Basenotes › Basenotes Forums › Fragrance Discussion › Male Fragrance Discussion › MFD Archive › Is civet a dated note in fragrance?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is civet a dated note in fragrance?

post #1 of 51
11/17/12 at 1:26am
Thread Starter 
Hello fellow Basenoters -

I wanted to ask a general question. I decided not to take a poll, although it might make sense. But, I would rather hear what you had to say.

Understanding that a good amount of fragrances, nowadays (and for decades) have used synthetic civet (civetone) - but actual civet exists in some compositions. We can leave that argument or perspective aside, as I am more curious about what Basenoters think of the actual note and its place in fragrance today.

Just curious to hear what people think - relating this to Kouros, Givenchy Gentleman, Chanel No.5, Chanel Coco, and countless other scents.

Cheers.

ericrico
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 51
11/17/12 at 1:33am
I think civet is a wonderful note, and a number of my favourite fragrances have it - and my wife likes them on me (but we're both mid-50s, whatever that tells you).
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 51
11/17/12 at 1:46am
One of my absolute favourite notes.
Sadly, less favoured in perfumery today than in decades past. Classics such as Joy and No.5 which once contained generous doses are much the worse for its effective removal. Even Jicky is a shadow of its former self.
Really too bad.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 51
11/17/12 at 2:03am
I would say yes as it is hardly used today as it was in the past. Done right it can add that dark muskyness to a scent and smell nice though if not can be horrid. In Givenchy Gentleman there is just a little bit in the basenotes and it smells good and adds overall to the scent. But in Czech & Speakes Citrus Paradisi its truly horrid mixed in with the citrus, a truly imo horrid fragrance.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 51
11/17/12 at 2:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Hunter View Post

I would say yes as it is hardly used today as it was in the past. Done right it can add that dark muskyness to a scent and smell nice though if not can be horrid... But in Czech & Speakes Citrus Paradisi its truly horrid mixed in with the citrus, a truly imo horrid fragrance.

I agree with this. Some of the currently available civety ones are 'too much' and everyone has their own threshold. I love MdM but can't stand Rochas 'I wet myself' Moustache, for example.

I wish it were used more though as it helps to make a fragrance more interesting, done right. There are so many boring gutless smell-alikes out there.

Yes civet is regarded as dated, since the 'pure clean' drive of the 90s; soapy is the new sexy! Does this go hand-in-hand with the Bieber/infantilising of sexuality? I wonder...

I suspect the younger members who are attracted most to lollipop scents and clean laundry scents would like civet least. I'm generalising of course.

I think the oud craze amongst perfumistas may be a response to the current sterility. An acceptable skank.

/ramble
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 51
11/17/12 at 2:23am
It's certainly not used in the same amounts anymore. Perfume is now more 'overground'; nearly everyone has a bottle these days- and the general public are probably as unlikely to appreciate it as a Penderecki atonal symphony. I personally think the synthesised version of civet can smell a bit 'blunt' on occasions
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 51
11/17/12 at 2:59am
I'm wondering if that it why I have always loved Givenchy Gentlemen. I have always had a bottle of this one and received many compliments.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 51
11/17/12 at 3:11am
My limit is 0. So sorry, I can't stand any scent with recognizable civet.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 51
11/17/12 at 3:42am
Along with cumin and fenugreek, it is my least favorite note... That said, when used sparingly in the base notes like in vintage Givenchy Gentleman and Monsieur de Givenchy it can work quite well in a fragrance. The key words are "used sparingly". As for it being relevant to use today? If implemented in the same judicious manner as those two greats, why not?
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 51
11/17/12 at 4:44am
Not necessarily, in Mouchoir de Monsieur for instance, it manages to remain improbably, yet pleasantly surprising trendy.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 51
11/17/12 at 4:52am
I love civet, I think it should be used much more in perfumery in generous amounts , I have Dior Leather Oud, where I find the civet the star of the show. I also procured this 5ml Indian temple attar, which uses real palm civet, jasmine,rose, sandalwood and clove, it is used from what I was told it is used for the worship of a specific hindu deity(don't know which one) , it literally is divine!
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 51
11/17/12 at 5:09am
'Dated' only to noses more accustomed to bland mono-dimensional synthetic blends. Civet is seldom the star of the show but like a good stage manager you can't help notice when it's missing.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 51
11/17/12 at 6:34am
Individual taste and micro-trends aside, I think civet (and other animalics) in scent, at least as a prominent player, suggests an intimacy from which human beings have generally been retreating.

