What's your impression of "synthetic"?

You're probably right. Technically most ingredients are synthetic substitutes, I would imagine. But I tend to personally refer to a "synthetic-smelling" scent as one that smells a little chemical or plastic-y...

Though I try these days to use that word lesser because it can be misleading.

Hehe, I wasn't hiding from the thread. I just didn't have the time to respond fully.

What I find synthetic about Terre d'Hermes - and I no I'm not alone in this, you'll find many people agree if you read all the reviews in the directory - is the feel of the fragrance, the mineralic notes (these, I like) and the never-ending assault of that airy and ever so slightly ambery cedar that is provided primarily by the chemical iso e super (iso e super makes up 55% of Terre d'Hermes). Some people are very bothered by iso e super while for others it seems to really 'tickle their nose' in a very pleasing way. I actually like the smell of it but it often times causes me physical pain after some time (sometimes a headache and always a sore throat/sinuses after sniffing it for 6+ hours).

So, Terre d'Hermes doesn't actually smell all that synthetic to me based on the smell alone, but it "feels" synthetic in the way that it attacks my sinuses and generally makes me feel physically worse. If you've ever worked with or smelled all natural perfumes (I work with all naturals in my spare time) you'll see how they never* seem to make you feel worse or hurt your nose or throat or eyes or anything. They really do tend to provide positive and uplifting aromatherapeutic effects, while something like TdH definitely doesn't. That's why I think TdH smells synthetic. It smells nice, but has a synthetic feel (and the extreme longevity of being highly synthetic, too!)

*I say never but there are exceptions, of course. That being said, naturals are - roughly speaking - 99 times more pleasant to sniff and easy on the sinuses/eyes than synthetics.

When I use "synthetic" as a criticism, it generally means a note that's supposed to resemble a "natural" smell, but fails in one of the following ways:

- It doesn't actually smell like what it's supposed to. I can tell that it's _supposed_ to smell like vanilla, or coconut, or roses, or whatever, but it's not convincing.

Sometimes this is fine - sometimes I like a brightened, heightened, candy-like, cartoonish synthetic version of the note - for example, I like Fresh Lemon Sugar, which I consider to be cartoon lemon. But often it fails, and even when it succeeds, it's a different mood. Cartoons are almost always less serious than the real thing.

- It smells like what it's supposed to, but it's too even and unchanging.

Natural smells, as I understand it, come from a large variety of molecules. A real rose growing on a real bush may have a bright sparkling floral note, but also a boozy one, and also a bitter one, and also a resinous one, and also a green one, and on and on and on. And, really, it's probably dozens of rosy and dozens of boozy and dozens of bitter notes.

When the smell is too "even" and simple, like it's one molecule or a few dozen instead of the hundreds that would be in the natural source, that's when I call it "synthetic smelling".

Now, I don't have _that_ good a nose, so I suspect that there are all sorts of olfactory tricks that can be played to make me perceive variety that isn't there. And I'm perfectly willing to be tricked that way; I know perfectly well that most perfumes are mostly synthetic, and that if they weren't, I couldn't afford them.

- It gives me a migraine, angers my sinuses, or otherwise attacks me in a way that a real rose, lemon, orange, coconut, etc. would not. And, yes, SculptureOfSoul's post above me made me remember this category.

------

Edited to add: I've left out synthetic notes that smell synthetic because the originals _are_ synthetic. Many leather notes, for example, smell like the chemicals used to treat leather, and that's fine - though I am a bit irritated when there's _no_ animalic background note at all. And I love the Comme des Garcons scents that are deliberately synthetic (Garage, Tar, Dry Clean). I like a lot of "synthetic" smells - I generally only use the term as a criticism, as opposed to a definition, in the above circumstances.

'Synthetic' to me is just another word for 'poorly crafted'. Even with man-made chemicals, a master perfumer can still create the most natural smelling of scents.

agree with you the_cologneist , most of time, the word is used to critizice , as well as generic, when most of component used in Industry (70-80 %) are synthetic. so... what´s wrong??

I think he means the fact that some of the molecules in it react very oddly with some people. Iso E Super makes a fragrance smell, or rather "feel" very synthetic to some people. I have never smelled Terre D'Hermes, but I own Encre Noire and it took me ages to get used to the Iso E Super in it. I never heard about it before and I blind bought Encre Noire, and when I first put it on, I can literally only describe how it felt as a scent was raping my nose. It gave me the worst tingling feeling in my sinuses and I got a massive headache immediately afterword. However, it doesn't really smell synthetic. To me, it smells like burnt cedar and some ink. Perfectly natural notes. But the way it goes about projecting those notes really does a number on my nose. I have learned to appreciate Encre Noire, and it doesn't feel as "odd" as it used to, but I can definitely tell there is something very different about that compared to another scent that tries to do the whole Cedar/Vetiver thing. That is just my impression anyway.

