Basenotes › Basenotes Forums › Fragrance Discussion › Fragrance Industry and General Fragrance Discussion › Are the classics worth stocking up at this point?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Are the classics worth stocking up at this point?

post #1 of 47
4/19/09 at 10:05am
Thread Starter 
I've been reading the threads on reformulations and future bans on some ingredients. I am also sad and concerned about the state of many classics and the prospect of their further demise so to speak. So, I've been wondering if it is worth stocking up on already reformulated classics before 1st Jan 2010 or not. Have the versions available in shops now already been reformualted for the x time and will be the same next year?
What are your thoughts and advice?
Reply
Reply

Features on Basenotes

Basenotes Reader Awards 2013 - Finalists Announced.
Greatest Hits: Annick Menardo
Petals Falling From The Sky - A Report From The Cote d'Azur's Bataille De Fleurs
post #2 of 47
4/19/09 at 10:40am
There are a few of us who look for the older versions and concentrate on those...I don;t see why you will not be able to find and earlier release years after 2010. It takes a lot of looking, but I wouldn't necessarily stock up on classics now, rather I would look for sources that sell earlier releases, and look to them if and when things start to change.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 47
4/19/09 at 6:05pm
Answer: Yes. I think it would be worth stocking up a reasonalble quantity of those classic pre-reformulated fragrances that you most enjoy as part of your wardrobe. The reason I say this is that some of the ingredients are already being replaced by synthetics that just can't replace the real thing. I have personally already taken measures to aquire certain special fragrances that I want to continue to use. One fragrance, unusual to be sure, has prompted me to purchase over a liter of the juice. I store my fragrances in a dedicated refrigerator which, should maintain their quality for some 50 years or so. Granted, this is not for everyone but, I felt it appropriate and prudent for me. The decision is yours. Choose wisely. The quality of your tommorrows rest with decisions you make today.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 47
4/19/09 at 9:37pm
The anxiety caused by these misinformed and over-dramatic articles is amazing.

Do you think Chanel and the like waited till the last minute to reformulate their classics, with the world eager to smell the difference?

The deadline was known for a very long time, at this point your favorite fragrance is reformulated not for months, but for years. Things started to change at Guerlain in 1996, that's 13 years ago!
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 47
4/20/09 at 12:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le critique de parfum View Post

The anxiety caused by these misinformed and over-dramatic articles is amazing.

Do you think Chanel and the like waited till the last minute to reformulate their classics, with the world eager to smell the difference?

The deadline was known for a very long time, at this point your favorite fragrance is reformulated not for months, but for years. Things started to change at Guerlain in 1996, that's 13 years ago!

What does that have to do with buying pre-reformulated fragrances now while they are still available though not in great supply. We know, in most cases, when reformulation took place and which packaging and labeling indicate the older formulation (vintage) supply. I happen to think some vintage Guerlains with pre-banned ingredients, are better than the current reformulated ones. We also know where new regulations are going to affect current scents in future forced reformualtions. Perhaps you should read the article at http://1000fragrances.blogspot.com/2...ragrances.html. How misinformed is that? The exchange of information and opinion are hallmarks of Base Notes and are much better received when the writers consider their tone and intent.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 47
4/20/09 at 3:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le critique de parfum View Post

The anxiety caused by these misinformed and over-dramatic articles is amazing.

Do you think Chanel and the like waited till the last minute to reformulate their classics, with the world eager to smell the difference?

The deadline was known for a very long time, at this point your favorite fragrance is reformulated not for months, but for years. Things started to change at Guerlain in 1996, that's 13 years ago!

