Basenotes › Basenotes Forums › Fragrance Discussion › Male Fragrance Discussion › MFD Archive › Do you believe that "formal" fragrances are generally more interesting than "casual" fragrances ?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Do you believe that "formal" fragrances are generally more interesting than "casual" fragrances ?

post #1 of 44
5/28/10 at 5:21pm
Thread Starter 
Hey Gals & Guys,

I have been pondering this thought for a while. Maybe it is just me, but I feel finding a casual fragrance that keeps my interest for a long period of time is difficult. And not just the length of time, but just in terms of being an interesting affair.

What constitutes the terms formal, casual and interesting ? Well, that is totally up to you.

What do you think ? Do you believe that "formal" fragrances are generally more interesting than "casual" fragrances ? I wouldn't mind some specific fragrance examples as well.

Thanks
Reply
Reply

Features on Basenotes

Basenotes Reader Awards 2013 - Finalists Announced.
Petals Falling From The Sky - A Report From The Cote d'Azur's Bataille De Fleurs
Greatest Hits: Annick Menardo
post #2 of 44
5/28/10 at 6:19pm
i think the formal frags have more character and are more timeless, the casual ones are too low grade in many cases or not that memorable there are exceptions but that is my opinion.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 44
5/28/10 at 6:31pm
I typically enjoy more casual fragrances than formal fragrances. I really enjoy New Haarlem, Virgin Island Water, Nouveau Bowery, Mugler Cologne, Pure Malt, Fuel For Life and etc. I don't think it's either formal or casual is more pleasing or interesting but, rather than the scent itself. I really like Grey Vetiver, Burberry London and Gucci Pour Homme II and I'd classify those as formal.
Formal to me is something that isn't too loud, and is typically more dry and woodsy and traditional whereas casual is more laid back and fun. You're obviously not going to wear A*men to a business meeting and you woulnd't really want to wear Bois Du Portugal to college.

I think it just comes down to what fragrances people tend to lean towards.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 44
5/28/10 at 6:57pm
Yes i do! But what do you mean of formal?
when i see casual word, i'm thinking about aquatics or floral fragrances.
sometimes it's subjective. For example Paco Rabbane XS: Spicy, Floral,... I like to keep it in casual category. but it's warm and spicy enough for being formal.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 44
5/28/10 at 7:01pm
Normally I'd consider formal as very focused and clean fragrances, that are safer.
I'd think of casual as laid back, fun and subtle.

Formal as black suit and clean shave, and casual as shorts and tshirt with a stubble.

In the end, I would imagine any fragrance called as both casual or formal (as I interpret them) to be non interesting.
I would consider things that are called, romantic, seducing, intimidating;
things that make people use emotions to label them instead of jobs/attire to be interesting.

Words are confusing.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 44
5/28/10 at 7:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarıpatates View Post

Normally I'd consider formal as very focused and clean fragrances, that are safer.
I'd think of casual as laid back, fun and subtle.

Formal as black suit and clean shave, and casual as shorts and tshirt with a stubble.

In the end, I would imagine any fragrance called as both casual or formal (as I interpret them) to be non interesting.
I would consider things that are called, romantic, seducing, intimidating;
things that make people use emotions to label them instead of jobs/attire to be interesting.

Words are confusing.

I like this view much better
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 44
5/28/10 at 7:17pm
I really dislike formal fragrances. I just don't think they smell good. I prefer young, casual, jeans and t-shirt frags. I think those are the nicest smelling, and those are the ones I feel comfortable wearing.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 44
5/28/10 at 7:23pm
I'm not sure I can define formal, but like differentiating porn from art, I know it when I smell it. Formal scents (at least to me) will tend to smell more natural, not have any sweetness, and tend to be more complex.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 44
5/28/10 at 7:57pm
Formal and casual are simply not terms in which of think of fragrances, and many of the things I like are suitable for any occasion.

If forced to think of these categories separately, I don't see any general difference in the quality between them. Each has its classics and duds, with neither class offering a greater number of good scents than the other. I certainly don't gravitate more to one than to the other. My wardrobe is eclectic and varied, and I care only about the quality and composition of a fragrance, not of its applicable social use.

I suspect most here are the same. We just want good scents, and we realize they come in all kinds.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 44
5/28/10 at 8:06pm
I really have no conception of this as it translates to what I wear. If I was going to some formal event I'd simply wear what I felt like but less of it.