On a personal note, if someone gave me a bottle, say, of vintage Givenchy Gentleman I wouldn’t let it go to waste. But I wouldn’t purchase anything that I knew contained natural civet.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 51
11/17/12 at 7:38am
^ Great observation. We are not shiny androids.

Also, I don't think any one note itself can be dated. The note is used mainly in perfumes from an earlier era, but styles and tastes change. Our culture (western culture, anyway) seems very perfectionist, very corporate. Individual expression and art is becoming digital. No muck. I'm sure this will change, and civet, like orientals and tobacco recently, will see a comeback in perfumes.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 51
11/17/12 at 7:48am
IMO it is not.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 51
11/17/12 at 7:51am
It's a note that most people nowadays don't like, to "unclean" in some peoples eyes. But people who appreciate scents I.e us still love it
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 51
11/17/12 at 7:54am
...I would not say so: it is prominent present in many very popular scents...!
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 51
11/17/12 at 8:31am
Yes definitely. I know it's par of fragrance history but it is definitely dated
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 51
11/17/12 at 9:29am
Thread Starter 
I really appreciate the responses, so far, fellow Basenoters. I opened the thread after a long and intense wearing of Vintage Kouros earlier in the week and then a beautiful, full wearing of Vintage Givenchy Gentleman last night (as I shaved for the first time since November 1st - over 15 days of beard for "No-Shave November" that I had to break due to short-notice plans to visit family came up. I didn't want to look like I lost a bet. ;-)

I splashed on Vintage Givenchy Gentleman After Shave and layered with Vintage GG EdT. The gorgeous aroma filled the room and my wife loved it. I was in a special "place" on a cold, rainy night...that was, in essence, a "metaphorical gallery of olfactory art wearing a classic piece from 1974." It was so transcendent. I felt like Monsieur Hubert de Givenchy's brother, James Taffin, who lived in cold, rainy and dreary London with an aroma that warms the soul. I thoroughly enjoyed the civet, deep patchouli, rich spices, smooth honey and the rose that peaks through the "tule fog" of masculine smokiness. Sensational. But, I pondered the thought. Is this scent dated because of the civet (in Vintage Givenchy Gentleman)? Because, current formulation amplifies the deep, dark patchouli and increases the leather. It is almost totally void of civet. I know it well. But, I smelled it from the nozzle to compare (once more) and put it back away. Vintage only, for last night...I didn't feel it smelled dated, but most definitely "classic". And, to me, timeless. I recently turned 40 years old and have enjoyed civet in fragrances for more than two decades as Kouros was with me earlier in life. I have always enjoyed the animalic muskiness and wonderful powdery vibe it offers a composition. But, I fully agree, that it must be used in proportion. Givenchy Gentleman (Vintage) - it is used, in my opinion, to perfection. It is what makes Kouros the wonderful classic (and "masterpiece" to those who feel that way), that it is. Take out civet and you don't have either composition.

I gave my wife earlier a gift - one we enjoyed together...a bottle of Givenchy Amarige. Ropion's nose created a symphony of beauty to our noses and minds, with the tuberose very present but the wonderful gardenia shining through. It was my late Mother's favorite note and she only wore gardenia scents. The gorgeous ylang-ylang, wonderful concoction of rich fruit with musk and light sandalwood in the base came together in harmony. No civet in this composition, but I wanted to mention this bottle to those who have not tried it. We loved it and shared in the notes together - both fragrances.

It was a very sensual night with olfactory pleasure that was simply divine...

Cheers,

ericrico
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 51
11/17/12 at 9:41am
I believe it is a very dated note, and one of my least favorite notes in fragrances. One I now tend to avoid.
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 51
11/17/12 at 1:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericrico View Post


It was a very sensual night with olfactory pleasure that was simply divine...

Cheers,

ericrico

Beautifully written post.
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 51
11/17/12 at 2:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Hunter View Post

I would say yes as it is hardly used today as it was in the past. Done right it can add that dark muskyness to a scent and smell nice though if not can be horrid. In Givenchy Gentleman there is just a little bit in the basenotes and it smells good and adds overall to the scent. But in Czech & Speakes Citrus Paradisi its truly horrid mixed in with the citrus, a truly imo horrid fragrance.

I enjoy civet very much. In fact, Citrus Paradisi is my favorite citrus fragrance on my partner.
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 51
11/17/12 at 2:20pm
Two of my favorites wouldn't be the same without civet, Mazzolari Lui and Creed Orange Spice. It certainly adds that extra "kick" to them!
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 51
11/17/12 at 5:12pm
Civet is dated for the ones new to the perfume industry!
Civet is one of the best "notes" that are true to perfumes!
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 51
11/17/12 at 5:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by etoile View Post

Civet is dated for the ones new to the perfume industry!
Civet is one of the best "notes" that are true to perfumes!

