Have reviews turned too editorial?

Because we're in a subjective business?

Turin's been fairly critical of Guerlain...in fact he's written articles titled "The Fall of the House of Guerlain". See his reviews of Mayotte/Mahora, Champ-Elysees, and the reformulations of various Guerlain scents.

The only Creed he gives a good review to is GIT, and some of us might agree that's a fair stance (not intended to flame the Creed lovers, just a general comment).

Turin has 5-star reviews for certain companies and perfumers, and 1 or 2-star ratings for other scents the same companies and perfumers have produced.

First off, I think every person who shares their opinion - aka 'reviewer' - possesses their own style. Not just style of expression, but also the style in which they view the product.
Secondly, as human beings we are constantly evolving - and that evolution is definitely reflected in how we express our opinion.
Thirdly, if you have sampled 30 different apples and found you don't like any of them, when the 31st apple is put in front of you...well...your experience has taught you that you PROBABLY won't like it.

For me personally, the more fragrances I sample, the more finicky I become. My preferences are more clearly defined...maybe you would call that being less objective.

I do agree that before we give an opinion, we need to "check" ourselves in the area of objectivity. That is difficult.

I disagree. What could be more bloodless than an objective review of a fragrance? An objective fragrance review would read like a description.
Cars are machines, therefore they can be objectively evaluated, well, at least to a certain extent.
Turin certainly isn't objective, this is why you have to respect his opinions in order to take him seriously.

I know what you're saying, but I don't know if everyone's capable! (Or willing!)

This is a good point. The problem, if it is one, is that there are no professional standards in fragrance reviewing, as opposed to the sensory evaluation of wine. And even Turin is no professional reviewer. He's a scientist with a great amount of perfume-related knowledge who can write exceedingly well. I think he'd be wonderfully suited to lay the foundation for a professionalized form of public perfume criticism, but I don't think it's something he's all that interested in (which I have no problem with). I'm not sure whether there is a market for Perfume Review. A Quarterly of Fragrance Criticism just yet

Life is subjective; very few, are the people who can be completely objective, and they would be criticized for lacking passion. Perfume is one of the most subjective things there is. Because it ties in with memory, it is not the same as the love of food or wine/liquor, and we know how passionate people can be about those areas also.
When someone smells a scent, it is not just the olfactory bulb conveying the information to the brain, and then the brain analyzes it. It is the brain analyzing it, and then millions of different glimmers of memories start to awaken; the memories can be for the notes, for the scent, for an experience, etc.
So it is a unique experience. Now when trying to convey this information, in an unbiased way to millions of people, there will always be one's 'self'' in the review. Therefore we should all enjoy reviews, opinions, comments, but not always take them to heart. On the other hand, if the review is from someone with whom you feel a kindred scent spirit, then you could take the reviews more literally.
The truth of it is; I completely respect and admire many reviews I read, but sometimes I do not understand why some are as virulent as they are.
But one thing I will add; I admire people like Turin, who are not afraid to go against the grain. I myself find a lot of the scents, being spoken of so highly on this site, unwearable at the least, and sometimes just downright nausea inducing. So it would be hard to be objective in critiquing them. But M. Turin will come out and say "Smells like urine", and not care if he offends anyone; I guess that is where he is most objective, when just looking at it by the notes, and their harmony.

Well I hope there is ... I happen to own the domain name for perfumereview.com

An objective review would read like a textbook. If you really want objective fragrance reviewsinstead of citing bergamot or ylang-ylang as its notes, you'd have to give the molecules' names.

"What a lovely pair of isomers! That OH chain really knows how to dance around."

I share that opinion, and I am actually very disappointed, that LT gave Tabac Blond one star in his book when he had always talked about TB as if deserving five stars. Alright, the formula was changed and the juice suffered. Nevertheless there remains a rather distinctive fine perfume which many find very pleasing. Had he been ready to grant three or four stars, I might see that. One star is too eccentric. If LT tthinks that was fair, then he has no regard for all the china he smashed! He did that, not the new smell of Carons best fragrance! My impression: critics are sometimes too much in love with their own genius detecting failures of the perfumers in charge, particularly when nobody else has seen it their way before.

studdg, perhaps you can be the objective reviewer. I agree that niche is still open. There is a growing awareness of perfume blogs and reviewers; I cite yesterday's server overload in the wake of the NYT article. Seize the moment!

Studdg, how about a perfume guide for the 'niche' frags, by an objective reviewer/reviewers???

