Originally Posted by MiaKulpa
Don't know about removing animal notes, but there is a trend towards replacing natural with synthetics in general. Chanel replaced natural civet with synthetics a few years ago due to consumer concern over animal welfare, and, a different topic, many *allegedly* allergy-causing natural ingrediants are under attack and being voluntarily replaced with synthetics by manufacturers in line with fragrance industry organization codes. Many believe this is actually a smokescreen, and the real goal is to save money as synthetics are often less expensive. Given that the actual formula is actually very inexpensive (the real markup money goes into packaging, marketing, advertising, and profit), I don't know about this reasoning.
All this is very true, you can read the briefings and the pyramids of these perfumes and they are full of so many nice names, lilli of the valley, peach, rose, tuberose, civet ecc..
There is no moral rule in marketing that forces to mention £sinthetic rose", "civettone", "reconstitued tuberose". It is enough for me to smell what people wear to understand that there is not a drop of natural inside. The only one that uses it in doses that I can smell is Guerlain.
Two days ago arrived a customer in office without appointment and perfumed, I refused to receive her, I told her that I receive only on appointment after advising the person to come not perfumed, that her perfume was terrible and that I could not stand it.
"It is Chanel" she told me.
Her companion was wearing a cheap white musk fragrance just like the one you can buy in bazaar or oriental shop, "it is Kubilai musk" he told me.
There is a real need for an olfactory education today, our tastes have been subverted and hijacked to the lucrous benefit of the industry, I am quite sure that 30 years ago when perfumes were more natural (do you remember old spice) they would not have made it selling the stuff they produce now.