Did Turin really "blow it" ? The Greatness of the 80s !

LT calls them "foghorns." So what? Just use less! The question, it seems to me, is: were the heights of the "masculine" designer frag attained in the 1980s? Just search the BN directory for masculine frags that were first marketed between 1985 and 1990, for example. And that won't even turn up JHL or Oscar Pour Lui, which came out earlier in the decade! Havana was a bit late to the party, but that's still more than 15 years ago (1994). So why didn't LT notice this? Instead, he complained about how pathetic masculine frags are (and have been, historically), dismissing the 1980s with the proverbial wave of the hand! I've been exploring these frags over the last couple of months, and I am quite impressed with these frags: the naturalism, the construction, the balance, the dynamism, etc. And of course the sillage and longevity are usually outstanding. But there's another very important point: they are quite diverse too, that is, not all of them are "lavender bombs." And even those with large amounts of lavender up top often have a drydown where the lavender fades into the background, or is hardly detectable any more. Thoughts ?

Well, I have quite a few "women's" frags now, including some "classics," and I don't find them to be all that interesting, especially when compared to some of the 80s "men's" frags. In particular, there are rarely any "gutsy" notes in the base, other than in chypres, of course, which basically have "unisex" drydowns anyway. And even with chypres, I prefer Pheromone for men by Miglin to Mitsouko, Bandit, etc. What impresses me the most about many 80s "men's" frags is how they can have so many notes, remain "legible," be "natural," etc., along with having "gutsy" base notes. Expensive "niche" frags are boring to me, by comparison, as well. The only thing that comes close that was made recently is Cumming the Fragrance, though of course there are plenty I have yet to try, unless you include Michael for Men, though I think that is a bit lacking in the "naturalness" department.

LT seems to think that such frags were "neither here nor there" (I think he called them lungfish) or basically "women's" frags with some lavender up top to make them seem "masculine" (like Heritage). I may agree with his assessment of frags like Heritage, but what about a frag like Montana Parfum d'Homme? My guess is that for some reason he found them to violate an unwritten rule of perfumery. Otherwise, I can't understand why "men's" frag get such "bad press" in his "Guide" book, with so many of these frags not discussed (or not discussed positively). Does anyone disagree with me that LT gives the reader a sense that "men's" frags are quite unappealing, with just a few exceptions, in that book?

Well, there's a difference, IMO, between frags that are simpler than the ones I'm talking about. Antaeus, for example, might be a "powerhouse," but it's not as complex. My point is that getting all those notes to work well together and remain legible, smell "natural," have good dynamism, etc., is quite an accomplishment, one which he simply never acknowledged. If I were to write a fragrance guide of some sort, these kinds of frags might be the "stars of the show," rather than frags like Mitsouko, which might be important for the development of "modern" frags, but I can't consider as being on the same level of accomplishment (though if you want to argue that these were necessary "stepping stone" frags, I would not disagree).

That's why I used the term "legible," in reference to the many notes.

I think most of the "non-expert" (non-BN fanatic) crowd gets the impression from the book that aside from a few exception, the 80s were not a good decade for "men's" designer frags, whereas my experience leads me to conclude that the opposite is the case. This is my main point. You can agree or disagree with it. However, if you agree, I think the next logical step is to think that LT made a rather big and incomprehensible error, even if it is just that he doesn't spray less when he tries these frags. It would be nice if he posted here and clarified his position. I really don't care about "showing anyone up," but rather I know he has tremendous knowledge on his subject and I'd just like an explanation.

I agree with shamu1. LT seems to like classic colognes, chypres, and the women's classics especially. He also likes simple lavender frags. And that is what I was getting at: he seems to think the 80s frags are too complicated or something, whereas I view them (the "power frags") as an incredible achievement, because there were a lot of contrasting notes, with good legibility and naturalness (the many "good ones," of course, though not all were). So it sounds like a "generational thing." As to the ratings, few casual readers are going to add them up. However, the essays at the front of the book, along with comments about "foghorns," "lungfish," etc., in some of the reviews, give that reader the impression that there are a few "good" men's frags here and there, but that women's frags are generally much "better." I disagree because the power frags were able to incorporate much more than any of the women's frags (again, because there are a lot of notes, the notes contrast well, they are legible, and there is an overall "natural" feel), now or in the past. The only major exception is the chypre, but that is really a unisex drydown (and at least for me, the chypre is somewhat boring and can only be worn every couple of weeks anyway).

