/6/07 at 8:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by moondeva

...and we have both recently fallen for the old world style Michael for Men by Michael Kors.


Great choice. I was introduced to Michael for Men seven years ago. Still one of my all-time faves. Works very well with my body chemistry. Exudes class.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 18
2/6/07 at 9:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eluard

The fashion cycle is dictated by young people: it is a way of distinguishing those who are in the sexual availability market from those who are not. Can you keep up with the fashion? Then you are still on the hunt for a mate. Can't keep up? Wearing something that is three years out of date? Then you are part of the herd that is not sexually prime.

This makes absolutely no sense. Will you be writing about girls or women? There's a difference. Girls are simple. Be what they want you to be. Done.

Are we talking about choosing mates? In the past, a woman chose the man who was the best hunter and had the biggest cave. It's still about being the best provider possible, but this means something else today. And it sure as hell doesn't mean keeping up with the latest fashions.

But what do i know? ...
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 18
2/6/07 at 10:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoTHukoB

This makes absolutely no sense. Will you be writing about girls or women? There's a difference. Girls are simple. Be what they want you to be. Done.

Are we talking about choosing mates? In the past, a woman chose the man who was the best hunter and had the biggest cave. It's still about being the best provider possible, but this means something else today. And it sure as hell doesn't mean keeping up with the latest fashions.

But what do i know? ...

I was primarily thinking of fashion for those between 16 and 25. But the slower rhythms of fashion for older people also have a similar significance. Indeed my theory explains why the rhythms are slower for those older. And then one has found a mate the interest in latest fashions notably decreases: you are out of the river.

I think what you say choosing mates who are the best provider and hunter is only a part of it. What I am saying is that there are more cues to best sexual partner than you are admitting.

But armchair sociobiology is a fun past-time. Anyone can play!
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 18
2/7/07 at 3:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eluard

I was primarily thinking of ...

Ah so. That clears it up a bit. Now i have context to put it into, which didn't come across at first reading. "Plumage" mostly, then? Don't think i agree with you, but you ought to run with it and see where it takes you.

Instantly i'd say: the young shed fashions like skins because they're growing (one hopes) and need replacements on account of that growth. I don't mean putting on height or weight. The growth never stops, but it matures at a certain point. You know what i am saying, i don't need to go on.

You don't agree?

Oh, and another question: 16 to 25 isn't arbitrary, is it? What's your reasoning?
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 18
2/7/07 at 5:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoTHukoB

Ah so. That clears it up a bit. Now i have context to put it into, which didn't come across at first reading. "Plumage" mostly, then? Don't think i agree with you, but you ought to run with it and see where it takes you.

Yup, plumage is a good way of putting it. And it gets shed every year and grows back in a slightly different style. It's plumage that allows someone to recognise who is still making a lot of effort to attract the opposite sex. It is promenading for cultures that have forgotten the value of promenading. (Italy still understands promenading!)

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoTHukoB

Instantly i'd say: the young shed fashions like skins because they're growing (one hopes) and need replacements on account of that growth. I don't mean putting on height or weight. The growth never stops, but it matures at a certain point. You know what i am saying, i don't need to go on.

You don't agree?

I do, but what I'm saying explains the sometimes silliness of fashion the fact that it is daft and ugly a lot of the time. It can be that because it still serves its other function of being the secret handshake.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoTHukoB


Oh, and another question: 16 to 25 isn't arbitrary, is it? What's your reasoning?

It both forms a recognisable age demographic for fashion and also coincides with the prime fertility years for women. But I agree that my little theory works better for women than it does for men. Men tend to show that they are still available and interested by looking "presentable", and they can do that through a wide age range.

I think the fashion for light aquatics or heavy gourmonds (like A*Men) is a way of differentiating someone from the fashion twenty years ago. But it has nothing to do with whether the scents are good, or not. Thus those who say that a scent smells "old" are not necessarily saying it smells bad and I doubt if they always know themselves what they are saying.

I'd be a bit embarrassed indulging in armchair sociobiology if that wasn't just what the experts (like Dawkins) were often doing too.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 18
2/8/07 at 9:14am
Dawkins, C. R. b. 1941; i looked it up. Seems like a solid CV: well-padded with titles, publications, accomplishments, controversy, failed marriages, and a face which says he's at present a man who enjoys excesses. I'm very forgiving of others' excesses because i've got some of my own.

... i'm not technically qualified to speak to you on this subject because i'm not trained in it. But an "armchair" can be fun. Games doubly so. Still, that's not what this is about.

What i mean is: if you think you have something new to say, to add to a field of endeavor, or to advance the knowledge of mankind - go for it. If you can make a personal profit from it, all the better. Beware scope creep on this one; i mean - if you address (and i fail to see how you would not have to) things like social standing, economics, education, culture, sub-culture, etc. this thing could balloon on you in a big way. However, keep it too tightly focused and you might short-change the subject. Oh, and if i suggested a range, i'd go 16 - 24.

Me? i'd be happy if you could convince the fashion industry to make a decent tipped belt - i'm having hella time replacing mine. It must be "just so".


So, Grindel - we sure know how to hijack a thread, huh? Apologies to everyone, we're done i think.

That's what i'm here for - information about fragrance with a fringe of conversation.

G'day all.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: MFD Archive

Features on Basenotes

Petals Falling From The Sky - A Report From The Cote d'Azur's Bataille De Fleurs
Basenotes Reader Awards 2013 - Finalists Announced.
Greatest Hits: Annick Menardo
Basenotes › Basenotes Forums › Fragrance Discussion › Male Fragrance Discussion › MFD Archive › Scents of the '80s and the Dad smell