This is such a money post and so true.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 47
4/20/09 at 4:54am
Ok, even if you are correct about Chanel and Guerlain, what about the smaller producers who may have ignored the guidelines but will not be able to ignore the regulations as law?
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 47
4/20/09 at 6:18am
Thread Starter 
Thanks for all the comments so far. Unfortunately, my interest in perfume started only a couple of years ago, after many reformulations of classics had already happened. I have never smelled older versions of what is available today. So basically I'm now wondering if I should bother stocking up on current versions (like Mitsouko for example) since they have already gone through a lot and will continue to change I suspect.
Also, if anyone could give me a tip about finding vintage stuff I'd be most grateful.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 47
4/20/09 at 6:50am
I was under the impression that the IFRA continues to amend their regulations, and that the changes that occured in Guerlain's past (apart from financial reasons) were to comply with *previous* amendments. The current amendment adds additional ingredients to the list.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 47
4/20/09 at 6:54am
N_Tesla, I would call this sensationalism

Scentophile, merci!

Hirch_duckfinder, there's really no such thing a small producers right now. Even the little maisons are ordering their juices from Givaudan, IFF or Robertet, who happen to know exactly what to do.

Frenchie Day, just relax, really my friend. Reformulations are not always the devil, let's trust the wizards of perfumery. These restrictions may actually improve their creativity and ingeniosity. New versions of our beloved classic may actually improve over the next decades from what they are rignt now...
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 47
4/20/09 at 6:59am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reformulations are not always the devil, let's trust the wizards of perfumery. These restrictions may actually improve their creativity and ingeniosity. New versions of our beloved classic may actually [I

improve[/I] over the next decades from what they are rignt now...

That's what I'm hoping for actually :-)
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 47
4/20/09 at 7:01am
Yes, don't worry
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 47
4/20/09 at 10:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le critique de parfum View Post

The anxiety caused by these misinformed and over-dramatic articles is amazing.

Do you think Chanel and the like waited till the last minute to reformulate their classics, with the world eager to smell the difference?

The deadline was known for a very long time, at this point your favorite fragrance is reformulated not for months, but for years. Things started to change at Guerlain in 1996, that's 13 years ago!

Yes and practically everbody (except you) seems to agree that it got worse. The older ones smell better.
We all agree that really dangerous substances should be banned. But restrictions on a skin irritant (moss) and citrus oils is just bureaucratic over regulation.

So what is your point? That fragrance companies will continue to develop new aromachemicals? I'm sure you are correct on that, but I want to smell the old ingredients, steeped in history, not new.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 47
4/20/09 at 11:11am
Let me ask about a specific classic - Joy. I sprayed a sample on a card at a NM in Honolulu in March. The scent lasted two days. If changes have been made since 1930, the current version is still pretty wonderful. Several posts about the awful changes to come claim that the Jasmine absolute in Joy and some other classic French perfumes will no longer be legal. So, what do people think will happen to Joy?
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 47
4/20/09 at 11:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le critique de parfum View Post


Hirch_duckfinder, there's really no such thing a small producers right now. Even the little maisons are ordering their juices from Givaudan, IFF or Robertet, who happen to know exactly what to do.
.

Pardon (in my best French accent), this is not true. There are plenty of small producers in the outskirts of Paris, Grasse, New Jersey, etc, and I assure you that these groups are working its "magic" to work with IFRA 43.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 47
4/20/09 at 12:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hirch_duckfinder View Post

Yes and practically everbody (except you) seems to agree that it got worse.

I never said that.

You're rignt, the oldies do smell better of course. I said that all the classics were already reformulated at this point, and that things could improve in the future. Also, I for one don't care about ingredients, as long as the magic happens.

ECaruthers, Joy isn't going anywhere, transition was probably done seamless

Scentophile, they are plenty parfumeurs of course, I had in mind the little niche houses discussed here on Basenotes
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 47
4/20/09 at 2:20pm
ok, there is always that thought, that all the big perfumers and houses just recently got to know the fact, that oakmoss will be restricted (not 01.01.10, this is also a misinformation, as far as i'm concerned, it's in march or april, but you can find it in the orginal ifra paper).

what about 31 rue cambon? it was released 2007, when was it planned? it's that big marketing thing, that it's the one chypre, that doesn't have oakmoss. who would care about it, unless oakmoss would be restricted some day soon. there was up until the recent years never the need or the urge or the will to create a chypre without oakmoss, but 1 (or 2 or 3) years ago chanel decided, without the ifra in mind: now it's about time, to create a chypre without oakmoss. yeah, alright, what an outstanding timing!