I don't agree. Instead, I got the impression that many were basically women's orientals that were changed just a bit so that they could be marketed to men (perhaps true for JHL but not the majority). You may be right that LT thought this, though, because he may have just taken a quick sniff on paper, as many of these frags do have a fougere-like opening, but then change significantly (quite a few go into sweet leather, with oakmoss, patchouli, etc., after a complex middle with floral notes, for example). I'm finding the range to be excellent rather than narrow, actually, now that I can tolerate the strong lavender top notes, which are common. As I said, if LT could jump in here and clarify, that would be great.

Sorry, but I have an aversion to "bothering people" so I won't contact someone. My thought is that if he or she doesn't read the thread (or did but doesn't want to respond) then that is "the end of the story." Even if LT said that he didn't think most people were smart enough to spray less, that would be a reasonable explanation to me, though it would then mean that this should have been mentioned in the book. I think it's really simple: either you think the period circa 1980 to 1990 represented a great achievement in "modern perfumery" for "masculine" frags or you do not. In his book, LT gives the reader the impression that this period did not represent anything especially good, let alone great. My conclusion is that this was not just a great age for "masculine's" but should be considered the greatest achievement of all time (though tastes may have changed), in perfumery. LT seems to have put his preference for simpler, more "transparent," etc. frags above the obvious great technical achievement of the 1980s. How long did he say he wore PdN's NY? I get bored by it within a couple of hours, and that is based on a few wearings only. I think LT's terminology (lungfish, foghorns) provides us with the most likely explanation, which as I said, is that he was unable to put aside his personal tastes and spend some time explaining to the reader what a great achievement these kinds of frags were. In fact, the reader is told men's frags are a kind of "wasteland," even though many of the 80s frags are still available and not expensive.

Then go ahead and contact him and tell him about this thread. You have my blessings !

Yes, that is my point too, that is, he appears to have put his personal tastes above a great achievement, and in doing so the reader is given an impression that is clearly not correct. Is Shalimar any less ornate than those men's "power frags"? I do remember him writing that projection is not good for a masculine frag (I don't remember the exact wording), so the question now is, does anyone disagree that LT seems to have let his personal tastes interfere with his assessment of these frags, in general?

Why I don't think I am way off base can be found in the book itself (I only have the first, hardcover edition). In his chapter on "masculine elegance...," he does not include any discussion of these kinds of frags. None, whatsoever. Whether they are a great achievement "artistically" or not is subjective, but whether or not they are one technically is not. If a professional perfumer wants to chime in here and say that for some reason no perfumes were made like this before, great. I want to hear his or her explanation about that.

Later in the book, in the Heritage review, we are told that Joe Blow wasn't ready for these kinds of frags and that they missed their intended target by miles. Fine, but what does that have to do with wearing them today (especially if you are the kind of guy who reads such books!)? He tells women to consider wearing Yatagan, for goodness sake! Yet as others have said, he (and TS) gives some of these frags high marks (many are not reviewed of course). There is an undeniable logical inconsistency here, regardless of the subjectivity involved in criticism. But this is so strange that only LT could clear it up at this point, too my satisfaction at least.

That may be it, but I wish he had told us. This was probably my impression too, until recently. What happened is that I had developed a bad aversion to lavender so I couldn't explore these frags as much as I would have liked until the last few months. I've been quite surprised at how much variety there is, however, and at some point it struck me that this general idea that guys have been given the short end of the stick is nonsense. Women's frags lack those "gutsy" base notes, with very few exceptions (or the aforementioned chypres, which are basically unisex, and are simpler anyway). If you acknowledge the greatness of the 80s men's frags, then LT's thesis, as I understand it, does not hold water. In fact, he seems to agree on some strange level (perhaps not entirely conscious), by his suggestion that women wear Yatagan (and a couple of others, I think).

I am satisfied with the argument I made in this thread, and short of having a moderated, formal debate on this subject, I don't think I have anything more to say that is relevant.