I hate to say it, but it is just his opinion, and nothing more. He rated the new Je Reviens Couture very well, I find it to smell like glorified A**. I loved the old version much better, but eh...it does not matter.

As far as the Tabac Blond goes, and many others from Caron, the one star is more than I would give. When you have known a fragrance for many years, then all of a sudden it smell quite different (if not completely different) something is amiss. Tabac Blond was a very unique creature, it was wild and yet it was also tame; strong and in your face, caressing and enveloping at the same time. What is now being sold under the name is a different type of scent, maybe a second cousin to Tabac Blond. This seems to be the case, as far as I have smelt, with many of the Caron scents. The only analogy I could use is; If every day, for years, you are eating Filet Mignon and loving it, when someone places a McDonalds hamburger in front of you, and calls it Filet Mignon, would you not feel cheated. Granted they are both red-meat, but worlds apart in all other aspects. Do not present me new Tabac Blond (Hamburger), and try to tell me it is old Tabac Blond (Filet Mignon), and have me critique it. One would have to be almost numb to give an objective review. So while the virtue of new Tabac Blond are many, call it by something else, so that it will be appreciated on it's own merit. Because all it does is reflect poorly against a legend.
So to the people that love the new formula; enjoy it for what it is. But understand, those of us who loved the old cannot separate the two and be unbiased. And if someone does not continue to acknowledge the travesty in the scent world, the tweaking of formulas, the companies will continue to cheapen their wares. Then all parfumery will be doomed to mediocrity.

Its all subjective and many try to please their inner fanboy or fangirl.

When you give a fragrance 4 stars with a basic 2 or 3 word review stating "Its good stuff" and nothing more, others would wonder whether the fact that the fragrance in question is from the house you worship has something to do with it. And ofcourse there are perfumistas all over the net...as an example, many Lutens review in the turin and sanchez Perfume Guide heavily reflect the strong Lutens bias at sites like MakeUpAlley..infact, most Lutens 4 or 5 star reviews are by Sanchez, whos a long time MUA'er.

There are many at MUA who believe GIT or Angelique Ences are the only Creeds which deserve 4/5. I and many others here disagree. On the flip side, I would give maybe 2 Lutens (max) high ratings. MUA fangirls will disagree. Who's right? No one. Only your nose knows.

Holds true for many, particularly feminine, perfumes. And yet, perfumes should be reviewed on the basis of what is, not on the basis of something that has been but is not any longer. Good if the history is included, but it must not influence the current rating, because the guide is for perfumes .that are available now! Buyers may wish to compare them with other perfumes they could buy instead. Turins refelections on perfume history are often the subject in NZZ Folio, where reviews are secondary.

But what I really want to know, Brielle: when did the new (flawed) version of Tabac Blond enter the market? I hope you or somebody who must have been so disappointed by it remembers the year at least, because LT didn't tell me.

Turin and Sanchez often do that, but on the whole it's a ridiculous idea.


We must be reading a different book. Everyone has preferences, but the Lutens bias you speak of regarding Tania Sanchez is nowhere in sight based on the overall numbers. A few of them received four stars, one received five, but the majority received an average of three. This is a reference book, and it wasn't written with the intention of whittling the reviews down to a few that we could all agree on and peacefully cohabitate. What it is, is another form of contrast that helps people to define their preferences. If you haven't already learned a lot from it then you either haven't read much of it, or you're letting your sensitivity about the Creeds get in the way.

I also figure most of the men haven't even read the reviews of the feminine fragrances, and that's where a lot of the best stuff can be found.

As well, although it happens routinely on Basenotes, I'd by surprised if either of them wrote a positive review based on the fact that "many others" supposedly like the fragrance.

-- I'll admit though, several of those one star Creed reviews are classic, and highly accurate.

"Creed excels at conventional accords done with good raw materials" (Turin. Perfumes the guide 2008 p 256).


This is the kind of perfumery I like - people not trying too hard to make things which are new, but making things of substance with great craft. So what if there have been a hundred lemon scents before, I will still enjoy one which smells exceptionally good. I think the problem comes when people try to make art. Art is is a social perception bestowed upon things when they happen to ride a trend (see the Matisse quote in my signature). As such, judging things by "artistic criteria" is probably the single worst, least useful way to proceed.

It's been going downhill for awhile. I tried the newest version of the extrait last year and it was barely recognizable compared to the stuff I have which was made in the late 80's.

Hopefully you'll have your book soon. It's a good review.