i can tell you first hand, that marketing and positioning stratetegy is the first step in creating any product, at least, if you are one of the biggest ones in business. i'd guess, that no nose is allowed to create anything for chanel, until the target group for the product and than the strategy and the positioning is steady. you don't create the first chypre without oakmoss (or choose to market it as such), without the planners have decided to do so. the process of positioning and marketing needs months alone.

and now tell me, that it was such a big surprise for everybody in the business, that oakmoss will be restricted.

one more argument: there were a lot of chypres, that were discontinued the last years, but mostly early in this century, although they were much loved and are now the most looked after gems in ebay. the ones that sold/sell well were being reformulated. "they" probably knew that the "old" ingredients wouldn't make it the next years, so they on the one hand discontinued, what wasn't profitable enough to reformulate and on the other hand only reformulated, what would be sold even if it would smell tremendously different. most of it took place, when ifra 43 wasn't even thought about.

why do i say that? because i'm still convinced, that most reformulations were already made with knowledge of the "new" restrictions. to buy it now means with big possibilty to buy the product, that will be there the next and the following years.

in the end, it will be your decision: if you are fearless, don't buy, but if you are really concerned, buy, it doesn't harm anybody. and you can be sure about one thing: even if there would be proof, let's say in july 2010, that there weren't any reformulations at all, there will be heaps of people swearing, that their favourite scent has been changed.


the by far most informative and unemotional source is the perfumeshrine, i think. i highly recommend to read the posts about this issue.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 47
4/20/09 at 2:23pm
To: le critique de parfum From: hirch_duckfinder

Quote:
Originally Posted by hirch_duckfinder View Post

Yes and practically everbody (except you) seems to agree that it got worse. The older ones smell better.
We all agree that really dangerous substances should be banned. But restrictions on a skin irritant (moss) and citrus oils is just bureaucratic over regulation.

So what is your point? That fragrance companies will continue to develop new aromachemicals? I'm sure you are correct on that, but I want to smell the old ingredients, steeped in history, not new.

hirch_duckfinder From: N_Tesla:

I agree completely. The point of aquiring preformulated fragrances is to continue to appreciate them as they were and will not again be. The restrictions continue to change and some current, yet not reformulated, will become reformulated based on new restrictions so, based on advaced information current favorites could be aquired while still easily available and cheaper. Oakmoss is still, in some measure, included in many fragrances but, under continue tightening of restrictions will soon eliminate the use at all. I have yet to see here on base notes a single post indicating that a reformulated fragrance is better for the reformulation as Le critique de parfum has asserted. Furthermore why should we dumb down to the industry elite and, as also asserted, trust in the maisons. I think the maisons need to listen up to the buying public who underwrite the lifestyles of the perfumists. Purchase power is the answer to lame industry decisions like Proctor and Gambles discontinuance of Patou 1000. Sounds like the aristocracy is making a comeback in France. I am waiting for them to announce " ..then let them eat cake."
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 47
4/20/09 at 2:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit View Post

ok, there is always that thought, that all the big perfumers and houses just recently got to know the fact, that oakmoss will be restricted (not 01.01.10, this is also a misinformation, as far as i'm concerned, it's in march or april, but you can find it in the orginal ifra paper).

what about 31 rue cambon? it was released 2007, when was it planned? it's that big marketing thing, that it's the one chypre, that doesn't have oakmoss. who would care about it, unless oakmoss would be restricted some day soon. there was up until the recent years never the need or the urge or the will to create a chypre without oakmoss, but 1 (or 2 or 3) years ago chanel decided, without the ifra in mind: now it's about time, to create a chypre without oakmoss. yeah, alright, what an outstanding timing!

i can tell you first hand, that marketing and positioning stratetegy is the first step in creating any product, at least, if you are one of the biggest ones in business. i'd guess, that no nose is allowed to create anything for chanel, until the target group for the product and than the strategy and the positioning is steady. you don't create the first chypre without oakmoss (or choose to market it as such), without the planners have decided to do so. the process of positioning and marketing needs months alone.