When I think formal in terms of a fragrance, I think of that's reserved, on the traditional side, and dare I say it... Often boring. Subdued citrus; demure flowers; tamed woods; emasculated herbs. Formal isn't a bad thing per se, but when I call something formal I'm usually saying it's well put together but a bit staid and doesn't take any risks.

It doesn't have anything to do with age, either. Caron Pour Un Homme, for example, is formal to my nose; Jicky, though much older, is not.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 44
5/28/10 at 8:41pm
I was just thinking the same thing over the last week or so !
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 44
5/28/10 at 9:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Surfacing View Post

What do you think ? Do you believe that "formal" fragrances are generally more interesting than "casual" fragrances?

I don't think either group is inherently more interesting or necessarily smells better.

For me a "formal" scent is one that I feel would work best worn to accent my best efforts at grooming and clothing for a special occasion or event. So it would be a waste to go with something "safe", "inoffensive", or "boring" - on the other hand, a floral chypre like Knize Two, a dry incense like Hinoki, or something calculatedly outre' like Ma Griffe works well.


"Casual" is a bit more difficult to choose for, as the whole point is that one isn't putting unnecessary effort in, and there might end up being some sweat and dirt involved. I've had decent results with English Leather and English Leather Musk, CdG Sequoia, Yatagan, Aelopile. Surprisingly, CdG Tar doesn't stay as fugly on a warm day as the name would imply, and l'Heure Bleue survives yard work better than many more traditionally "casual" and "masculine" scents.


Betwixt and between, it all depends on my mood and what shirt I'm wearing for the day. If I find myself overthinking my choice, there's always Knize Ten.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 44
5/28/10 at 9:34pm
I think of formal fragrances as ones that are more traditional, but opulent. Van Cleef & Arpels first men's fragrance comes to mind. A formal fragrance should be like formal dress, a black tuxedo for example: simple, yet forceful.
For me, a casual fragrance would be something uncluttered and natural, like a neroli in the summer or a hippie amber in the cooler months.
But, ultimately, I love to mix it up. Van Cleef & Arpels poolside is very cool. Neroli Portofino at a black tie event is nice and sexes it up a bit.
I guess my answer to your question is no, all fragrances are different.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 44
5/28/10 at 9:35pm
For me, the key question is, does any one type of fragrance represent the "height" of "perfume art?" We'll put aside fragrances that are clearly "feminine" because a lot of guys won't wear them, except perhaps in private. I am leaning in the direction of "yes," and such frags must have:

1. Many notes, especially ones that have some "contrast."
2. At least fairly good note articulation (meaning you can smell most of those notes, though perhaps not entirely clearly).
3. Development over time (which leaves out many orientals).
4. Naturalness (or lack of "synthetic" qualities, whichever you like).
5. Technical adequacy (longevity and sillage).

If you think of frags this way, the "winners" are the "formal" frags, such as Oscar Pour Lui or Acteur, but also Cumming the Fragrance (is it a "formal" frag?). Of course, sometimes you want a simple frag, perhaps because you want to smell specific notes, and you don't want contrast. Or it could be for "social" reasons. But the question was about whether formal frags are more interesting, not the most pleasant or whatever.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 44
5/28/10 at 10:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigsly View Post

For me, the key question is, does any one type of fragrance represent the "height" of "perfume art?" We'll put aside fragrances that are clearly "feminine" because a lot of guys won't wear them, except perhaps in private. I am leaning in the direction of "yes," and such frags must have:

1. Many notes, especially ones that have some "contrast."
2. At least fairly good note articulation (meaning you can smell most of those notes, though perhaps not entirely clearly).
3. Development over time (which leaves out many orientals).
4. Naturalness (or lack of "synthetic" qualities, whichever you like).
5. Technical adequacy (longevity and sillage).

If you think of frags this way, the "winners" are the "formal" frags, such as Oscar Pour Lui or Acteur, but also Cumming the Fragrance (is it a "formal" frag?). Of course, sometimes you want a simple frag, perhaps because you want to smell specific notes, and you don't want contrast. Or it could be for "social" reasons. But the question was about whether formal frags are more interesting, not the most pleasant or whatever.

