Basenotes › Basenotes Forums › Fragrance Discussion › Fragrance Industry and General Fragrance Discussion › Do perfumers have their 'own' patented synthetic aromachemicals?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Do perfumers have their 'own' patented synthetic aromachemicals?

post #1 of 20
3/8/09 at 4:02pm
Thread Starter 
As we all know, all mainstream scents are usually being commissioned by fragrance brands to perfumers working for flavour & fragrances giants, such as Givaudan, IFF, Symrise, Firmenich, etc.

Now, all these companies must have their own patented aromachemicals, derived from their own R&D.

My question is: would it be possible for a perfumer who works for, let say, Givaudan, have access to certain Givaudan in-house developed aromachemicals, whereas a collegue at the competitor would not have? What would this mean for the overall palette of a perfumer given a certain price per unit volume?

Food for thought.
Reply
Reply

Features on Basenotes

Greatest Hits: Annick Menardo
Petals Falling From The Sky - A Report From The Cote d'Azur's Bataille De Fleurs
Basenotes Reader Awards 2013 - Finalists Announced.
post #2 of 20
3/8/09 at 5:06pm
Yes - you're talking about "captives" molecules, and some of those Big Company perfumers may take advantage of those if it's right and only because their competitors will not have access to it.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 20
3/8/09 at 5:13pm
Thread Starter 
I wonder if we can compile a mini-list of:

'patented molecule - company - perfumer - used in fragrance...'

Would make things more tangible.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 20
3/9/09 at 4:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stereotomy View Post

I wonder if we can compile a mini-list of:

'patented molecule - company - perfumer - used in fragrance...'

Would make things more tangible.

I would imagine that some of these are kept fairly secret - or at least for a while, depending upon a variety of factors influencing the advantages of doing so. So far, I've only run into two in my research of components. In both cases, there was some information intentionally released about the component, but little about what it was or how to use it.

The first was the macrocyclic musk Cosmone. This ingredient was, a while back, not listed as purchasable, though it is open for inquiries now (i.e., the above link did not exist). It appeared in an annual report, and in the marketing for Givenchy Pi Neo.

Incidentally, I'd love to know the perfumer behind Pi Neo. I know that this fragrance gets little love here, but I find the combination of aquatic, woody, musky, and vanilla to be an amazingly well-balanced mix of themes - and one that is surprisingly good.

The second is the cooling chemical Arctical, used in Porche Design: The Essence, and which was claimed as a trademark, but the structure of which was not revealed. I found the linked safety info, but that's as close as I could come to finding out what it was. For all I know it could be menthol - though I doubt it. Of course, calling menthol something else and then keeping it a secret could be smart.

I think you've posed an interesting question. I would presume that it's smart to let an aromachemical buy your in-house perfumers as much advantage as possible, until the economics shifts away from profiting on the novelty, to profiting on the monopoly.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 20
3/9/09 at 5:39pm
Thread Starter 
Good find, RP!

I was reading through some of Chandler Burr's older work (I'm a fan of Burr, he writes well and he manages to seamlessly meld the artistic and technological aspects of perfumery - because hey, it's all organic chemistry) and found this review of Paco Rabanne Black XS:

Quote:
Black XS | Paco Rabanne

With this scent Olivier Cresp, who was already fast becoming one of Firmenich's Most Valuable Players, hits Michael Jordan status. This is a Puig product—Puig, the Spanish licensor—and Puig, which has been so expert at creating a feminine collection for Carolina Herrera that is a trifecta, at once elegant, refined, and contemporary, has managed this project beautifully. Black XS uses two terrific Firmenich captive synthetic molecules. The first is Norlimbanol (1-(2,2,6-trimethyl-cyclohexyl)-3-hexanol), which by itself is one of the most amazing scents around, a genius molecule that should be worth its weight in gold; Norlimbanol gives you, quite simply, the smell of extreme dryness, absolute desiccation, and if when you smell it, you'll understand that instantly—the molecule is, by itself, a multi-sensory Disney ride. The other is Z11, a lovely dry wood scent, and then there's a little Muscenone, an extremely expensive synthetic that is almost indescribable. Cresp says the idea was electrical current, and it has produced something beautifully different, unplaceable, and instantly mesmerizing, as if an experimental rock album were both authentically innovative and yet compulsively listenable. Smelling this is like diving into a pool of summer cloud in a blossoming lemon grove. It is so blissfully free of hairy-chested machismo, sports car attitude, and urban slickness that the result would be shocking if the scent didn't embrace you like a friendly judo champion. In the end, the sensation is sweet and simple as can be: Wearing Black XS feels like being liked by nice, cool people.

www.blackxs.com

http://www.chandlerburr.com/newsite/...meprevious.php

I just love it how technology can create something pleasing for the nose, not made by nature. I wonder if fine perfumers of a certain company can re-use a patented molecule in such regard that it becomes their signature scent, only to be shared with other fine perfumers from the same company.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 20
3/9/09 at 6:14pm
Very, very, cool. Thanks for that one. I'm definitely going to sample Black XS now.