Reviews are problematic. Especially with cars. Manufacturers usually will not loan out samples (esp. sports cars) unless they are guaranteed to get good copy. Hence the review in a magazine may veil their criticism "The transmission broke on the first lap, the door fell off, the engine exploded on lap 3, and the car could only got 58.2mph, but with the air whipping around your head and the bright shiny Ferrari label all was wonderful. Highly recommended."

I like what studdg says about the sometime lack of objective content. Yes, good thinking and good writing, competence in making all sorts of choices, all benefit from having the object under consideration (in this case the smell) concretely before one. But there are lots of ways of coming at this, and reference to the specific aromachemicals in a composition, where they can even be known, is only one. I enjoy Burr's interest in pedigrees and 'schools' among noses and fragrance companies. Once you know that Celine Ellena is Jean-Claude's daughter, you can see connections between her Sel de Vetiver and, say, many of his Hermessence frags. And Turin, for all his occasional bombast, has a wonderful grasp of aromachemicals and a gift for these composite images that nail the complexity of a frag really nicely. So many of you and so many of the bloggers have a characteristic set of perceptions and concerns, a characteristic style, that delivers a perfume to the reader in a way that isn't exhaustive or objectively 'right' but which is still reliable, helpful, fun. Jeez, it's why we talk, no? Not waiting for someone to say the whole truth, but because we see the world at the same time as we see each other: the two are connected, we're a social animal.
But back to objectivity. Certainly you need not just information but also passions and perspectives, elements of the internal world, to write interestingly. The English poet Geoffrey Hill has this great phrase, "the sensuous intellect", that seems to get the balance right. Keep your passions connected to the physical world by throwing haunches of information into their cages regularly; keep the information you have access to near the cages so it knows what's coming. When they're separated for too long information gets boring, passions get neurotic.
The title of the recent NYTimes piece, "Everyone's a Critic", seems to echo a common sentiment that people's opinions are silly. Partly this is amusement about perfume as a subject for serious conversation. Among the perfume companies, partly it's concern about the democratization of art and their loss of control over public image. My time on this site and on the better blogs has convinced me that what's going on in the fragrance world is a useful and exciting conversation. And one that is mostly quite rich in fact as well as passion. This art has helped me understand and notice my sense of smell, and given me a bit more awareness of the concrete experiences that arouse my passions and moods.
Hmmm, hadn't meant for this to turn into a manifesto. I am immensely grateful to so many people here for their sharp perceptions, precision with words and generosity. I'd love to think that this conversation makes us a bit more likely to be able to sit down together and solve other sorts of problems, describe other things with passion and accuracy.
(Smiles sheepishly and sits down on his hat.)

Yeah. Like that. :bounce:

I suppose I would like to know what it means to be objective when a fragrance so often borders between functional and artistic, personal and commercial.

I tend to tolerate ambiguity so it doesn't bug me quite so much when I read something a bit blown up. I choose to (where I can) pick up on non-literal connotations that offer some escape from the actual action of reading which is so often mechanistic.

But what would you evaluate if you were trying to be objective about a fragrance?

Historical and genealogical authenticity or influence- yes perhaps? hardly a fascinating view on its own since it does not address the specificity of scent; the core issue- can history explain what a rose smells like?

Demographics or marketability- I'd rather not be told what is meant for who or what I can/cannot wear.

Chemical component- interesting to certain degree (not for everyone) but wouldn't that be inferred by the reviewer since the juice is supposedly hush hush; GC and LS analyses notwithstanding. Isnt fragrance about studying the amalgamation of different compounds? Is chemistry really the core issue when it comes to scent?

Wearability, performance and practical advice- subjective given the human element and societal considerations.

What would a reviewer say if he/she genuinely disliked a fragrance or failed to see what was compelling about it?

Where I find it difficult to obtain an objective means of rationalizing something immaterial; something founded by perception, made up of synapses and memory association- even the most mundane use of our noses and palates are subjective; what more something I don't find particularly stimulating or intellectually appealing- Should I then say that maybe a certain sort of person would find this fragrance suitable or to state its inadequacy in my opinion? I can after all only speak for myself.

Maybe it's the postmodern train of thought?
I'm sorry if I'm making this sound like an ontological thing; it must be annoying for some of you.

IMO fragrance reviews are opinion pieces and probably not a direct representative of the state of matter but rather more the impressionistic merit it represents to the writer. Discredit is due to preference rather than substance which is relative. And I would respect a reviewers point of view because he/she presumably has some expertise, but I would only take it as such.

