Basenotes › Basenotes Forums › Fragrance Discussion › Just Starting Out › The word "fougere"...?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The word "fougere"...?

post #1 of 29
2/13/12 at 11:43pm
Thread Starter 
Hey guys,

Please educate me on something. I looked up on wiki what "fougere" means, and if I'm reading correctly, it's basically a mashup of every note category: greens on top, woods and oriental/spices in the middle, and musk/oakmoss/all around deeper shit on the bottom. But isn't this basically the composition of every single fragrance (literally, like, every one)? What then, makes a "fougere", and examples would be amazing. Thanks a lot!
Reply
Reply

Features on Basenotes

Petals Falling From The Sky - A Report From The Cote d'Azur's Bataille De Fleurs
Basenotes Reader Awards 2013 - Finalists Announced.
Greatest Hits: Annick Menardo
post #2 of 29
2/14/12 at 12:56am
If you go to my blog there is a post about "Baroque Fougeres" that I think will help you. It means "fern," but there is no such smell. Instead, it is the idea that the combination of lavender and coumarin, which produces something unique, can be thought of as the smell of ferns, in the human imagination.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 29
2/14/12 at 6:14am
odysseusm did a comparison of various classic/old-school fougères here: http://www.basenotes.net/threads/238...e-English-Fern .

This would be an overview of fougères before the baroque fougères Bigsly wrote about.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 29
2/14/12 at 8:30am
There are some great perfume blogs which address your question. Here is one that is informative and interesting while acting as a jump off point for your own discoveries :0)

http://ayalasmellyblog.blogspot.com/2007/10/fougre.html
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 29
2/14/12 at 8:38am
If you read the Wiki article on the Paul Parquet, the perfumer who created Fougère Royal the very first Fougère and also the first fragrance known to contain a synthetic ingredient (coumarin) you’ll get a better idea of what makes a Fougère.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 29
2/14/12 at 8:38am
This thread in the DIY forum also contains some musings of my own and others on the subject: When-is-a-Fougère-not-a-Fougère
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 29
2/14/12 at 9:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Bartlett View Post

This thread in the DIY forum also contains some musings of my own and others on the subject: When-is-a-Fougère-not-a-Fougère

Entries here were very informative
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 29
2/14/12 at 2:47pm
i like to completely ignore these classifications. They dont help me to realize if i like something or not.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 29
2/14/12 at 8:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by icanzapyou View Post

and musk/oakmoss/all around deeper shit on the bottom.

I commend your eloquence.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 29
2/14/12 at 8:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by heperd View Post

i like to completely ignore these classifications. They dont help me to realize if i like something or not.

I think classifications are useful as a first-impression guide. Speaking as a beginner, I start my search for fragrances by reading all the available reviews and comments, and words like 'fougère' and 'chypre' help point out the accords and feels of the different fragrances. But I do agree that 'fougère' is not very helpful when I cannot smell the similarities in most modern fougères (the baroque fougères Bigsly mentions).
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 29
2/14/12 at 9:05pm
They just dont help me at all, maybe I need more examples. The only descriptions that help me are natural smells-vanilla, cocoa, cinnamon, patchouli, lavender, leather,melon. Aquatics are easy. Orientals i think i have figured out-spices over amber or vanilla(simplified). I doubt i will ever use these descriptors when figuring out if i want to test or buy something.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 29
2/14/12 at 9:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hedonist222 View Post

I commend your eloquence.

I think Jicky in parfum might qualify as a fougere with deeper shit on the bottom.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 29
2/14/12 at 9:38pm
Thread Starter 
Thanks so much for all of your help everyone. I learned a lot from reading these blogs. My conclusion is that I'm just gonna steer clear from using the word "fougere" in my vocab lol. But Bigsly, your blog was awesome and written beautifully. I think I'll adopt your explanation, something along the lines of how a true fougere will have several layers and interchange between them throughout its scent life, while other scents will just go from top to middle to base without really weaving between its layers. Hope I read correctly and that I'm not misrepresenting your words. Thanks all for posting links, much appreciated!
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 29
2/14/12 at 9:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sugandaraja View Post

I think Jicky in parfum might qualify as a fougere with deeper shit on the bottom.

haha
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 29
2/14/12 at 9:43pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hedonist222 View Post

I commend your eloquence.

Haha my friends all make fun of me when I get into a somewhat intellectual topic of conversation and throw around slang/curse words, thus making me sound dumber than I already do. It's a consequence of watching too many Chris Rock/George Carlin/Louis CK videos.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 29
2/15/12 at 12:49pm
Give Tsar by VC&A a sniff sometime. Excellent modern fern.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 29
2/15/12 at 1:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by heperd View Post

They just dont help me at all, maybe I need more examples. The only descriptions that help me are natural smells-vanilla, cocoa, cinnamon, patchouli, lavender, leather,melon. Aquatics are easy. Orientals i think i have figured out-spices over amber or vanilla(simplified). I doubt i will ever use these descriptors when figuring out if i want to test or buy something.

