Is the dry, woody/incense fad over now? POLL.

This seems to be the one kind of frag that had its day and is not discussed much any more. I'm talking about the Timbuktu, Bois d'Encens, CdGs (like Avignon), Visit by Azzaro, type of frags. For me, there was a bell curve to it. I disliked them, I slowly came to like them, and then I slowly came to find them unappealing. Not terrible, but not really something that I was drawn to, ever (or hardly ever). Strong vetiver frags, like Encre Noir, still seem to be at least fairly popular by contrast, as do others that don't have much "mass appeal." Hopefully, a poll will prove to be illuminating on this subject.

I find resinous frags with a bit of "wetness" to be a lot more interesting, odysseusm. I'd be curious to know what you find compelling. With dry frags, I've recently come to find herbal ones more pleasant and interesting than the woody/incense ones.

With all due respect, anything can become a fad, no matter how inherently "great" it is. Otherwise, you are claiming that popular tastes determine actual value, in this case "artistic" value. How much is that pet rock worth nowadays? LOL. And only time will tell if they are timeless !

Supposedly, the Miglin Pheromone for men frag is the closest thing to an ancient Egyptian frag, and it's not like these dry, woody/incense ones.

If you want to believe that ancient Egyptians smelled like Timbuktu, I don't have the desire to argue with you. To learn more about Miglin's Pheromone frags (the men's and women's) all one needs is the old google thingamajig.

From wikipedia's perfume entry:

The world's first recorded chemist is considered to be a woman named Tapputi, a perfume maker who was mentioned in a cuneiform tablet from the second millennium BC in Mesopotamia.[1] She distilled flowers, oil, and calamus with other aromatics then filtered and put them back in the still several times.[2]

Recently, archaeologists have uncovered what are believed to be the world's oldest perfumes in Pyrgos, Cyprus. The perfumes date back more than 4,000 years. The perfumes were discovered in an ancient perfumery. At least 60 stills, mixing bowls, funnels and perfume bottles were found in the 43,000-square-foot (4,000 m2) factory.[3] In ancient times people used herbs and spices, like almond, coriander, myrtle, conifer resin, bergamot, as well as flowers.[4]

The Arabian chemist, Al-Kindi (Alkindus), wrote in the 9th century a book on perfumes which he named Book of the Chemistry of Perfume and Distillations. It contained more than a hundred recipes for fragrant oils, salves, aromatic waters and substitutes or imitations of costly drugs. The book also described 107 methods and recipes for perfume-making and perfume making equipment, such as the alembic (which still bears its Arabic name).[5]

The Persian Muslim doctor and chemist Avicenna (also known as Ibn Sina) introduced the process of extracting oils from flowers by means of distillation, the procedure most commonly used today. He first experimented with the rose. Until his discovery, liquid perfumes were mixtures of oil and crushed herbs or petals, which made a strong blend. Rose water was more delicate, and immediately became popular. Both of the raw ingredients and distillation technology significantly influenced western perfumery and scientific developments, particularly chemistry.

Knowledge of perfumery came to Europe as early as the 14th century due partially to the spread of Islam. But it was the Hungarians who ultimately introduced the first modern perfume. Made of scented oils blended in an alcohol solution, the first modern perfume was made in 1370 at the command of Queen Elizabeth of Hungary and was known throughout Europe as Hungary Water. The art of perfumery prospered in Renaissance Italy, and in the 16th century, Italian refinements were taken to France by Catherine de' Medici's personal perfumer, Rene le Florentin. His laboratory was connected with her apartments by a secret passageway, so that no formulas could be stolen en route. France quickly became the European center of perfume and cosmetic manufacture. Cultivation of flowers for their perfume essence, which had begun in the 14th century, grew into a major industry in the south of France. During the Renaissance period, perfumes were used primarily by the wealthy to mask body odors resulting from infrequent bathing. Partly due to this patronage, the western perfumery industry was created. By the 18th century, aromatic plants were being grown in the Grasse region of France to provide the growing perfume industry with raw materials. Even today, France remains the centre of the European perfume design and trade.

Even at this early state, it seems like they are still quite popular here. For whatever reason, though, they don't seem to get as much attention as other types. Anyone have thoughts about that?

I'm talking about the really dry ones that are rather simple. Kouros definitely does not fit this category.

If you consider M7 an oud frag, my guess is that there will continue to be plenty of discussion here. Even without M7, others are talked about often, such as Montale's Black Aoud. The simple, dry, woody/incense ones don't seem to have that kind of standard bearer frag, however. It seems to me that vetiver and oud heavy frags garner a lot more interest, at least over the last few years, if we classify these as more unusual or at least less appealing to "average" folks. Gourmands, fougeres, orientals, etc. of course get more attention.

Oh, to follow up on the "wet" vs. "dry" thing, I'd call Messe de Minuit a "wet resinous" incense frag, for example. There's no wood in it, though the patchouli is strong. I know some think of patchouli as wood-like, but I don't perceive this treatment of patchouli as "woody" in any way, but that may have to do with it being somewhat "wet."

I'll be the first to admit that I did not want to spend an hour doing research on a topic that wasn't really relevant, because the idea of a perfume "fad" lasting from ancient Egypt to today's "West" is so ridiculous that I just didn't want to get insulting about it. That said, if you think a claim on wikipedia is wrong, then go ahead and make your argument. Your statement makes it sound like there is more false than true information on it, which is difficult to believe when it comes to this kind of information (historical and not politically relevant today). If you are correct, then the same could likely be said about most history textbooks. In any case, your citation does not make it sound like the modern frags I mentioned anyway. But if the claim was that these kinds of frags are naturally pleasant to most people, the clear facts are indisputably against it. Another thing is certainly true, and that is that your sense of smell is very different from many who consider themselves frag aficionados, because most of the reviews of that Miglin frag (here and elsewhere) talk about it as very strong and anything but "bland."