and now tell me, that it was such a big surprise for everybody in the business, that oakmoss will be restricted.

one more argument: there were a lot of chypres, that were discontinued the last years, but mostly early in this century, although they were much loved and are now the most looked after gems in ebay. the ones that sold/sell well were being reformulated. "they" probably knew that the "old" ingredients wouldn't make it the next years, so they on the one hand discontinued, what wasn't profitable enough to reformulate and on the other hand only reformulated, what would be sold even if it would smell tremendously different. most of it took place, when ifra 43 wasn't even thought about.

why do i say that? because i'm still convinced, that most reformulations were already made with knowledge of the "new" restrictions. to buy it now means with big possibilty to buy the product, that will be there the next and the following years.

in the end, it will be your decision: if you are fearless, don't buy, but if you are really concerned, buy, it doesn't harm anybody. and you can be sure about one thing: even if there would be proof, let's say in july 2010, that there weren't any reformulations at all, there will be heaps of people swearing, that their favourite scent has been changed.


the by far most informative and unemotional source is the perfumeshrine, i think. i highly recommend to read the posts about this issue.

Bandit:

Here, here! Your points are well made.
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 47
4/20/09 at 3:03pm
I still think the oakmoss thing has as much to do with $$ as anything. It has probably been phased out over the last 30 years and people began noticing it in the 80's when their favorites were reformulated and suddenly no longer as good. That is likely true for other ingredients that are expensive like jasmine absolute & real sandalwood, etc. We perfume fans just have to follow the niche producers who are making quality frags, even though they are usually quite expensive.
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 47
4/20/09 at 3:32pm
I'm thinking of stocking up on a la nuit. I just don't know how many bottles I'll need :/
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 47
4/21/09 at 12:20am
Thread Starter 
I really don't think that Le critique de parfum said that reformulated perfumes are better than originals, but that new reformulations in the future might be better than the versions of classics we have today. No? Makes sense to me.

I definitely agree that restrictions have been known for a while to everyone in the business, I'd be surprised if it were otherwise.
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 47
4/21/09 at 12:22am
Thread Starter 
Lian, I'm stocking up on Dzing!. You never know which ingredient is next, right? :-)
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 47
4/21/09 at 5:47am
Thank you Frenchie Day

Not to mention that the problem is much more complex than some people might think. It's not like the versions we know were formulas from the 30s! It's an open secret that most classics were "tweaked" in the 50s, the 60s and later, with not always the best ingredients, and with tools and technology from that time period...
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 47
4/23/09 at 5:13pm
If you're like me and prefer the ingredients used in 1970's and 1980's frags, then it's prudent to store up some bottles since they will be reformulated over and over again. With very few exceptions, the reformulated scents do not have the substance or quality of their namesakes.

I may come across as being prejudiced against modern releases, however, that is not true at all. I try many new frags with an open mind and no preconceptions, yet most of them smell unsubstantial and too similar to one another. To me, they are unremarkable and have a one-size-fits-all mentality. Not every one mind you, but the vast majority.

There is NO QUESTION fragrances will continue to run this course and gems from the past will be even more sought after. After all, there's only so many vintage bottles of juice floating around and when they're gone......it's all over but the crying.
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 47
4/23/09 at 8:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le critique de parfum View Post

The anxiety caused by these misinformed and over-dramatic articles is amazing.

Do you think Chanel and the like waited till the last minute to reformulate their classics, with the world eager to smell the difference?

The deadline was known for a very long time, at this point your favorite fragrance is reformulated not for months, but for years. Things started to change at Guerlain in 1996, that's 13 years ago!

At last a voice of reason.
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 47
4/23/09 at 8:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hirch_duckfinder View Post

Ok, even if you are correct about Chanel and Guerlain, what about the smaller producers who may have ignored the guidelines but will not be able to ignore the regulations as law?

