Secretions Magnifiques - Page 2  

This is the one scent I've sampled that leaves me totally nonplussed. I can't imagine who would want to smell like this. True enough, haven't given it a full wearing. But it smells metallic, kind of like blood.

Aficionados should certainly smell it if the opportunity presents itself. But I don't think this stuff is artistic. I thinks it's rank, vile and gimmicky. Meant to bring attention to ELDO.

I think anyone who wears it is making their own sort of counter culture statement. The ELDO issued samples come with a cartoon of a penis spurting semen. Yow.

I see that the reactions to SM are as strong as the smell-so are mine, of course.

The feces in art I can think of were a commentary (yes, commentary) on the art market (Manzoni) and a critique to religion (Ofili). But I am sure there were some others with some obscure feminist reference. I do find the two works mentioned above a little gimmicky too. The sentence Barclay cited (or invented) is, we probably all agree, both silly and pretentious, but some post-modern or conceptual art are legitimate, whatever one's opinion on them.

But yes, in the end that's what it is about, as stylinLA was saying, it's a statement, postmodern, whatever. If one doesn't think it is relevant, then SM is just a shockingly bad perfume created to grab some attention.

Wearable it is not. We do want clothes one can wear, shoes one can walk in, and perfumes one can spray on skin. But once in a while, it can be fun to see or smell things that do not satisfy their utilitarian function.

(This logically leads to the question of whether Light Blue for men, Delices de Cartier, or, LT would add, Love in White are masterpieces... I'm happy to comment on that-but in another thread).

cacio

Ya went all deep there on us cacio...

Anyone who can send me a sample of this?
This sounds like the worst "perfume" ever made and I have to try it.
It also sounds like the emperors new clothes with all the people praising it like a masterpiece.

Like, love or hate SM but I don't understand why it seems like so many opinions are formed of the initial impact/top notes of this fragrance. Why don't people give it a full wear to experience the full development as they would any other fragrance? How can you have an informed opinion without this?

I must say that I have never put it on skin. On paper, the "rotten" note is there day after day, so I'm assuming that it is in the drydown on skin also. but perhaps not (which other note could survive? the modern floral? the rotten milk? the metallic boat?). I'd be curious to have an answer to laph's question too. any informed wearer?

cacio

Secretions Magnifique is far from beeing spectacular or surprising. It has a STRONG metallic note throughout, mixed with a barely sweet floral-milky accord. The overall effect is pretty weird indeed, but IMO SM is to semen as it is to blood, saliva or mucus. Honestly, we can't say blood stinks, or mucus stinks they more lay in the organic odours limbo of unpleasant almost "odourless smells". I'd say they're kind of cloying. And that's exactly the effect SM has on me. 



I prefer to consider Secretions Magnifique as an experimental (almost situationist) piece of art realized through the sense of smell. In my vision this is not a perfume, it's an universally familiar odour and a taboo subject made to provoke reactions. In this context, Antoine Lie perfectly achived his pourpose as SM has become one of the most controversial and discussed scents of the last 20 years.

I agree when someone says that perfumery is another thing, but this composition is to perfumery as Derek Jarman's Blue is to cinema. Pure experimentation.

On the skin (after several full wearings) Secretion Magnifique has a tenacious lasting power and a considerable projection but I can't stand it for more than one/two hours. I honestly don't get the "rotten" note. To me it's all about a strong metallic/milky-floral accord.

Let me add one more thing. If this composition was released by another brand with another name-tag, let's say Joie Du Lait , we wouldn't have witnessed to many of the above reactions....

Alpharom:

good points.

However, I do get a towering rotten note, like stagnant water with decaying seafood. Perhaps people have different sensitivities to these notes. I must be very sensitive to them, because I also find things like Bas de soie or Eden unbearable (not to mention the drydown of Love in White). It would be interesting to see if you find any of these "swampy" or "elegant".

cacio

Personal perception always plays an incredibly important role when smelling fragrances. Said that I'm very far from appreciate SM for its smell. I've been a copywriter myself for more than 18 years in the past, and to me SM is all about the name tag. In this context I respect it as it became, at least, one of the most sampled perfume so far...Again, a different name would have completely missed the target.

Back to your comment, I find Bas De Soie to be definitely more unbearable than SM. While they're very similar in the opening, BdS introduces a "fishery" note that's pretty disgusting (not cloying). But as you surely noticed, it didn't get all the moralistic and hypocritical reactions SM did.