Aquatics are easy, but at the same time, they aren't. I've seen Xeryus classified as a fougere, and as an aquatic, for example. Ditto Boss by Hugo Boss. I can't recall other examples of an "aquatic fougere", which means some folks find there's not a clear line in the sand between the two, apparently. That, or it means I'm even more woefully ignorant on the classifications than I thought.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 29
2/16/12 at 12:12am
KUDOS to Bigsly and Chris Bartlett ... wonderful insights ...

Reply
Reply
post #19 of 29
2/16/12 at 1:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dollars&scents View Post

KUDOS to Bigsly and Chris Bartlett ... wonderful insights ...


thank you!
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 29
2/24/12 at 9:50pm
Thread Starter 
BUMP!

Hello friends, let me start off by saying I'm quite the dumbass. So here's where I made a mistake. I think I meant to use the word "chypre" in place of "fougere". Let me clarify by throwing in some definitions from Wikipedia:

Chypre- "is the name of a family (or concept) of perfumes that are characterised by an accord composed of citrus top-notes, a floral middle, and a mossy-animalic base-note derived from oak moss and musks".

Fougere- "meaning 'fern-like', is one of the main families into which modern perfumes are classified, with the name derived from the perfume Fougère Royale for Houbigant formulated by the perfumer Paul Parquet. The class of fragrances have the basic accord with a top-note of lavender and base-notes of oakmoss and coumarin. Aromatic fougère, a derivative of this class contain additional notes of spice and wood."

So you see what I mean? I used the wrong term throughout this thread. If a chypre is any fragrance with citrus, then floral, then musky/woody bases, doesn't that basically mean, well... pretty much every fragrance in existence? At what point is it a chypre?

And I guess I'm confused on the fougere thing still, but it's okay lol. I'll try to figure it out by sniffing and googling!

In an attempt to not come across as a complete dipshit, I'll justify my mistake. When I look at the fragrance wheel, the category of "fougere" is placed in the middle. Based on that, I assumed that a fougere was just a category that encompasses everything. Plus I read it somewhere.

Anyways, I don't want to derail my own damn thread. Can someone please tell me what a chypre is?
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 29
2/24/12 at 10:04pm
The core of a classic chypre is bergamot-labdanum-oakmoss, with only really bergamot-oakmoss being the core skeleton, labdanum a complement.

Think of it being like a pizza. You can put almost anything on a pizza, but certain features ( the shape, the dough, toppings being on the top ) make it a pizza and not bread or strudel.

Thus, you can put a lot of other citrus on top and have a citrus chypre, a lot of florals in and have a floral chypre, galbanum and extra moss and make it a very green chypre, etc.

Part of the confusion these days is that oakmoss is restricted to 0.1% of a formula. Imagine painting a sunset with 0.1% red - not very convincing, huh? Some manage, but most chypres get by by having a large ''supporting cast", the leading members usually being vetiver and patchouli. This has lead to a string of not very chypric chypres, especially modern ones.

But, back in the day, chypre meant a very distinct and recognizable thing.
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 29
2/24/12 at 10:39pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by heperd View Post

i like to completely ignore these classifications. They dont help me to realize if i like something or not.

Hey man, this might sound stupid, but it literally takes a bit of weight off of my shoulders to know that someone who's as invested in fragrances as you doesn't worry about classifications.
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 29
2/24/12 at 10:43pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sugandaraja View Post

The core of a classic chypre is bergamot-labdanum-oakmoss, with only really bergamot-oakmoss being the core skeleton, labdanum a complement.

Think of it being like a pizza. You can put almost anything on a pizza, but certain features ( the shape, the dough, toppings being on the top ) make it a pizza and not bread or strudel.

Thus, you can put a lot of other citrus on top and have a citrus chypre, a lot of florals in and have a floral chypre, galbanum and extra moss and make it a very green chypre, etc.

Part of the confusion these days is that oakmoss is restricted to 0.1% of a formula. Imagine painting a sunset with 0.1% red - not very convincing, huh? Some manage, but most chypres get by by having a large ''supporting cast", the leading members usually being vetiver and patchouli. This has lead to a string of not very chypric chypres, especially modern ones.

But, back in the day, chypre meant a very distinct and recognizable thing.

Thanks very much for that extremely informative reply. So if I'm interpreting your explanation correctly, there was a time in the frag world wherein the bergamot-labdanum-oakmoss combination was so common (maybe that's the wrong word) or such a strong archetype that it had its own category, but over time the term has been watered down? And now because of the oakmoss restriction it's very difficult to find true, old-school chypres anymore?
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 29
2/24/12 at 11:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by icanzapyou View Post

Thanks very much for that extremely informative reply. So if I'm interpreting your explanation correctly, there was a time in the frag world wherein the bergamot-labdanum-oakmoss combination was so common (maybe that's the wrong word) or such a strong archetype that it had its own category, but over time the term has been watered down? And now because of the oakmoss restriction it's very difficult to find true, old-school chypres anymore?

Bingo!

As a tip - I'm not sure it's that useful, but - the original Coty Chypre that started the genre is really hard to get, but there's a natural perfumer, Ayala Moriel, who makes something called Ayalitta that's a lot like it and I'm fair sure does not comply with modern rules and oakmoss restrictions. It really is the closest thing I've ever smelled to an old-fashioned, clear, green, archetypical chypre.

Mind you, not all of the later departures from chypre were bad or not real chypres; I love some '80s and '90s chypres that are full of florals, patchouli, vetiver, beeswax and other non-chypre elements.
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 29
2/25/12 at 2:06am
A very high quality chypre that is reasonably priced (at least on ebay now) is Pheromone for Men by Miglin. It's not too harsh (like Bandit), or too "feminine" (like many marketed to women), or too peachy (Mitsouko, obviously), but it has a unique "green" quality. The women's version of this frag is very similar to the men's (doesn't have any sharpness). It's too bad the aficionado crowd that wants at least one chypre in their rotation has largely ignored these.
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 29
2/25/12 at 4:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by icanzapyou View Post

Thanks very much for that extremely informative reply. So if I'm interpreting your explanation correctly, there was a time in the frag world wherein the bergamot-labdanum-oakmoss combination was so common (maybe that's the wrong word) or such a strong archetype that it had its own category, but over time the term has been watered down? And now because of the oakmoss restriction it's very difficult to find true, old-school chypres anymore?

I have read somewhere that Chanel Pour Monsieur can be considered a modern reference chypre, so it could be a place to start learning what a chypre should smell like, although I am not sure whether that still works with the oakmoss restrictions.
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 29
2/25/12 at 7:14am
I'm sure I'm going straight to hell for this, but in my four years in this hobby, I can safely say that I still haven't figured out completely what a fougere or a chypre are. Yes, I've seen the definitions of what notes are the requisites for each, and what order they come in. And yes, I've seen enough examples of each listed to guess if a given scent might be one or the other by comparison.

But really, they're useless to me. I think in terms of green, wood, spice, leather, citrus, aqua, fruit, etc...scent families that really mean something to me, or even to a non-basenoter. I know that fougeres tend to be green and/or herbal, and chypres tend to be dry woods or leather. As Maque suggested, if the diversity of the family is so great that it masks the similarities between them, then it's not helpful to me. Oriental has a little more meaning to me, but there are still enough caveats with its official definition that I don't really think in terms of that one either.

I'm much better at doing this with music, where I can see what makes a concerto grosso, whether it is formal and pleasant from 1750, or jumbled and dissonant from 1950. But even here, whether the piece technically takes the form of a concerto grosso or a symphonic poem, it's the style of what's "inside" that framework that will make me like or dislike the piece.

Sugandaraja's pizza analogy is good...I'll have to see if I can find the dough, the sauce, and the cheese in all my fougeres and chypres, so to speak.
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 29
2/25/12 at 8:45pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redbeard View Post

I'm sure I'm going straight to hell for this, but in my four years in this hobby, I can safely say that I still haven't figured out completely what a fougere or a chypre are. Yes, I've seen the definitions of what notes are the requisites for each, and what order they come in. And yes, I've seen enough examples of each listed to guess if a given scent might be one or the other by comparison.

But really, they're useless to me. I think in terms of green, wood, spice, leather, citrus, aqua, fruit, etc...scent families that really mean something to me, or even to a non-basenoter. I know that fougeres tend to be green and/or herbal, and chypres tend to be dry woods or leather. As Maque suggested, if the diversity of the family is so great that it masks the similarities between them, then it's not helpful to me. Oriental has a little more meaning to me, but there are still enough caveats with its official definition that I don't really think in terms of that one either.

I'm much better at doing this with music, where I can see what makes a concerto grosso, whether it is formal and pleasant from 1750, or jumbled and dissonant from 1950. But even here, whether the piece technically takes the form of a concerto grosso or a symphonic poem, it's the style of what's "inside" that framework that will make me like or dislike the piece.

Sugandaraja's pizza analogy is good...I'll have to see if I can find the dough, the sauce, and the cheese in all my fougeres and chypres, so to speak.

Out of friendly curiosity, what's your relationship with classical music? Just wondering lol. I'm a piano student so talking about this dorky shit is cool to me.
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 29
2/26/12 at 7:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by icanzapyou View Post

Out of friendly curiosity, what's your relationship with classical music? Just wondering lol. I'm a piano student so talking about this dorky shit is cool to me.

I'm about to send you a personal message about my experiences with renaissance and baroque music.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Just Starting Out

Features on Basenotes

Petals Falling From The Sky - A Report From The Cote d'Azur's Bataille De Fleurs
Basenotes Reader Awards 2013 - Finalists Announced.
Greatest Hits: Annick Menardo
Basenotes › Basenotes Forums › Fragrance Discussion › Just Starting Out › The word "fougere"...?