Any company that lacks the foresightedness to ignore guidelines destined to become law has no-one to blame for any future happenings but itself.
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 47
4/24/09 at 4:40am
Of course, in principle, skilled perfumers can continue to achieve similar effects with a changing palette. But the question as I see it is not abstract at all-- it is this: which particular perfumes depend upon byGod naturals to achieve the particular effects that transport us. Let me suggest that we take up the case of three particular perfumes that stand to be changed--or so I fear-- by this round of restrictions: a citrus, a chypre and a jasmine soliflore. And since I'm doing this, let's say that we choose three that I love:
1. Aqua di Parma Colonia. I've read that many citrus frags already use synthetics but does Colonia depend upon naturals for its particular effect? Which I find I am powerless to describe, but you might wonder the same about your favorite citrus.I would assume that Un Jardin Sur La Nil is safe, but what about Eau Sauvage, AdP Colonia, etc.?
2. Odalisque. This is a floral chypre with a salty skin note similar, I think, to the salty note in Sel de Vetiver and to a lesser extent in lots of chypres.
3. A la Nuit. What will be the fate of indolic jasmine soliflores after 2010?
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 47
4/24/09 at 6:30am
Everybody in product development knows changes must not be made in a rush. Changes in formulas are done in homeopathic steps. The New Coke case proved what every single product development engineer was doing ages ago, you can not do it on a sudden.

So the answer would be that there will be plenty of time for getting stocks, but only in the cases were the end product would radically change due to reformulation.

Final line - change is part of life, just cope with it.
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 47
4/24/09 at 6:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by surreality View Post

At last a voice of reason.

Wow, thank you so much Surreality.
Reply
Reply
post #31 of 47
4/24/09 at 2:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pollux View Post

Everybody in product development knows changes must not be made in a rush. Changes in formulas are done in homeopathic steps. The New Coke case proved what every single product development engineer was doing ages ago, you can not do it on a sudden.

So the answer would be that there will be plenty of time for getting stocks, but only in the cases were the end product would radically change due to reformulation.

Final line - change is part of life, just cope with it.


It is another thing to cope with what is happening and another to like it.
Reply
Reply
post #32 of 47
4/24/09 at 3:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le critique de parfum View Post


Hirch_duckfinder, there's really no such thing a small producers right now. Even the little maisons are ordering their juices from Givaudan, IFF or Robertet

Your statement should read "there are MOSTLY no such things as..."

I work for an independent perfumer and they produce all scents (product scents and fine fragrances) in-house & go as far as buy in all the materials themselves; often visiting the growers themselves to check quality at point of distillation. Now that's also very rare these days.
Reply
Reply
post #33 of 47
4/25/09 at 11:35am
You know this logic just doesn't hold up to the light of day. If I buy a bugatti it sure as hell better not come with Ford engine or else it is not a Bugatti. Bugatti has a reputation for what? Speed, beauty, engineeing. Anthing else is not what the product name represents. Therefore, if it walks like a the duck, looks like the duck, it had better be THE duck!, and not a mud hen that smells sort of like the duck. It is an ethical violation to call it a duck, when it just isn't made of the same duck parts. The brand name of the perfume should end right there unless the industry, and I bet they won't, wants to put a disclaimer on the product that warns the public that, due to regulation, they had to remove the quack from the duck in order to continue the product. Speaking of disclainers, I don't see the industry appealing to use disclaimers on products already on the market. Are the regulators of Europe more worried about the chemical effects of scents that have been arround for years on health compared to smoking and alcoholic products? Grandfather in the old scents, put a disclaimer on them and make them available to those eighteen years or older. If the French fragrance manufacturers are more interested in guidelines/possible laws instead of fighting for sales then to hell with them. There are plenty of niche manufacturers who can produce outside France. I think the industry has taken the attitude that the public will just roll over and buy their argument that it is the government that is at fault while, as far as I can tell, the industry does little or nothing to affect common sense approaches to implimentation of these guidelines. Sorry folks. Nothing persoal towards anyone but, these fragrances are, to me, art and I dont want Rodin statues to have to be reformulated from marble into high impact plastic. Whether or not this practice has already been done for some time does not make it any less ethical and only if the buying public lets these manufacturers know that they won't continue to buy their procuts will changes be made. I am buying my ducks while they are, reasonably, still ducks.