What I am more interested in is what they're really trying to convince me of- is it so much a matter of economics and commerce these days?

"Objectivity" in the review of a fragrance is useful to the extent that a plot summary of a movie is in a film review: context. I think it can be safely acknowledged that critics in any field - literature, film, music, art, food, whatever - bring a set of biases and a particular aesthetic to their work. Those biases may not be stated outright, but anyone reading that work intelligently will be able to discern their predilections and bêtes noires, and keep them in mind when weighing their judgments. I'd much rather read criticism with a highly defined sensibility - whether it's Luca Turin, Pauline Kael, James Wood, Andrew Porter, or Robert Hughes - than that of some colorless hack who's content to rattle off the particulars. Do I always agree with such opinionated voices? Certainly not. But their intellectual engagement with their subject can make for gratifying reading.

My benchmark here is the historian Paul Johnson, whose politics are about 179 degrees to the right of mine. But he's a terrifically entertaining and provocative writer, and can always be counted on to offer a tonic challenge to one's own opinions.

I don't remember where I read it, but I do remember that someone did a study on Amazon in the late 1990's and concluded that, without deliberate manipulation, once you have 11-12 "user reviews" it will tend toward what a critic would say.

But, whenever the average person can become a critic, the critics will first reject it as a legitimate source - then embrace it. Its a turf war.

'wood - boring' TS re Fou d'Absinth.
there are more new fragrance groups,
not all are helpful, just easier to remember.

Yes, the internet/blogs have all the official, published voices running scared.

I noticed that when I stopped into the New York boutique, last year, the scent seemed to have lost it's special quality. It had been seriously tamed. I had been using my bottle, purchased late 80's, for a long time (and I still have an unopened one). The last time I was perfumed with it at the ave Montaigne boutique was in the earlier part of the 90's and it still had it's original attributes.
So I would have to say sometime over the past 10-15 years. Sorry I could not be more exact, I tend to have fragrance for many years before needing to replace it; purchasing 2 of a favorite at a given time also keeps me from revisiting the boutiques more often.

Thank you Brielle for answering my question. I also have received the book now, and read the Tabac Blond chapter very carefully. Turin touches upon a general problem in perfumery – changes and unexpected deletions. For obvious reasons, people at his age (I am counting myself in) suffer from this more than the young ones. The more perfumes we have loved, and the older we get, the bigger is the pain of loss. It’s like living next door to the cemetery.

Turin leaves it open how many times TB has been tampered with for economic and other reasons. He is obviously describing three phases of Tabac Blond. I think that’s important, and - hoping for more feedback - I’ll post these details together with my question on the men’s forum now. Yours and his samplings in the nineties
say something similar, and the smell seems to have been unchanged until 2005, I suppose. That's when I started my love for TB. There was only one question on my mind always: where are the cigarettes?? LT has answered that nicely now, and for the first time. I may have smelled TB from an older tester in 2007, so my impressions of the current version, and even yours may need an update. Be glad that you are well stocked up! I fear the worst.

Well every time I open my fragrance armoire it is like visiting a family crypt; we have the Molyneux, the Carven, Le Galion, the Lanvin, the Guerlain, the Nina Ricci, etc. It is sad to know that a majority of my collection is never to be had again, except if I am lucky on ebay.

As for fearing the worst, it has come to pass. No matter how many snazzy new, outrageously expensive, exclusives they are releasing, we are all here to witness the downfall of the house of Guerlain as it was. I wish everyone was not so fooled by the tricks they are playing; re-releasing vintage scents, super exclusive creations, boutique only scents, these are all a diversion. Where are the modern classics? are there to be no more Chamades, Nahemas, Parures, or Samsaras created to be legacies? are we to all be enticed with such fleeting treats as SDV (which was so fleeting, I never even smelt it!)? how is a house supposed to keep it's prestige when they not only decide to not create spectacular 'long-run' scents, but are playing with classic formulas, and releasing the equivalents of bathroom fresheners and parading them as 'new' classics.
Roja Dove told me years ago "You will not like the future of Guerlain, and they will probably start their descent from the list of houses you love." I told him that was silly, I would always adore Guerlain above all others. Well I now view the house with suspicion, and disdain; tweaking classic formulas, and blaming new regulations [which do not affect classic scents]. So yes, for me the worst has come to pass

reviews are entirely about the person writing the review so often everybody wants to get into the act after all...