Not for me. I just want it to smell good. (And I want girls to think so too.)
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 44
5/28/10 at 10:17pm
Exactly, you are not interested in "interesting." LOL.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 44
5/28/10 at 10:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigsly View Post

1. Many notes, especially ones that have some "contrast."
2. At least fairly good note articulation (meaning you can smell most of those notes, though perhaps not entirely clearly).
3. Development over time (which leaves out many orientals).
4. Naturalness (or lack of "synthetic" qualities, whichever you like).
5. Technical adequacy (longevity and sillage).

I really don't smell these qualities as formal... In fact I'd say bold and interesting contrasts almost preclude a "formal" vibe for my nose.

I guess it just goes to show the relativity of formality.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 44
5/28/10 at 10:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigsly View Post

Exactly, you are not interested in "interesting." LOL.

I think I'm lucky that my fragrance needs are fairly humble.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 44
5/28/10 at 11:40pm
No, I'd say "bold" is too "spiky," and not part of the "formal" idiom here, but that's what makes the formal frag really interesting, that is, you experience notes that contrast but the contrast is subtle.
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 44
5/28/10 at 11:55pm
Formal fragrances are more interesting than casual fragrances, like formal clothes are more interesting than casual clothes

J/K. I think there are interesting and boring fragrances in both categories.
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 44
5/29/10 at 12:07am
I guess that in many ways, the casual fragrances are more prone to being generic and thus the formal ones often startle me much more frequently through their elaborateness and uniqueness
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 44
5/29/10 at 12:09pm
Thread Starter 
Good responses all around.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFragranceReview View Post

I... Burberry London and Gucci Pour Homme II and I'd classify those as formal.
Formal to me is something that isn't too loud, and is typically more dry and woodsy and traditional whereas casual is more laid back and fun. You're obviously not going to wear A*men to a business meeting and you woulnd't really want to wear Bois Du Portugal to college.

I think it just comes down to what fragrances people tend to lean towards.

I do agree that it certainly has to do with what fragrances people lean towards. Good point. I once got caught walking behind a man in his late 40s, wearing a black suit, and who was leaving a trail of A*Men. I thought it was odd. Mostly because it was at daytime in a formal "business" setting. Maybe better to wear A*Men on casual Friday .

And with your examples of Burberry London and Gucci pour Homme II, that would definetly be an example where differing opinions on whether a particular fragrance is formal or not. I find them both casual, but can see why you would feel that they are formal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamid View Post

Yes i do! But what do you mean of formal?
when i see casual word, i'm thinking about aquatics or floral fragrances.
sometimes it's subjective. For example Paco Rabbane XS: Spicy, Floral,... I like to keep it in casual category. but it's warm and spicy enough for being formal.

I don't always think of casual fragrances equalling aquatics. I think you can include some citrus's or woody amber fragrance's as well. And floral fragrances, to me at least, generally fall into a more formal feel. But, of course, it depends on the particular fragrace. XS is casual, for you and me. Many other florals, like Czech & Speake No 88 or Washington Tremlett Black Tie, fall into the more formal feel. Maybe its a rose thing ? Caron 3rd Man I feel is a bit floral ( but no rose), and also feels formal.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sugandaraja View Post

....

It doesn't have anything to do with age, either. Caron Pour Un Homme, for example, is formal to my nose; Jicky, though much older, is not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Guyer View Post

....
But, ultimately, I love to mix it up. Van Cleef & Arpels poolside is very cool. Neroli Portofino at a black tie event is nice and sexes it up a bit.
I guess my answer to your question is no, all fragrances are different.

Very good examples guys.

In the past, sometimes my own personal bias has left me to believe that when a fragrance was created before another particular fragrance, it is more formal. The more I had sampled and read have helped combat this.