Sorry but I can't comment on Eden and Love In White.

lol ... if u get offered, accept it. If not, dont ask, buy urself. Manners plz.

Hmmmm sounds like an efficient dieting tool, no? LOL!

Ditto to that. That video said more than words. I do that too! As to why? I dunno, but it's probably the same reason that I wanted to try a perfume that a ton of people said smelled like a "urinal cake."

no, lactones aren't new; coumarin is a lactone, but others came later. also, the stuff in mitsouko/femme/rush? those are lactones, too.
they all have that dairy thing, they're creamy and give substantial volume like coconut in thai cuisine, and as far as i know most of them contain either a somewhat coconutty or peachy odor.

For me, "Secretions magnifiques" is:

1. A revolutionary and conceptual work of art.

2. A "coup de théâtre".

3. A marketing strategy.

4. An unprecedented formula


The main problem with "Secretions Magnifiques" is the prejudice of the majority of people. People approaches to this perfume with prejudices and fear... The perfume itself is a flowery, strongly oceanic, bright, milky and clean (almost aseptical) concoction. On my skin I detect a potent and linear aroma of metal, sea breeze and dry-cleaning that lasts more than 24h.

Yes, it's difficult to wear because its potency and the contrast between the metallic and milky edges. But, on my skin, it smells pure and white, and I received lots of compliments from friends and co-workers when I wore it.

Give it a try and a "public wearing"!

Exactly

I'll sample wear virtually anything and usually do for review purposes; not to mention personal curiosity. I wasn't hesitant on trying SM because I've learned through trial and error that what others sometime dislike, I may find very wearable.

This wasn't the case with SM. I detested it from the initial application for it's metallic, bloody, salty approach and if there ever was a scent made to wear that was capable of giving me a gag-reflex, it was this. I despise the iron-filled aroma of blood and it was strong in this scent.

To each his own. If this smells different to others, then more power to you. I know what it smells like to me.

Finally! I have Secretions Magnifique on my hand!! To be honest, I am a bit disappointed. I was expecting something nasty. However, there's nothing nasty or gross about this scent (well at least on my skin). All I get is a metallic, floral, slightly milky scent. This is totally wearable!!! haaaaaaaaayyyy.....

I agree it is totally wearable. Quite pleasant, really.

I must say this is the most foul fragrance I have ever sampled. I nearly threw up. It smelled of week old stirred rotten egg whites. I do not smell blood. In all honesty, has anyone received any compliments/ complaints wearing this?

I think this is a clever marketing strategy. No wonder it is Lady Gaga's favorite scent.

Agreed. I even noted this in my review. It is totally wearable. There is nothing foul about it. The only thing that bothers me is that inky metallic note. It just becomes irritating after a while.

This is the only fragrance that was vile enough that I actually washed and scrubbed my skin with soap and water. The smell did not go away. I used alcohol swabs several times and then sprayed another perfume there to cover the odious odor.

I will revisit this but not in the near future.

Like Aromi said, if you can wear it, more power to your elbow. Just not around me, please.

What gets me is the "this is art" bollocks. It's shock/schlock tactics, nothing more. Rather like the aforementioned Lady Gaga.

It is very interesting to note so many varied responses.
It also proves that every population has folks (n) who can't smell albumin (semen smell), azurone (the rotten egg/harbour bilge note) and blood (the metallic coppery taste/smell).
Trust me they're all present in this one.
The thing is there is a larger population out there who can smell all these elements of SM. So, the question remains how is your perfume going to be interpreted by those individuals.
The key is to keep an open mind.... if one can't smell it, doesn't mean others can't.

My reaction to this perfume is so horrid and so visceral, it is not even a joke.... and no... when I was first exposed to it, I didn't know the name or the hype, it had not been even released to the market yet and came in a label-less vial. I had 'no' idea what I was smelling till a minute into it. And I did spend full 1/2 hour with it to see it's evolution (~ scientific ethics) and I have never underestimated SM's capacity as a potential olfactory weapon.
I always wonder what do the poor techs at the manufacturing plant wear while working with this vile concoction... must be the industrial masks.

Some of my experiences with Secretions Magnifiques:

1. I enjoy it quite a bit. As others have mentioned, there's a sharp metallic note that persists throughout the life of the fragrance. But there are also light floral notes and something sweet, almost cotton candyish too. Others get a strong sour milk note that they find disgusting (more on that below), but thankfully I don't get that at all.