Quote:
Originally Posted by surreality View Post

Any company that lacks the foresightedness to ignore guidelines destined to become law has no-one to blame for any future happenings but itself.
Reply
Reply
post #34 of 47
4/25/09 at 1:55pm
"And if you love something, buy two bottles, because next time it may be changed or gone."

Tania Sanchez,
Perfumes The Guide P29

Good enough for me. I really cannot understand why you would advise people not to stock up on perfumes which are precious to them when it is a given fact that they are constantly changing for the worse.

The argument that they may get better again in the future is just daft. They may, though I think that is highly unlikely. Regardless, it shouldn't impact on the fact that it would be wise to stock up on something you will regret not stocking up on in the future, if you can.

There are plenty of producers who source some or all of their materials from other places than the big four.

I don't understand what your motivation is, in telling people not to worry.

By the way, in seven months time they are banning violins and piccolo flutes, as some people get tinitus when they listen to them really loud through headphones on trains. But don't worry as there are already lots of recordings of Bach concertos using synthesisers which conductors have been secretly phasing in. And in future synthesisers will get so good that they will be better than violins.
Reply
Reply
post #35 of 47
4/25/09 at 2:33pm
hirch_duckfinder:

Well said! Here, here!


Quote:
Originally Posted by hirch_duckfinder View Post

"And if you love something, buy two bottles, because next time it may be changed or gone."

Tania Sanchez,
Perfumes The Guide P29

Good enough for me. I really cannot understand why you would advise people not to stock up on perfumes which are precious to them when it is a given fact that they are constantly changing for the worse.

The argument that they may get better again in the future is just daft. They may, though I think that is highly unlikely. Regardless, it shouldn't impact on the fact that it would be wise to stock up on something you will regret not stocking up on in the future, if you can.

There are plenty of producers who source some or all of their materials from other places than the big four.

I don't understand what your motivation is, in telling people not to worry.

By the way, in seven months time they are banning violins and piccalo flutes, as some people get tinitus when they listen to them really loud through headphones on trains. But don't worry as there are already lots of recordings of Bach concertos using synthesisers which conductors have been secretly phasing in. And in future synthesisers will get so good that they will be better than violins.
Reply
Reply
post #36 of 47
4/25/09 at 2:55pm
The faceless consortium government of a few European countries who forget that the powers intrusted to them come from the people. There are times when the people and industry must reign in the, perhaps well intentioned but, misplaced intention to deprive the people of their right to choose based on the premise of protecting us. Logically that is protecting us from ourselves! Recently here in U.S. we have realized that such protectionism is an excuse to circumvent civil liberties that comes at the risk of the very freedoms that we hold dear. The right to choose is at risk here. Benjamin Franklin once said, and I paraphrase, those who would give up liberty for the perception of safety deserve neither. If corporations wish to alienate their clients they must understand that they do so at the peril of the sale of their products. If governments do not understand the limits of their intrusion into civil liberties, then it is time to change them. It is truly strange to me that the governments of the U.S. and France must once again relearn the meaning of freedom of choice. Has it been too long since the revolutionary war and the French revolution? Thank God there are still some of us who remember the priciples of freedom. If you feel the same way, do something. Write letters to the big fragrance companies and tell them that you are mad as hell and your not taking it anymore. Talk to them about depriving them of your money spent on their products in the future. The squeaky wheel gets the oil.
Reply
Reply
post #37 of 47
4/26/09 at 12:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by N_Tesla View Post

The faceless consortium government of a few European countries who forget that the powers intrusted to them come from the people..

Are you joking ? Please look at the map

To the best of my knowledge IFRA is an institution that was created in the US and then spread its net across the globe. Maybe it is necessary to first study how the principles of freedom and choice are undermined by the bullying behavior of some IFRA members.
Reply
Reply
post #38 of 47
4/26/09 at 4:27am
I don't have anything to add to this obviously hot topic other than to mention that it would probably serve no purpose to stock up on current formulations of the classics. If you want the original versions of Mitsouko, Shalimar, L'Heure Bleue, Dioressence, Diorissimo, Miss Dior etc. you had better get them on eBay.

I received my first 1940's bottle of Mitsouko extrait and I'm already saving for a backup bottle. I also noticed that after having smelled 1940's Mitsouko and L'Heure Bleue my bottle of current formulation Shalimar suddenly smells weak by comparison.
Reply
Reply
post #39 of 47
4/26/09 at 6:08am
Thread Starter 
[QUOTE=Merlino;1496328]I don't have anything to add to this obviously hot topic other than to mention that it would probably serve no purpose to stock up on current formulations of the classics. If you want the original versions of Mitsouko, Shalimar, L'Heure Bleue, Dioressence, Diorissimo, Miss Dior etc. you had better get them on eBay.

Thank you. This is the kind of answer I've been waiting for.
Any tips on how can you be sure if the item is the real deal? I've had good and bad experiences with Ebay but have never bought vintage perfume. No idea what to expect and how to find good stuff.
Reply
Reply
post #40 of 47
4/26/09 at 7:37am
First of all, you can never be 100% sure. However, look for sellers that post multiple pictures including close-ups of old labels that would be difficult to replicate (i.e. not worth the effort). A good example of a currently running legitimate auction for 7.5ml of vintage Mitsouko: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tab%3DWatching. This has a lot of the characteristics of vintage Guerlain:

* Red Marley horse logo sticker on the bottom of the bottle and box (1930-1950).
* Ground glass stopper (pre-1968).
* Cloth around neck of bottle
* Old-style label

These are the two threads from when I bought a vintage bottle of L'Heure Bleue:
Can anyone help me date this L'Heure Bleue bottle?
Vintage L'Heure Bleue review

These links provided by Junkfood are also very helpful:
http://reviews.ebay.com/Vintage-Guer...00000001688347
http://reviews.ebay.com/Vintage-Guer...00000003805546

I'm decidedly less well versed in vintage Dior and Chanel but your best bet is to trust sellers that post a lot of info and multiple clear pictures. Also a good indicator is that there's some heavy bidding for the item.
Reply
Reply
post #41 of 47
4/26/09 at 9:02am
I have t say honestly; "only someone working in the "industry", with something to gain from reformulations, would advocate not stocking up on vintage or loved scents. I feel, as I have said thousands of times before, "if you love it, you should own multiples, two at the least." I will never agree with things becoming better, I want my Joy to smell of jasmin, fine jasmin at that, for the money I do not want a cocktail of chemicals trying to fool my olfactory system. I think it is fabulous, in the ever greedy quest for profits, that anyone could start spouting off about how wonderful things may be someday thanks to chemical replications of notes.
Just as I am sure a lovely print of a 1967 Fiat 850 Spider will satisfy the longing for someone who has once owned and loved the car. But that is the foolishness that we are being fed, and I have been sickened by it for 20 years or more now and am ready to regurgitate all of this Public Relations fodder.
In conclusion, buy it now, even if it is just a scent you like that is newer or modern, it may be a different scent by next week, month, or next year.
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 47
4/26/09 at 9:36am
It looks like a recap of what IFRA is is in place:

"IFRA, the International Fragrance Association, is the official representative body of the fragrance industry worldwide."

And I have still not seen any official references to that EU is taking IFRA's recommendations as laws.
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 47
4/26/09 at 9:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brielle87 View Post

I think it is fabulous, in the ever greedy quest for profits, that anyone could start spouting off about how wonderful things may be someday thanks to chemical replications of notes.