And I do love mixing it up. A Van Cleef & Arpels scent in a casual fragrance ? Why the heck not. I really like rose scents at the moment, and because I am more of a casual settings guy, I have little choice but to force them into a casual setting. Unless I don't mind going long periods of time not wearing them.
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 44
5/29/10 at 7:41pm
Not at all.
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 44
5/30/10 at 3:09am
I think the division between formal and casual fragrances is quite simple. A formal fragrance lacks any overtly seductive or eccentric elements, which goes along the lines of separating business from pleasure. This does not necessarily mean a boring and impersonal fragrance, with sweetness or certain notes being faux pas. It just means that any seductive or eccentric elements must be treated subtly. It is all about intellectual and cultural power, rather than bodily power. But of course the former brings about imagination of the latter, but it is not in your face. A casual scent, on the other hand, is more raw, carefree, uncomplicated, in the open. Whether a scent is interesting or not, I think, depends on execution rather than category.
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 44
5/30/10 at 4:31am
Yep, IMO they are much more interesting. The "formal" ones smells more luxurious and refined, and I like that! The smell of "high class" is more interesting than a ordinary/everyday scent..
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 44
5/30/10 at 9:35am
I don't know if interesting is the word I would use, but I do prefer more formal, dressy scents no doubt.

Most of my favorites require a bit of sartorial support. But living in casual SoCal, I've head to break down that wall a bit.
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 44
5/30/10 at 1:18pm
Thread Starter 
I think what surprises me about some of the responses here is with regards to formal fragrances being clean or conservative...etc. I guess I kind of feel that with formal fragrances, you are able to get away with fragrances that are more eccentric or outgoing...etc. It certainly depends on the occasions, of course.
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 44
5/30/10 at 1:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Surfacing View Post

I think what surprises me about some of the responses here is with regards to formal fragrances being clean or conservative...etc. I guess I kind of feel that with formal fragrances, you are able to get away with fragrances that are more eccentric or outgoing...etc. It certainly depends on the occasions, of course.

That almost seems contradictory to me. A formal event is a event that by definition is strict in terms of clothing, behavior, progression etc. It can be a business meeting , a wedding or a black tie night - the common denominator is that there are certain expectations and rules to follow. You don't wear a bow tie to a business meeting, a white suit to a wedding or a pink shirt at a black tie event. Formal events are ritualistic and everbody is supposed to participate - you are not supposed to play it your own way. Why would a fragrance be any different? You are not supposed to wear something distractingly loud in a business meeting, overtly sexual on a wedding etc.

How else would you separate formal from casual???
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 44
5/30/10 at 1:43pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Point Blank View Post

That almost seems contradictory to me. A formal event is a event that by definition is strict in terms of clothing, behavior, progression etc. It can be a business meeting , a wedding or a black tie night - the common denominator is that there are certain expectations and rules to follow. You don't wear a bow tie to a business meeting, a white suit to a wedding or a pink shirt at a black tie event. Formal events are ritualistic and everbody is supposed to participate - you are not supposed to play it your own way. Why would a fragrance be any different? You are not supposed to wear something distractingly loud in a business meeting, overtly sexual on a wedding etc.

How else would you separate formal from casual???

Nothing contradictory here.

Just because a fragrance is eccentric or unique or even BOLD, does not mean it will be "...distractingly loud..." in a situation. As long as one applies accordingly, it will work fine.

I'll take your example of a wedding. Yes, everyone is suppose to participate in a certain expected way. However, I think a unique or even "strange" scent will not be inappropriate. Business meeting, that is different. Its formal, but you ( or I ) would not want something too sexual or inappropriate. So I agree with you here.
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 44
5/30/10 at 1:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sugandaraja View Post

I really have no conception of this as it translates to what I wear. If I was going to some formal event I'd simply wear what I felt like but less of it.

When I think formal in terms of a fragrance, I think of that's reserved, on the traditional side, and dare I say it... Often boring. Subdued citrus; demure flowers; tamed woods; emasculated herbs. Formal isn't a bad thing per se, but when I call something formal I'm usually saying it's well put together but a bit staid and doesn't take any risks.

It doesn't have anything to do with age, either. Caron Pour Un Homme, for example, is formal to my nose; Jicky, though much older, is not.

LOL! "Boring, subdued citrus, emasculated herbs."

We need to keep in mind that "traditional" gentlemanly scents are often mistaken on these forums. In the early 19th century, (post-Brummell, that is...) "gentlemanly" sometimes meant musk or jasmine with tons of sillage!

I agree with Suga on this. I do not distinguish the occasion and the scent. I wear what I feel like wearing. I *do* think, however, that "safe" and light scents can be worn for social events.

The bottom line is wear what you like, be it aquatic, floral, or oriental. Just don't over do it. Smelling like a Parisian maison close of the 19th century while at a weddling or at the theatre is the height of bad taste.
Reply
Reply
post #31 of 44
5/30/10 at 2:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Surfacing View Post

Nothing contradictory here.