2. I overapplied one day, just b/c I was curious. The lady who took my order at Starbucks said "Mmm, you smell nice."

3. My colleague, who had literally never worn a fragrance in his life, wanted to try it. (I posted a funny YouTube review on my facebook.) He liked it. He had an appointment that night with his hair stylist, who told him he smelled nice.

4. I sent a sample to a friend, who was curious. She said "I don't get what all the fuss is about. It's a nice, pleasant smell."

5. An ex-girlfriend of mine (not ex at the time) wanted to smell it. She almost vomited within a second of smelling it. Her nose picked up a sour milk note that completely dominated the fragrance for her. I had to promise never to wear it again.

6.We are no longer together, so I wear it happily again. But only when I expect not to be dealing with other people.

Asaskian:

thanks for the names of the offending molecules. I smell them loud and clear.

We had a recent thread on M/Mink by Byredo, which shares a toned down combination of the above (especially the metallic one), and as in this thread, the reactions varied from disgusting to appreciative, indicating anosmias in certain people.

I wonder how the SM wearers of today's posts would react to M/Mink.

cacio

You made some great points but I have to point out that not everyone finds these molecules offensive. I could smell everything you mentioned and I still did not find SM to be vile. I guess it boils down to the individual. I may not be gaga over SM but some folks are and they love it for the exact same reasons you hate it. I personally could not get past what I presume to be their interpretation of blood, that inky metallic note. It really wore me down but I am sure it was heaven for someone else. All in all, SM was not bad and on the right person, it could be fantastic.

I personally found M/Mink to be utterly revolting. To me, SM was MUCH more toned down and actually wearable. M/Mink was screaming "Hey! Over here. Disgusting is not an adjective. It is a proper noun. I AM Disgusting! Come over. Lets play!"

TT:

I guess there is also a matter of how much one can smell; perhaps one can detect the note but somehow for him it plays less loudly than for others. So that could explain that somebody doesn't find these notes offensive. I felt that SM is more complex and had more bad notes, but it is possible that M/Mink, while having fewer bad notes, contains a higher fraction of certain molecules (like the nautical metallic bilge), thus generating stronger reactions in some people. I do react to both.

cacio

I have tested it twice and, as strong as my stomach is, I almost vomited both times. As many of you know, I am a HUGE ELdO fan, so I might buy it one day just for the principle. However, It has been anything but pleasant to me.

Plus, I think most of us agree that Katie Puckrik is pretty savvy...at least she knows a lot about perfumes. If you haven't seen this link, then you need to watch it. She's an old hat at all this, and she has a REALLY visceral reaction, too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7QQxSevDu0

It is hideous stuff to be sure. I just get a disgusting milky metallic mess that makes my eyes blur and feel weird. I almost wonder if I have an allergy to some component of this one. Allergy or no, I consider the scent absolute junk and the worst I have smelled to date.

Hmm, the reactions mentioned here are considered normal reflexes in humans in response to smells of (old) blood and rotten egg/flesh.... but the folks you mentioned, their emesis centre is either conditioned to these smells and doesn't react or it doesn't acknowledge them as noxious stimuli.
Majority human brains process harbour bilge (rotten flesh)/ blood/rotten egg, curdled milk smells as noxious and for the first two, there is an adrenaline reaction as well. Being a scientist when I mention numbers, I'm talking about the main bulk of population under the Gaussian curve, not the tail ends.
Second, people who can smell them, may not be picking up smells at lower concentration, perhaps they can only smell this stuff in higher conct.
I can tell you about myself and a cohort (n=70) I worked on, that they could smell these notes in very low concentrations and their reactions across the board were tachycardia, sweating and vomiting.

But, if you like it, who am I to tell you otherwise.
And here is to hoping, I won't run into an SM wearer... eveh. :-)

I know of a lady who doesn't smell a thing when it comes to SM except the floral part. Now, would you envy her inosmia or would you pity her?
But, I refuse to believe that smell of blood and rotting flesh is okay.
I deal with smells like SM everyday and it is still not okay. Those odours are the antithesis of human life.
BUT....
To each their own.

I'm doing a running commentary on the female frags section today. Pop over have a look.