I don't like the term because of its lack of operative meaning - the word is open to many meanings. However, I have a feeling regarding what it might mean, since there are some notes in current fragrances that generate a physiological reaction in me, an itchiness in the back of my synus / nose. The first time I noticed this was back in the late 1980 / early 1990's, namely, when trying Cool Water, Aqua Di Gio and CKBe for the first time. I also realized that this feeling was even more noticeable in the case of drugstore knock-offs as well as in room and bathroom deodorizers, specially those sold under the word "marine" (in my ignorance I always blamed this on the presence of xylene and calone, but this is just a supposition since I am far from knowing about the chemistry of essences). Well, based in these facts, in my case I associate the term "synthetic" with some sort of negative physical reaction from the scent I am either trying or wearing.

By extension, I may also associate the term with such attributes like an extended longevity or very strong sweet accords. Fixatives are used in order to achieve scents lasting more than 24 hours on one's skin, an many new EO are sweeter than, say, mango or coconut.

So, basically, the term might also mean, as many of you said, a disbalance in the blend, which (IMHO) might be not bad per se.

When I think of synthetic, I think of Hugo Boss - Element.

I was given a tester before its original release and loved it. But when they mass produced it, there was a much stronger calone presence.

Calone is a strong synthetic element, anything that irritates the nose gives me a synthetic impression (even though as other Bnoters have truly pointed out, most ingredients are synthetic)

When i use the word, I mean that the artist has not skillfully done their job in using the synthetics tastefully and with veil.
I am not averse to the use per se.
Many of my favorites are rife with synthetics, but done in a manner where nature is evoked, or where the overall impression is of a significantly brilliant nature, so much, that it seems apporaching the artistry present in all things natural.

There are some very developed noses in here whose opinion on "synthetic" is pretty discerning. For me, and some others I think, it's often a fairly generic disparaging term for frags that just hit out noses in a bad way, or the blend just doesn't work for us.

If I directly compare the rose note in Windsor with the rose note of DC 1913, I can get a bit of a sense of the difference. But in practice, I like wearing both.

^^^^^Dullah pretty much hits it on the head for me.

In my mind, I assign the descriptor "synthetic" which I feel like I'm sniffing something that doesn't smell like a naturally occuring note. Platinum Egoiste is the first frag that comes to mind (and in my wardrobe). Reminds me of pleasant chemical fumes. When I first sniffed the opening of Ambre Sultan, carcinogenic was the first thought that came to mind, although from what I've subsequently read in reviews, I should have given it more time to develop before dismissing it. Creed scents tend to smell extremely natural to me, and I realize that they aren't all natural. Still, there aren't any Creeds that are full bottle worthy for me.

You want to smell what "synthetic" smells like, smell Frederic Malle Outrageous! Then just apply that knew knowledge to other scents. There are some scents that smell very natural, the orange note smells just like it would if you were to smell a real orange, even if it is made using a synthetic chemical. But there are other scents, often due to poor craftsmanship/compositions that don't hide the chemical nature of the fragrance notes well, they smell as if they are clearly artificial. We can all agree, that orange scent powdered drink mix smells quite a bit artificial when compared to a real orange. It's the same in fragrances, while most are almost completely synthetic, some fragrances hide that better than others.

Agreed!

Synthetic is an epithet thrown around when there is something in a fragrance that one doesn't like but can't really identify or lacks the vocabulary to describe accurately.

Versace The Dreamer is called a synthetic scent, but who cares? It is pleasant with a wonderful, clean drydown. Like pleasant laundry soap.

For me, "synthetic" means one or two things:

1. A smell that lacks the richness and depth of its natural counterpart; and/or

2. A smell that resembles a chemical from a lab (e.g., formaldehyde, ammonia, etc.)

Synthetic vs Natural

Think boobs.

Some synthetics are done very well and can be almost as good as the best naturals.

Are you really saying that you can't tell the difference between cedar essential oil and ISO E Super? A published note doesn't make a difference at all, what it smells like is what matters. Terre dHermes smells strongly of ISO E Super. It is a very pleasant smell, but does not at all smell natural to me.

TdH is 55% ISO E SUPER and doesn't smell like cedar.

Molecule 01 by Escentric Molecules is completely composed of ISO E Super. You could also purchase a small amount of this chemical from a place like Perfumer's Apprentice. ISO E Super is very popular in fragrances now... from Abercrombie to Brooks Brothers. It's everywhere. It is not a substitute for cedar essential oil, nor is it meant to be. It is one of the molecules that is used in many applications including: to smooth out a blend, increase sillage, and give a modern tone to a composition. As with many ingredients, it is sometimes used to good effect, and sometimes not. There are many, many threads dedicated to it on Basenotes, so it would be redundant at best to discuss it at great length yet again.

Synthetics are very important to the perfume industry. Most of the well respected noses agree that a balance between synthetics and naturals are generally a good practice. The problem I have with synthetics is that they are beginning to be used by the industry in lieu of naturals as a regulatory measure under the guise of helping the consumer by not exposing them to allergens. It could easily be argued that increased profits for the labs who create the synthetics is a major factor in this movement, more than public health.

I believe you are referring to notes, not constituents in a formula. I'd be very surprised to see those ingredients in the formula for Terre d'Hermes. A fragrance house is not going to publish the aroma chemicals they use in a perfume formula. They will instead refer to notes that are familiar to the consumer.

Just because there is ISO E Super in a formula, does not mean that it cannot also contain actual cedar essential oil as well.

Actually science would disagree with you there. Naturals are more prone to give allergic reactions for the most part. That is why many of the synthetics are replacing naturals, because they don't have the allergens in them that the naturals do. For instance, orris root absolute (a very common perfume allergen), causes more reactions in double blind tests than most of its synthetic substitutes. Also, orris root absolute, being much more expensive than gold, is usable in only very prohibitively expensive perfumes. The synthetic substitutes enable some exceptional orris based scents (i.e., Dior Homme) to be made which don't cause allergic reactions in people and which are affordable to more people as well. This is an example of synthetic constituents being a positive thing. Terre d'Hermes is a wonderful composition. It obviously is not composed of either 100% natural or 100% synthetic ingredients. It is the artistry in its composition that is what makes it so attractive, IMO, not simply the constituents used to compound it.

Here is a quote from one of my very favorite perfumers, Patricia de Nicolai:

As far as Im concerned, the future lies in ever more creations, its what our clientele wants. Made with top-quality natural ingredients with more strictly controlled origins. But we also need to enhance synthesiss image. Im a bit fed up with the whole 100%-natural thing. If some people want to go back to Marie-Antoinettes perfumery, fine, its up to them. But as far as Im concerned, I dont believe in 100%-natural haute perfumery. We absolutely must need to change the way we look at synthetic molecules; journalists need to be brave enough to talk about them, to break the taboo. Way back in 1952, Ernest Beaux** said, Perfumerys future lies in chemistry

I enjoy the perfect scent of orange blossom, jasmine in bloom, a fresh orange, and some nice lavender. That is my impression of natural and I am no scientist. I'd like to go back to Marie Antoinette's perfumer as long as it smells great.

I think most of us love those scents as well. But synthetics do have a very important place in modern perfumery.

Right you are! Without synthetics our modern industry would proabably flop overnight. Even all natural oils sometimes smell "off."

I've found that often times notes that people don't know what they smell like in real life are labeled as synthetic when they are encountered in scents.

Most prominently i've noticed this in regards to clary sage. Some scents have a very clear and natural smelling clary sage note (probably synthetic as they tend to maintain more clarity and sparkle than a real clary sage oil - ie: they freeze the top notes of clary sage) and this gets labeled as a synthetic 'fresh' molecule. Versace Pour Homme, for instance, has a wonderful clary sage note although many people say that even this stage of the scent (early on, < 1 hour) smells extremely synthetic. Actually, it smells a lot like clary sage oil!

I do not make the natural/synthetic categorization instinctively. I believe that all scents have totally synthetic molecules in them nowadays (except of course when stated otherwise) and very few companies will pay for a natural component if they can find something that an ordinary nose will perceive it as "99% similar".
However there are fragrances that have lit up the "synthetic" sign in my mind the moment I smelled them. And even then, there is "good synthetic" like Comme des Garcons 3, and "bad synthetic" like Beyond Paradise for Men. In fact the latter should be turned into a case study of how perfumers should not use aromechicals to create imaginary landsapes. While the sense of "syntheticness" of CdG3 is vibrant, pulsating even, and really opens your imagination towards images relating to science fiction, Beyond Paradise presents itself as a dense, impenetrable mass of chemical fumes.
On the opposie side of the spectrum I tend to characterize (in my mind always and completely arbitrarily I admit) as "natural" scents that contain topnotes that can be even characterised as ugly or discordant but during their progression and as the volume of the topnotes is turned down, the remaining fractions of these discordant topnotes become beautiful and armonious elements in the composition. CdG Patchouli Luxe and many MPG scents fit that description.