Just because a fragrance is eccentric or unique or even BOLD, does not mean it will be "...distractingly loud..." in a situation. As long as one applies accordingly, it will work fine.

I'll take your example of a wedding. Yes, everyone is suppose to participate in a certain expected way. However, I think a unique or even "strange" scent will not be inappropriate. Business meeting, that is different. Its formal, but you ( or I ) would not want something too sexual or inappropriate. So I agree with you here.

But how do you distinguish between formal and casual?
Reply
Reply
post #32 of 44
5/30/10 at 2:17pm
If someone shows up with "strange" shoes, like pink suede, on a wedding, it would be considered inappropriate if one sticks to formality (lest it is a casaul affair and not formal). Likewise, a "strange" scent, like Yatagan, is out of place. I cannot see a way around this without redefining what "formal" means... Just claiming that anything is ok, just means that you don't observe formality and that's fine, but I cannot see how it can be formal to wear something "strange". What, then, does "formal" mean...

I just want to add, as I said before, that I think formal scents can be unique, they just have to be more subtle. And, in a way, that makes them more interesting...
Reply
Reply
post #33 of 44
5/30/10 at 3:43pm
I definitely see something like Chanel Pour Monsieur or Gucci Nobile being typical examples of "formal."

I guess things like Acqua di Gio, Unbound for men, Jovan Sex Appeal, Escape by CK, etc are of "casual" ilk.

Between the two, the formal stuff wins out for me. But then there are things that fall in-between both categories, like Creed Original Vetiver and Yatagan . . . I'm hard pressed to determine just how formal or casual scents like that actually are. OV seems perfect for weddings; Yatagan is good for autumn cookouts. Even Kouros seems difficult to define that way, as it's too hardcore for me to think of as casual, but too brash to be formal.
Reply
Reply
post #34 of 44
5/30/10 at 4:40pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Point Blank View Post

If someone shows up with "strange" shoes, like pink suede, on a wedding, it would be considered inappropriate if one sticks to formality (lest it is a casaul affair and not formal). Likewise, a "strange" scent, like Yatagan, is out of place. I cannot see a way around this without redefining what "formal" means... Just claiming that anything is ok, just means that you don't observe formality and that's fine, but I cannot see how it can be formal to wear something "strange". What, then, does "formal" mean...

I just want to add, as I said before, that I think formal scents can be unique, they just have to be more subtle. And, in a way, that makes them more interesting...

Yeah, it is tough to distinguish between formal and casual. I guess it is based on opinion to a certain extent. Some guys may feel that Armani Code is a scent that has a formal feel to it. Because of where I smell it and who I smell it on ( including myself in the past), it comes across as a casual scent. There are other reasons why I find it casual as well.

I was thinking about Serge Lutens Ambre Sultan. I'm not sure if you have sampling this one before, but I think it is a good example. Because it comes across as spicy in a way that may not suit jeans or casual wear. Its a bold scent with a identity of its own. So, with that all in mind, I feel that Ambre Sultan is more of a formal scent. Something you could wear in the evening while one is more dressed up. Doesn't have to be a "black tie" event. But just somewhere you would be expected to present yourself well.

Also, I feel like men can get away more with floral fragrances when they are dressed up a bit more. Just my opinion, though.
Reply
Reply
post #35 of 44
5/30/10 at 4:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by StylinLA View Post

I don't know if interesting is the word I would use, but I do prefer more formal, dressy scents no doubt.

Most of my favorites require a bit of sartorial support. But living in casual SoCal, I've head to break down that wall a bit.

+1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Primrose View Post

LOL! "Boring, subdued citrus, emasculated herbs."

We need to keep in mind that "traditional" gentlemanly scents are often mistaken on these forums. In the early 19th century, (post-Brummell, that is...) "gentlemanly" sometimes meant musk or jasmine with tons of sillage!

I agree with Suga on this. I do not distinguish the occasion and the scent. I wear what I feel like wearing. I *do* think, however, that "safe" and light scents can be worn for social events.

The bottom line is wear what you like, be it aquatic, floral, or oriental. Just don't over do it. Smelling like a Parisian maison close of the 19th century while at a weddling or at the theatre is the height of bad taste.