I found SM to be much milder and subtler than I had been expecting based on reviews and reactions of others. I thought it was somewhat disturbing and a bit gross, but I did not find it to be deliberately disgusting; it definitely felt like a carefully put together scent.

M/Mink is very different to my nose -- it smells extremely industrial/synthetic, whereas SM has an organic feel that really brings things to a visceral level. I'm not disturbed or nauseated by a bad smell from a factory, I just want to get away. That's how I feel about M/Mink.

I've tried only one smell,really big disappointment,so bad...You should be careful,if it will touch somewhere on your dress or body..

I did not believe all the negative reviews, and I love some scents that others find vile. So, I took my sample and sprayed two sprays, one on each wrist. First impression: Not bad, I sort of liked it in a strange way. 15 minutes later I started to find that the metallic, dirty smell was becoming more obnoxious. A half hour later I could only think of some future spaceship, almost devoid of human life but with a skankyness of metal mixed with lubricant and ozonic metal. Something came to mind about metallic robots having sex. Never had those thoughts before...and this fragrance brought this nightmare to me. I had to scrub this off and almost nothing would get this off! I bathed, I scrubbed and I used everything I cold think of to get rid of this vomit inducing scent and after I did that I drowned both wrists in Black Aoud. Hope I never smell this one again.

Great image...

You had been warned by us BNers! I hope you didn't spray any part of your house because the smell is eternal. I keep the pipette I use to decant it in a plastic bag on my balcony.


cacio

They also have some ELDO at MinNY, which has a much better website. I was even in a pharmacy the other day--yes, a pharmacy--and they had ELDO in their fragrance section. I can't even buy toothpaste without the frag gods tantalizing me.

I keep my sample indoors, but inside two ziplock bags. It really is some rancid, horrible juice.

I'm still amazed at this fragerance though, how it's possible to make a juice that manages to evoke so much emotion.

ELdO in a pharmacy? I just wish ... only in NYC. I wonder if sec mag could serve some type of medical purpose.
cacio

Informal research suggests that it is effective as an emetic.

I really must sample this one

The press kit of SM states the opposite. SM is meant - by that operating instructions - to be a hymn to corporal human life. And to perfume as a possible focus of human creativity. Perfume as an art form. As far as the manual can be trusted the various smells of bodily liquids are not literally emulated. This indirection IS art: to evoke something in an other humans brain by new means. The enhancement of communication. Look at cubism as an example. So far on the press kit and the possible antithesis You see in using certain chemicals.

SM can and will evoke vegetative reactions. A former girl friend developed an insane greed for chocolate while being exposed to a sample that ran out into my knapsack for several days. I observe a peculiar mouthwatering effect on myself. The olfactory dissonance in SM makes me struggle from time to time too. Again, ELdOs description of the fragrance states that these effects are intentional. It does not smell like or of adrenaline (?how could it?) but it makes You FEEL adrenaline - which is art, somehow.

Is Free Jazz still music? http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=27CpT79NMhQ


Taken technically Secretions Magnifique is tremendously potent. Its denser than a perfume concentration! Its sibling Rien is considered pure perfume. Both are no kiddy stuff. An other technical aspect is the use of otherwise dismal animal secretions in a large variety of classic perfumes with only spare complaints.

And so on. Its just goofy to reduce Secretions Magnifique to a emetic. Its neither a gag. If someone throws up from the smell of curdled milk I can't help, though.

WildThingy:

I will repeat again....
"To each their own".
If you perceive it the way you do... pray, continuing doing so.
I am not stopping you, am I?

And if this is art to you... that's absolutely grand: it's your prerogative.

Hi - "To each their own"., that's an idiom to stop all discussions. And I feel You mix up liking a fragrance, disliking and a general appreciation beyond liking or even disliking.


The latter quote refers to Your assumption regarding certain chemicals that You think render SM an emetic. Neither do You have any prove regarding the chemicals being really used, nor does Your pretty anecdote have any scientific merits (blind test vs. placebo, statistically relevant subset, varying doses, olfactory context etc.). Too the said chemicals (in SM) are of non-natural origin. They can not be known by the brain on a time scale relevant to physical learning, namely evolution(survival of the fittest). Your explanations don't seem to really apply.

Not to be shaken by SMs ugliness is not a consequence of being physically defective by anosmia. Nor are us machos, as You argument further, impaired by abnormal processing of olfactory sensations in the brain.