Yes - synthetics may seem scary to some people, but I see them almost like the aroma chemicals of other worlds. Who knows? Maybe the trees of other planets emit one or more of the norlimabanols. And maybe it works both ways. Perhaps someone from that planet would pick up Kouros, sniff it, and think it just a weak floral, or an aquatic.

Burr does get great stuff. But not only that - he really puts it in context. He's one of the biggest attractions of the fragrance world, IMO.

I agree - finding (and marketing) a particularly versatile captive aromachemical as a signature molecule for a house would be an amazingly good idea. Makes me wonder if "house accords" out there ever use such a component now.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 20
3/9/09 at 6:37pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redneck Perfumisto View Post

Perhaps someone from that planet would pick up Kouros, sniff it, and think it just a weak floral, or an aquatic.

Yes, yes!! An undiscovered, remote, forbidding planet with seas of urine and islands made out of urinal cakes!

It is possible, people!!

But you're right: what is a synthetic on earth, might very well be a natural molecule on another planet.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 20
3/9/09 at 8:32pm
The US Patent Office is your friend...
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 20
3/9/09 at 8:48pm
Thread Starter 
Oh and, RP, you're a fan of Pi Neo, have you seen its website?

http://www.parfumsgivenchy.com/pineo/index_EN.html

If you look at Time - The Fragrance, you can actually see the pyramid displaying a natural and a synthetic note for the top- , mid- and basenotes. The synthetic part is described with Givaudan's own captive molecule names, giving some kind of high-tech vibe to the marketing of Givenchy Pi Neo.

It's a fact then, that this fragrance could not have been made like this, if the brief was given to someone from IFF or Firmenich.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 20
3/10/09 at 4:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stereotomy View Post

Oh and, RP, you're a fan of Pi Neo, have you seen its website?

http://www.parfumsgivenchy.com/pineo/index_EN.html

If you look at Time - The Fragrance, you can actually see the pyramid displaying a natural and a synthetic note for the top- , mid- and basenotes. The synthetic part is described with Givaudan's own captive molecule names, giving some kind of high-tech vibe to the marketing of Givenchy Pi Neo.

It's a fact then, that this fragrance could not have been made like this, if the brief was given to someone from IFF or Firmenich.

The thing is Givenchy probably had thought about using a marketing scheme like that from the get go. This whole "captive" marketing game is a crowd pleaser. IFF and Firmenich could easily do the same by purposefully (or just naturally) inject a few captives inside to "answer" the brief.

If I am not mistaken, Cosmone is no longer a captive .
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 20
3/10/09 at 4:55am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by scentophile View Post

The thing is Givenchy probably had thought about using a marketing scheme like that from the get go. This whole "captive" marketing game is a crowd pleaser. IFF and Firmenich could easily do the same by purposefully (or just naturally) inject a few captives inside to "answer" the brief.

If I am not mistaken, Cosmone is no longer a captive .

Of course in this case it's marketing.

But this specific scent, that Pi Neo now is, could not have been made by any other perfumer not working for Givaudan, given one or more of the molecules mentioned are captives.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 20
3/10/09 at 5:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by scentophile View Post

The thing is Givenchy probably had thought about using a marketing scheme like that from the get go. This whole "captive" marketing game is a crowd pleaser. IFF and Firmenich could easily do the same by purposefully (or just naturally) inject a few captives inside to "answer" the brief.

If I am not mistaken, Cosmone is no longer a captive .

Good grief, Alex, that's a really interesting view of things. Captives are almost like early release limited editions of molecules. "Hurry! Buy them now! Before somebody else does!" So the other guys say the same thing: "No, buy OUR limited editions!"

Molecules - get 'em while they're hot!

Which would make it very interesting to speculate which captives might have been offered as alternatives. I'm wondering if there are enough of them that you could keep the basic profile of a scent in multiple briefs, or if the choices are few enough that picking a brief based on the number or desirability of the captives would strongly influence the nature of the scent itself..