And to add to the confusion, it would seem that it's easier to categorize 19th or early 20th century women's scents--I can't imagine a woman wearing a heavy oriental, albeit a great one, like Guerlian's L'Heure Bleue (1912) to an informal occasion but I'm ignorant of the men's early 19th century scents with jasmine or musk--Primrose, any help on this? I assume that since B. Brummell kicked the bucket in 1840 you meant scents after his death to 1889? Or pre-1840 when Brummell had lost sway over fashion, or--I dunno.

It's all I can manage to remember that 4711 was not made in 4,711 B.C. at a laboratory in Atlantis.

(if I'm mistaken, then no wonder Atlantis sank!)

Dazed and Confused,

Mario
Reply
Reply
post #36 of 44
5/31/10 at 1:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Surfacing View Post

Yeah, it is tough to distinguish between formal and casual. I guess it is based on opinion to a certain extent. Some guys may feel that Armani Code is a scent that has a formal feel to it. Because of where I smell it and who I smell it on ( including myself in the past), it comes across as a casual scent. There are other reasons why I find it casual as well.

I was thinking about Serge Lutens Ambre Sultan. I'm not sure if you have sampling this one before, but I think it is a good example. Because it comes across as spicy in a way that may not suit jeans or casual wear. Its a bold scent with a identity of its own. So, with that all in mind, I feel that Ambre Sultan is more of a formal scent. Something you could wear in the evening while one is more dressed up. Doesn't have to be a "black tie" event. But just somewhere you would be expected to present yourself well.

Also, I feel like men can get away more with floral fragrances when they are dressed up a bit more. Just my opinion, though.

Perhaps the question is obscured by the fact that people associate "casual" with both "informal" and "laidback"? It does not seem like a loud or strange or seductive or eccentric fragrance really fit a formal setting, on one hand, but neither does it seem to go well with being laidback, on the other. Perhaps, it's better to make a distinction between formal and informal, where conservative scents belong to the former. And then divide informal into casual and extravagant? The former being a walk in the park, the latter being nightclubbing. This division would place conservative fragrances in the formal category, eccentric/seductive in the extravagant, and aquatics and alike in the casual category.

In any case, at the end of the day, I think you are right. People judge scents by association. So, since everybody is using Code as an everyday cologne it will not strike anyone as particularly formal, no matter its inherent qualities. In general, I think you can get away with most things in formal and informal settings alike, because people are not that exacting about scents if they are even aware of what the decorum is. Personally, however, I would feel much more comfortable at a formal event with a conservative scent, for the same reason it feel better about fitting shoes for the occasion. If the scent or shoes have a subtle twist Id feel even better
Reply
Reply
post #37 of 44
5/31/10 at 2:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario Justiniani View Post

+1



And to add to the confusion, it would seem that it's easier to categorize 19th or early 20th century women's scents--I can't imagine a woman wearing a heavy oriental, albeit a great one, like Guerlian's L'Heure Bleue (1912) to an informal occasion but I'm ignorant of the men's early 19th century scents with jasmine or musk--Primrose, any help on this? I assume that since B. Brummell kicked the bucket in 1840 you meant scents after his death to 1889? Or pre-1840 when Brummell had lost sway over fashion, or--I dunno.

It's all I can manage to remember that 4711 was not made in 4,711 B.C. at a laboratory in Atlantis.

(if I'm mistaken, then no wonder Atlantis sank!)

Dazed and Confused,

Mario

Mario, Beau Brummell and the Comte d'Orsay were the polar opposite of both tailor and scent-wearing. Brummell was austere in colour and cut and hated scent of any kind, insisting that bathing and clean linen was enough to make a man a gentleman. (Bathing was a costly and intensive activity in the days before running water.)

The Comte d'Orsay, on the other hand, was more colourful in dress and less austere in clothing--he thought nothing of accentuating the curves of his athletic physique with the lines of his lapels and skin-tight trousers. He also was quite fond of eau de Cologne and eau de jasmin.

Yes, Brummell died in 1840, having fled London in 1815 or so. The Comte's fashion trend-setting in Europe started in the late 1820s until the 1840s. I recall something of the Empress Josephine, consort of Napoleon I, being fond of musk scents.

EDIT: As Guerlain had their originals in 1828, and had a storefront in a hotel catering to English visitors, we can presume the English as well as the French were using scent by this time; we need to keep in mind there were no gender differences at this time. (The Comte, his wife and mother-in-law all used orange flower water.)
Reply
Reply
post #38 of 44
5/31/10 at 5:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Point Blank View Post

Perhaps the question is obscured by the fact that people associate "casual" with both "informal" and "laidback"? It does not seem like a loud or strange or seductive or eccentric fragrance really fit a formal setting, on one hand, but neither does it seem to go well with being laidback, on the other. Perhaps, it's better to make a distinction between formal and informal, where conservative scents belong to the former. And then divide informal into casual and extravagant? The former being a walk in the park, the latter being nightclubbing. This division would place conservative fragrances in the formal category, eccentric/seductive in the extravagant, and aquatics and alike in the casual category.

I think you really hit the nail on the head about there being a wide gap between formal and casual where a lot of fragrances fall in mood. Using my own favorite as an example, Tubereuse Criminelle is way too out-there and brash for formality, yet also too unusual and "difficult" to be considered casual. I think Yatagan, mentioned earlier in the thread, also fits in this space - if it's not a night at the opera scent, it's certainly not going to remind many of a pool party.
Reply
Reply
post #39 of 44
5/31/10 at 6:08pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Point Blank View Post

Perhaps the question is obscured by the fact that people associate "casual" with both "informal" and "laidback"? It does not seem like a loud or strange or seductive or eccentric fragrance really fit a formal setting, on one hand, but neither does it seem to go well with being laidback, on the other. Perhaps, it's better to make a distinction between formal and informal, where conservative scents belong to the former. And then divide informal into casual and extravagant? The former being a walk in the park, the latter being nightclubbing. This division would place conservative fragrances in the formal category, eccentric/seductive in the extravagant, and aquatics and alike in the casual category.

In any case, at the end of the day, I think you are right. People judge scents by association. So, since everybody is using Code as an everyday cologne it will not strike anyone as particularly formal, no matter its inherent qualities. In general, I think you can get away with most things in formal and informal settings alike, because people are not that exacting about scents if they are even aware of what the decorum is. Personally, however, I would feel much more comfortable at a formal event with a conservative scent, for the same reason it feel better about fitting shoes for the occasion. If the scent or shoes have a subtle twist Id feel even better

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sugandaraja View Post

I think you really hit the nail on the head about there being a wide gap between formal and casual where a lot of fragrances fall in mood. Using my own favorite as an example, Tubereuse Criminelle is way too out-there and brash for formality, yet also too unusual and "difficult" to be considered casual. I think Yatagan, mentioned earlier in the thread, also fits in this space - if it's not a night at the opera scent, it's certainly not going to remind many of a pool party.

Very good points guys !
Reply
Reply
post #40 of 44
5/31/10 at 7:30pm
While I enjoy formal scents there is a time and a place for casuals as well. One does not have to drive the Rolls to the store to get a loaf of bread and a gallon of milk. Besides it is difficult to find a parking place where you don't have to worry about someone scratching the paint when they open their car door.
Reply
Reply
post #41 of 44
6/1/10 at 9:33am
I don't really distinguish one fragrance from another in terms of formal and casual. I'll just wear whatever seems to fit with the situation
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 44
6/1/10 at 9:39pm
Yes........I find that those fragrances in my wardrobe which I consider to be "formal" are indeed more complex and refined than my "casual" fragrances.
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 44
6/1/10 at 10:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Point Blank View Post

How else would you separate formal from casual???

Does the invitation say "RSVP requested" or "how does pizza sound?"
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 44
6/2/10 at 9:04am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hob Dobson View Post

Does the invitation say "RSVP requested" or "how does pizza sound?"

You need to read the invitation?? I can tell by the choice of envelope - if it is black with letters printed in silver it is a formal event.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: MFD Archive

Features on Basenotes

Basenotes Reader Awards 2013 - Finalists Announced.
Petals Falling From The Sky - A Report From The Cote d'Azur's Bataille De Fleurs
Greatest Hits: Annick Menardo
Basenotes › Basenotes Forums › Fragrance Discussion › Male Fragrance Discussion › MFD Archive › Do you believe that "formal" fragrances are generally more interesting than "casual" fragrances ?