I'm not the perfume-is-art mop-head. But in this case I would decidedly agree to tell SM a piece of art. Not only is it technically brilliant, but too its a new way to express something by smelling. Like it or not - You can't deny! I won't discuss its embedding in all day smells which for a bigger part are synthetic concoctions of human design. Think of fabric softener, maybe its cultural variance Europe/US/Asia/Africa.

And I'm afraid - again regarding the certain chemicals You accused to make Your n=70 cohort all vomit - You did ignore my argumentation with classic perfumes. These contained animal secretions of great stink. Poop is known to be unavoidable in jasmine centered fragrances. Enjoy!

This maybe true but where's the link to SM? It doesn't literally contain or smell like these things, it's just evocative of them to some people.
Or am I misunderstanding your point?

I do have proof.
And anyone can use gas chromatography to get the chemicals which are used in it.
I knew SM before it was even released to the market.
And true again, I consider ELdO pretty pathetic.

I am very familiar with use of scents (animalic/indolic) to give more depth to a perfume, any good student
of perfumery does.

But, why are you arguing??
You like SM... fine!
I DON'T.

No argument, I was just enjoying a discussion/debate ........oh well.........

Certainly not trying to make you (or anyone) like or dislike SM.

Hmm - could it be the purpose of a discussion forum to argue? To exchange arguments and differing views on certain topics? I'm not fond of reducing a fragrance to a matter of liking or not. If it were so discussion wouldn't be worthwhile because 'de gustibus non est disputandum', right?

Just to hook You up again: why do You discuss certain chemicals if it is a matter of liking only? Express Your disgust and done, no?


Uups - You should have told us before, because this is a quite unusual occurrence to say the least. I'm afraid all this makes not only me darn curious! Could You flesh it out a bit further - for curiosity only, really!


Yeah, but that means, not every vile stink is banned from use in finest concoctions. My personal perception tells me, that the acrid component(s) in SM act as a perfect counter balance in the whole thing. And the huge contrast - who knows how it was invented! - develops like a roller coaster dropping down. Eventually the drydown is marvelous, still relying on the 'bilge' or 'metal' to give some 'fresh' to the woodsy, milky base.

Then, these accused chemicals are widely used in other frags, functional and fine. Opposed to that You explain that said chemicals release a vegetative reflex even in lowest concentrations. That's quite interesting. All three substances are human inventions unknown to nature until recent years. How could all mankind have developed a 'natural' reflex to it?

You explain that one has to be trained (or defect) to not vomit from SMs smell. Couldn't it be the other way round? The 'bad' molecules evoke the presence of certain things. These things are trained to be disgusting (rot, feces and other secretions ...). Trained reaction: through up! Its not the chemical that releases the reflex but the image it evokes plus learned grading of the images content.

I think its a subtle but nonetheless crucial difference! It means that to find SM disgusting is a matter of some negotiable cultural agreement. Like the taste of cheese ...

Whoa boys... It's just a bit of ephemera! It's scent when all said and done. Something that humans originally used to disguise body odour not a thesis or a Leonardo painting.

I find it interesting that someone claims to have done research on the emetic qualities of SM. I do hope that full written informed consent was obtained and the participants were SM naive and had not been exposed to any information or PR guff that goes along with SM. Oh and that the opinion of an appropriate ethical committee had been sought and a repeatable, robust and validated tool was used to record response.

If all the above conditions were met I'd be interested in seeing the resulting paper and which scientific journal published it. I'm sure such positive results would be of great interest to medical staff dealing with overdoses, it would save on doing stomach wash outs.

Until then it's an mediocre fragrance with an interesting line in PR

LOL Alityke - cheeky! I feel like I'm listening to an episode of QuackCast or Skeptoid!

tour de force posts by barclaydetolley here. LOL stuff!
and i agree 100%!