Speaking as a chemist, I agree completely. The simplest fact of nature - the one upon which the very utility of science rests - is that things are what they are, and reproducibly so. The variability of natural substances in space and time gives them their uniqueness. Synthetics offer stark reproducibility of themselves - not of the natural substances they replace. Those who desire the rich intricacy of natural substances will be disappointed by their synthetic replacements. Most noses, less discerning or more tolerant (mine in the latter camp) will buy the new one and settle. But those who sense and desire the original should not be fooled. The idea that any complex natural mixture is truly replaced by a synthetic reconstitution is hogwash which creeps in somewhere between the truth of science and the overstatements of marketing. The very existence and success of headspace technology in discovering new odorants is essentially proof that natural substances contain significant substances in tiny quantities, often not as fully appreciated as they should be. Synthetics, alone or in combination, offer themselves - nothing more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brielle87 View Post

Just as I am sure a lovely print of a 1967 Fiat 850 Spider will satisfy the longing for someone who has once owned and loved the car.

LMAO! Although perhaps a more fair analogy would be an American replica kit-car or a Chinese knock-off, either one rattling like a buzz-saw and belching smoke between backfires.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brielle87 View Post

But that is the foolishness that we are being fed, and I have been sickened by it for 20 years or more now and am ready to regurgitate all of this Public Relations fodder.
In conclusion, buy it now, even if it is just a scent you like that is newer or modern, it may be a different scent by next week, month, or next year.

Yes. If you must have it now and forever, buy it and put it away. Even if it was a mistake and you lose your love for the fragrance, somebody else will thank God when you sell it on Z-bay 30 years from now.

I'm not saying that Jicky 3000 won't be good. But it won't be Jicky 2000, much less the original.
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 47
4/26/09 at 1:25pm
Thread Starter 
Thanks Merlino, that's great. I'll have a look at that Ebay item and keep my eyes open for similar things.
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 47
5/19/09 at 11:25pm
About FduB's reformulation:

"En raison de la législation régissant la parfumerie, tous les parfums subissent des modifications tous les trois-quatre ans. Mes parfums, dont Féminité du Bois ne dérogent pas Ã* cette règle. Les matières interdites sont modifiées par des produits dÂune aussi grande qualité. Cette opération est effectuée par experts très pointus. Contrairement aux idées répandues, cette modification ne tire pas toujours obligatoirement le parfum vers le bas. Il arrive même que certains sÂen trouvent bonifiés." Serge Lutens. May 19, 2009.

Basically, reformulations are not always bad, and some fragrances can even improve.
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 47
5/20/09 at 7:42am
Once a product is launched the perfumer is stating "this is my new child". If the child is imperfect then, the perfumer has failed, not the perfume. It exists and now develops a following and a personality amongst the buying public. Once the child is born you should not attempt to change who or what it is. Make a new child with a new name and go on. I hope this perspective gives syntheticists an idea of where I/we come from regarding reformulations. Morally the child deserves to exist or cease to exist on it's own merits and once the public becomes its' patron is not entirely the chattle of the perfumer. There is then a responsibility on the part of the perfumer to the public. I have no problems with synthetics in perfumes as long as I know they are there and I choose to buy such an abomination. Personally, I choose not to do so in most cases. So, the question, once again, is if you should by backups of your favorite fragrances? I choose to do so because at the whim of these perfume producers what you once loved could be gone forever through reformulation next week.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Le critique de parfum View Post

About FduB's reformulation:

"En raison de la législation régissant la parfumerie, tous les parfums subissent des modifications tous les trois-quatre ans. Mes parfums, dont Féminité du Bois ne dérogent pas Ã* cette règle. Les matières interdites sont modifiées par des produits d’une aussi grande qualité. Cette opération est effectuée par experts très pointus. Contrairement aux idées répandues, cette modification ne tire pas toujours obligatoirement le parfum vers le bas. Il arrive même que certains s’en trouvent bonifiés." Serge Lutens. May 19, 2009.

Basically, reformulations are not always bad, and some fragrances can even improve.
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 47
5/20/09 at 8:20am
Reformulations aside, if it's financially feasible to stock up on your "Must-haves", why not? To me it's a common sense thing. Sometimes future economic uncertainty requires preparation, and consider it your "Fragrance investment for the future", right along with your regular retirement/savings plan. Not to mention unknown discontinuations and reforms.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Basenotes › Basenotes Forums › Fragrance Discussion › Fragrance Industry and General Fragrance Discussion › Are the classics worth stocking up at this point?