New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Vintage vs. Fresh

post #1 of 3
Thread Starter 
This year vintage is a popular buzzword on Basenotes. At times it appears to be used as a status symbol. Some BNers chase after vintage almost like it was their second job.

Some Basenoters also insist that they will not buy a fragrance (particularly from an online source) unless they are convinced it is fresh.

Vintage is almost the antithesis of fresh. If vintage is so valued, how important can fresh be? I often wonder if some of these vintage-seekers also insist on fresh, or whether these are two entirely separate groups of people.
post #2 of 3
For me those two terms refer to different types of things. Vintage is used more to refer to older versions of a frag, often earlier formations with more backbone, greater depth, complexity, or even just closer to the nostalgic memory of when it first came out. The vintage ones might not be as "fresh" in the sense that some of the topnotes may be gone, but then again it might still be a "fresh" (ie new smelling) vintage version. A "Fresh" frag (let's ignore the application of meaning that it's an aquatic, citrus, etc) usually just means that it's bright and sparkling and the topnotes are really lively. buying a "Fresh" version of a frag is probably more applicable to one that's full composed and has all the notes intact.

For example, I have a current formulation of a frag that wasn't taken care of very well. It doesn't smell "fresh" at all in that the whole topnotes are just flat. In the drydown it's basically the same, but I really miss the whole bright clean opening that new bottles have when I test it. A vintage version may be missing those topnotes too, but I would be hunting it down because it's probably a different formulation. I might even just expect the topnotes to be gone in a vintage version.
post #3 of 3
Right, vintage formulation can be fresh or stale, so could a current formulation.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav: