Many famous scents - are they being watered down?

The main reason is restrictions on certain, mostly natural, ingredients forced by IFRA, the aromachemical companies cartel association. If you search for IFRA restrictions, you'll find many posts on this. In addition, there's often a trend downward in quality, as perfume progressively cheapen their formulas afte the initial launch.

cacio

I agree.

You can thank the animal rights activist and bleeding heart liberals. They all want to eat organic and natural and smell synthetic...go figure. We want real musk, civet etc.

I want to smell like I just cut down a giant oak tree and wrestled a bear... but the IFRA will never allow for a fragrance to capture the accurate smell that would only come from natural ingredients

What scents are you specifically referring to?

Probably true.

IFRA or not, I think fragrances like Terre or AMen and many classic Guerlains have been watered down... not as strong as I used to feel them

Worse than watered down is ingredients being replaced and/or omitted in unison.

The House of GUERLAIN and the House of CARON - even their reformulations - still produce some very good scents. Looking at "the remains of the day" positively ...

It makes me mad also. Many fragrances today are pale imitations of their former selves. That is why I go vintage- there is nothing like those natural ingredients and stepping back into the world when fragrances smelled 'real'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I absolutely agree MOST fragrances are watered down. But about the reason ? ............ Maybe the origin countries' economical issues ??? Using less perfume ingredients and more alcohol & water ???

It's more like you can thank corporations and the elite conservatives. They want to be able to protect patents, to squeeze every last penny out of consumers and you can't do that with natural ingredients. They don't want you to have something they can't control and charge you to use.

Not so much watered down, and in fact some of the new versions I find stronger, and in some cases outright obnoxious. However, top notes in the vintage ones I have may have lost some potency, so that aspect is unclear. One thing I don't understand is why so many frags were reformulated missing their sandalwood notes, when in fact synthetic sandalwood is not expensive. It is possible, though, that they tried that idea and the result wasn't good. In many if not most cases, it seems like top notes are made strong and bases are made generic (strong cedar wood and amber notes, for example).

I can mention Dunhill Edition and armani eau pour homme that feel like they have been watered down. The original formulation on both was stronger and long lasting and they are both a shadow of what they were now.

I used to think everything is so vastly less potent these days. Then I suddenly remembered I used to dab some cologne on my upper lip as a teenager. This no doubt explains at least part of the discrepancy.

lol

Quite honestly, I think it's partially in response to the many people out there who take offense with fragrances that others are wearing that have a lot of projection/sillage. It used to be that other people could smoke cigarettes and wear generous splashes of STRONG powerhouse fragrances and it was considered socially acceptable. I'm glad they've gone after the second-hand smoke, being that it's literally deadly to breathe in. These days people complain, and there are even many "fragrance free" zones - some of which make sense in certain settings (an allergy specialist's office, for example).

Reformulation is the other factor, of course, where companies are hoping to always increase profit margins and get away with charging more for less.

Gucci Pour Homme is an entirely different thing now. Kouros, on the other hand, is just the final in a series of gunshots directly to YSL's head from their new owner, L'Oreal. This really has nothing to do with the IFRA, but entirely greed and cost cutting.

My interest in acquiring new fragrances is drastically dwindling, to be perfectly honest.

Apart from general sampling, my interests lie more in:

1) The relatively newer releases (in other words, get them before they're reformulated)
2) Vintage formulations (but only when the opportunities present themselves)
3) Essential oils (I'm currently on a vetiver kick and am thoroughly enjoying the discovery process)

Apart from that, the fragrance industry can go and f**k itself. My interest in perfumery still remains healthy but my money is being spent elsewhere...

Just want to say welcome to Basenotes systembolaget- the more you post here, the deeper into the rabbit hole you will go

I agree that overall, scents are being watered down and/or ingredients used which distort the original formula. My pet peeves are the scents I once loved and wore lots - Mille, Joy, First, Mitsouko and even Paris (which I still wear, but sprayed on fabric now, as that seems to best approximate the original scent).
Profits, IFRA regs, unavailability of former ingredients? Whatever the reason, it's a Bad Thing. I wouldn't mind so much if the manufacturers put some kind of guide on the box, say, Joy 2010; or Mitsouko, third edition. As it is, we think we're buying one thing but actually getting something else.
My rule these days is to never, ever buy without sampling first, even with a scent like the above, which I think I know well.

It has less to do with IFRA. It has even more less to do with what this guy has to say ^ .

Companies want to make money. Read Chandler Burr's The Perfect Scent or Dana Thomas's Deluxe : how luxury lost its luster for reference.

Consumers, for the most part, don't seem to notice ( or care ?). At the same time, if they do, its not like they can demand the company to switch back. If the reformulated product is a low seller, it will simply be discontinued. The companies respond to shareholders, not perfume lovers. Thankfully many companies do produce nice fragrances as well. Still, I am very concerned. No one wants to see watered down reformulations.

If I am a liar as you say, then explain why a company would reformulate an established scent and remove the natural ingredients. Yes, the natural ingredients are costlier, but not necessarily due to shortage. Look at the fur industry, also part of the fashion scene like the fragrance industry. Do you think there is a shortage of mink? Have you noticed who has raised the most opposition to fur? He mentioned scents he bought years ago, when natural ingredients, especially in the base, were used to make fragrances richer, deeper and longer lasting. Yes, corporations answer to shareholders, but they also must maintain a fairly respectable image in the publics opinion. The animals that provide these natural ingredients could be farmed and harvested, just like beef, pork and chicken. We all know why that isn't happening!

To come out in a public forum such as this and call me a liar...thats just bad taste and lack of diplomacy. Whatever your problem is, it isn't my fault. Have a nice day.

Gentlemen please, no ad hominem attacks. Keep your disagreements focused on the arguments' reasoning and substance.
I apologize to Albion9 on behalf of our community.

People who have decided that because they don't like fragrance, it's killing them (I'm allergic! etc.) are more to blame. All those litigious americans spooked the industry imo. DOn't think its got anything to do with animal rights activists (except legitimate concerns about animal welfare) and bleeding heart liberals have nothing to do with it

While it's probably a combination of many factors, I tend to agree with this explanation. In an age of increasing social anxiety it seems to be a matter of pride for people to discover that they are "sensitive" to one thing or another, and there's nothing like a big prominent lawsuit to help legitimize people's various fears and worries.

The nail that sticks furthest up is the one that tends to get pounded down, and the fact that others can actually perceive the smell of perfume as an unbidden presence within their sacred personal space.....that in itself is enough to excite the suspicions of certain members among the hyper-vigilent.

I think the Frag Industry is shaking in their boots that sooner or later there will be some big expose that sets perfume squarely among the list of other previously-seen-to-be-harmless toxins, both real or imagined, that are apparently playing havoc with our lives and health.

After all, we sometimes put perfume on clothing so it will last longer, because when we put it on our body.....some of it disappears into our skins. And also enters the bodies of unsuspecting others through their noses.

Uh oh.

So I think that's one of the main reasons makers are watering down their perfumes. The whole "skin scent" / lack of projection trend is probably a reflection of their worries : the less that people are able to smell their product, the less likely it is that second-party non-wearers are going to start blaming it for their ever-increasing list of ills.

I don't think that perfume companies are particularly interested in protecting the wearer ( after all, it was their choice to purchase and wear it ), I think they are more concerned about the reactions of vigilant non-wearers who are forced to endure what they may come to view as an obvious toxic intrusion into their personal space. Whether they have allergies or not.

If that's the way things evolve, it may not be long before we see punitive "sin taxes" being applied to perfume, much in the way they are now applied to other permitted-but-toxic products like cigarettes and cigars.

So really, I think the trend toward weaker perfumes is a part of a larger "image management" campaign.

Producers dearly want to preserve the public's perception that "Perfume is your friend".

In this age of the anxious and hyper-vigilent, coming up with fragrances which contain only "safe" ingredients, and better yet, which no one further than a couple of inches away can smell, would seem to be the safest way to protect that image.

.