Alityke: You aren't aware of research-requirements in US/Canada, IRB/REB... ? There's a very rigid and robust system in place, at times far more incisive than what I saw in Oxford.
And no, both me and my colleague (who wasted that summer with me) have no desire to share any data. He is of the same mind as barclaydetolly (and now, I am too).... he thought it would only attract more attention to this charade. (I send this thread to him and he is pretty pissed off at my mentioning it, "stop feeding this morbid fascination and shut up").
And gas chromatography chemical-formula information is neither legal nor allowed on a public thread. If I don't like ELdO's overzealous conceptual melodrama, that is my personal preference.
And WildThingy (it would be fun to argue in person, man (grin)), but the scents (and mimicked to perfection here laph/all scents have a specific chemical component which generates or provokes that smell sensation and that is what chemists do) present in the SM are a smell, an abstraction to you... but when you've stood at an OR table with blood pouring out of a human, it is no more just smell of blood, it is a life dying in your hands. Once you've smelled smell of sex, flowers, mixed with human secretions/excreta on a homicide case and your Professor wants 'you' to do that autopsy, it is no more "just" those smells any more.... they have an association. And that is the "kicker" with scents, smells: they revolve around a Pavlovian model with hippo-campus and amygdala (emotions/memory centres) directly involved.
So, yes a part of me can stand aside and look at it all very objectively and say... oh, cool, how innovative. But, the truth is Antoine Lie has made some pretty high-grade, nifty, olfactory torture device (at least to me).
Smell and like/dislike are so strongly associated in our psyche... there is loads of research out there. It's impressive what Givaudan has done, since they've developed quite accurate models to measure scent/emotions.

So, if you don't feel any nausea/emesis, salivation, tachycardia.... good for you.
I do and quite a few out there do, too; so, have mercy and be kind to us.

You think so?


The mental mechanism which connects the smell of SM to vomiting contains a certain component. Namely it is experience, memory and not at least an emotional grading of - not the smell but the situation it evokes. A person with less extreme experiences as You has the chance to connect the smell to more positive situations.

That's a picture I would agree to. And too it fits the 'data' of other participants: only few feel nauseated by SM if they have not been told about it before. The only negative comment I ever got referred to the acrid tops. An with this it was not the 'metal' or the 'bilge' but just the harshness, in particular there was no 'situational' resemblance to anything disgusting or threatening. A contemporary WC cleaner would have done the same, I assume.


Reiterated, I had a 4h international flight wearing SM and no complain. Know what, it is a matter of dosage too. While the 300+ cohort of involuntary companions evaporated bad food and fear, covered by heavy doses of tax free trials of Chanel De Bleu , I had one spritz total on my wrists and enjoyed. Otherwise I would have puked.


As You won't feed this with some data or a hint from where You got that much insight, don't You think a further discussion is negligible?

All the best

Asaskian obviously you know far more than I about clinical research and international law and standards. My 20+ years working as a clinical researcher has obviously been wasted.

My lady, no sarcasm was meant!
I was truly asking the question?
As you well know, to do (esp experimental) research which involves the grave danger of one's volunteer subject placed at the risk of having any physical side effects (something as momentary as 2 minutes of nausea), IRB/REB 'darn-near' drills holes in your hide before letting it through.
That's why I said, I wasted that summer.
But obviously, it seems I can't say anything without making someone upset here....

No offense taken. You made an assumption that was all.

It is just a poor scent at the end of the day. ELdO seem to have forgotten that scent is meant to be a pleasure and make humans smell better not a statement or "art". That's all pretention

Again we can learn a lot from Your contribution. The Thierry Mugler cofret relates to a book on perfume that should be read as ironic. I know the German original very well - its as fictional as even a Star Trek episode could be. May be the film omits the wink of an eye which makes the book so entertaining. Verdict: pretentious 'high concept' the TM coffret is. No art but business.

Pierre's Huitieme Art is as much art as a new Volkswagen is art. Read the exaggerating introduction on this site for instance => http://www.ausliebezumduft.de/duefte..._store=english Verdict: sheer baloney.

SM is different, agreed!



What I said and You denied in the first place: Its not a special molecule alone that makes an unfortunate volunteer vomit. Its the mindset of the person who smells the whole picture, which determines any vegetative reaction.

I hate to be rude, but I can't believe Your claims about scientific background and insider knowledge. Many reasons, not to be listed for the sake of politeness.

have fun!

If ever there was a subject that has been flogged to death, this is it.

However, isn't calling someone a liar, as in the previous post, not in the spirit of BN? Disagreeing is one thing, and I've done plenty of that myself in many posts, but accusing someone who has posted reasoned comments of being a liar should not happen.

I totally disagree that categorizing perfumery as an art is pretentious. If you apply this thinking, clothing is only meant to make people look better. I find no difference between people using their clothing to make a statement or using a fragrance to do the same. Olfactory Art (as with other forms of art) is obviously a form of expression.