I agree that the patent office is a great place to look - the question is, which ones are at what stage of development? For instance Cosmone - what happened to its siblings? There were some other similar musks in that patent, each one a bit different. Was Cosmone the pick of the litter, or are there more to come? I'm wondering what are the outward signs of the rise of a molecule from anonymous patented substance to marketable presence. Are there tip-offs or test balloons within the industry, or perhaps even in the public domain, that show this?
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 20
3/10/09 at 5:28am
I think most companies only bother to patent new molecules when they have shown to have immediate potental use in perfumery. By looking at a few patents it doesn't seem that it takes too long for a molecule to go from being patented to being used in blends, 12-18 months from what I can see.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 20
3/10/09 at 8:22am
I bet that the IFF has as many perfumers as patent lawyers.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 20
3/10/09 at 10:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stereotomy View Post

Of course in this case it's marketing.

But this specific scent, that Pi Neo now is, could not have been made by any other perfumer not working for Givaudan, given one or more of the molecules mentioned are captives.

But what I'm trying to say that they probably had the pyramids all figured out with (insert captive name here). It didn't have to be Givaudan, it could have been Firmenich or IFF in the sense that Givenchy would have used a different captive. I'm just guessing, but I wouldn't be surprised if that had happened.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 20
3/10/09 at 10:39am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by scentophile View Post

But what I'm trying to say that they probably had the pyramids all figured out with (insert captive name here). It didn't have to be Givaudan, it could have been Firmenich or IFF in the sense that Givenchy would have used a different captive. I'm just guessing, but I wouldn't be surprised if that had happened.

I know and concur, we're saying the same.

But, what I meant was, that this specific smell (as it is now, in the stores) of Pi Neo would have been different if IFF or Firmenich won the brief, even if it were the same perfumer working on it! The marketing would indeed have been exactly the same when IFF or Firmenich would have won the brief, probably the captives replaced by IFF's or Firmenich's captives.

But by doing so, you wouldn't have gotten the current Pi Neo.

And that's more or less the food for thought in this thread, that by giving the brief to a certain perfumer, you give access to certain molecules to your scent, while excluding others.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 20
3/10/09 at 8:40pm
Interesting ideas, people. I guess that there can be a lot of variability in the specificity of the brief, isn't that correct, Alex? It seems to me that if one had a very specific effect desired in the brief, a perfumer might be lucky to have the "perfect" captive available, whereas somebody else might have to work harder. I don't know that - just guessing. Which brings me to a question for Alex - just how difficult is it for a perfumer to get specific effects without the use of certain particular aromachemicals? Burr noted that JCE did Mousson without calone, if I recall his review correctly (don't remember if he was impressed or perplexed). But I'm wondering if it's easy to work around the absence of certain aromachemicals, for example if one simply wants to get close, or (alternatively) if individual chemicals are hypercritical to certain effects, and working around them is a huge complication. I tend to think the latter, but maybe I'm wrong, or maybe it depends on the olfactory problem, and it varies.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 20
3/12/09 at 9:25am
Another current captive is Paradisone from Firmenich. It is an optically pure, pure cis form of Hedione.

http://www.mimifroufrou.com/scenteds...y_from_42.html
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 20
3/12/09 at 9:37am
Quote:
The first was the macrocyclic musk Cosmone. This ingredient was, a while back, not listed as purchasable, though it is open for inquiries now (i.e., the above link did not exist). It appeared in an annual report, and in the marketing for Givenchy Pi Neo.

Thanks, I hadn't noticed this addition to the Givaudan catalog. I see that it is an analog of Muscenone (Firmenich) different only in having one less carbon in the ring. I consider Muscenone to be one of the finest macrocyclic ketone musks. I see that a distributor lists Cosmone at about 2/3 the price of Muscenone ($600/kg for Cosmone vs. $900/kg for Muscenone).

I seem to remember reading somewhere that there is also a captive, optically pure version of Muscenone.
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 20
3/12/09 at 9:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcampen View Post

Another current captive is Paradisone from Firmenich. It is an optically pure, pure cis form of Hedione.

http://www.mimifroufrou.com/scenteds...y_from_42.html

This sounds like amazing stuff!
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

Features on Basenotes

Greatest Hits: Annick Menardo
Petals Falling From The Sky - A Report From The Cote d'Azur's Bataille De Fleurs
Basenotes Reader Awards 2013 - Finalists Announced.
Basenotes › Basenotes Forums › Fragrance Discussion › Fragrance Industry and General Fragrance Discussion › Do perfumers have their 'own' patented synthetic aromachemicals?