+1
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 51
11/17/12 at 7:00pm
With the exception of Love By Kilian (and it's barely even a note in there, you can't even smell it) I've yet to find a frag that has civet in it that I like. I do think it's sort of outdated, and in some case down right repulsive
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 51
11/17/12 at 8:30pm
Great Thread with predictable responses on the whole, grown-ups get it and kids who have been bought up experiencing vanilla as the post 1990's fixative for "Men's Colognes" will run for the hills.

Given prevailing market trends I think we will see less and less civet use, I imagine in most fragrances where it was a part of the composition it's been dialled down already.

I enoyed your post, ericrico. Every now and then I have a revelatory experience with something 'of another time and place' and occasionally in circumstances where I can share it with someone who appreciates it - that is really the magic of this whole thing isn't it?
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 51
11/18/12 at 2:15am
Romeo Gigli per Uomo (dating back at least ten years) gives me some civet without smelling particularly dated. It's actually quite unique smelling.
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 51
11/20/12 at 9:48am
Civet will become dated the day sex becomes passé.
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 51
11/20/12 at 11:00am
Thread Starter 
Very intelligent post, my friend. I'm glad I posted this thread.

You live up (fully) to your screenname...I knew there would be mixed responses. We can draw a line with those who like it and those who don't. Rather polarizing, actually. But that is expected. Actual real civet is rarely used anymore.

An interesting post on Wikipedia that I read before and wanted to share: "Animal rights groups, such as the World Society for the Protection of Animals, express concern that harvesting musk is cruel to animals. Between these ethical concerns and the availability of synthetic substitutes, the practice of raising civets for musk is dying out. Chanel, maker of the popular perfume Chanel No. 5, claims that natural civet has been replaced with a synthetic substitute since 1998." Civetone is the chemical used in place of real civet, as I mention in my initial post.

However, there are a lot of us who have Vintage bottles that contain real civet...often blended with musk. Those days are long past us...

Finally - thank you for the comment on my post to you (and others). That truly is the magic of the whole realm of olfactory art!

Cheers.

ericrico

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. reasonable View Post

Great Thread with predictable responses on the whole, grown-ups get it and kids who have been bought up experiencing vanilla as the post 1990's fixative for "Men's Colognes" will run for the hills.

Given prevailing market trends I think we will see less and less civet use, I imagine in most fragrances where it was a part of the composition it's been dialled down already.

I enoyed your post, ericrico. Every now and then I have a revelatory experience with something 'of another time and place' and occasionally in circumstances where I can share it with someone who appreciates it - that is really the magic of this whole thing isn't it?
Reply
Reply
post #31 of 51
11/20/12 at 11:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoombung View Post

It's certainly not used in the same amounts anymore. Perfume is now more 'overground'; nearly everyone has a bottle these days- and the general public are probably as unlikely to appreciate it as a Penderecki atonal symphony. I personally think the synthesised version of civet can smell a bit 'blunt' on occasions

I agree that the public is unlikely to appreciate it, as is posted several times in this thread. But, as a musician, just had to comment on the parallel with a Penderecki atonal work. Civet is from the emotional romanticism of Brahms through Richard Strauss. The atonal movement is the move towards syntheticism (if there is such a word) and then to the cleanliness of digital, as someone mentioned. Both are devoid of those sensual emotions of the past. Hopefully, as someone mentioned, there will be a move back to those emotional days that those of us who are old enough experienced, but, unfortunately, I suspect not. Those were the days where people had time to live and experience life. There is no time anymore. We are caught in the "now" without dreams of past memories or the anticipated future. How sad really.
Reply
Reply
post #32 of 51
11/20/12 at 11:42am
Thread Starter 
Very eloquent posts, gentleman.

Dogodojo - I really like what you said here. Civet, among other notes, are what shaped modern fragrance. There is an element of classicism in these Vintage bottles and it transcended men's and women's fragrances wonderfully.

I would like to focus on your last couple sentences...we still have time to live. For all of us, as is the mystery of life, we just don't know how much time. If you live in the present, each day is a "gift" - and you can feel blessed to have lived during an era where you had the chance to enjoy the lavish scents of days gone by. Thankfully, a lot of us can say that, we, (and perhaps if we have children who enjoy this passion) - are the last generation to truly know fragrance in its most glorious and creative days. The juice won't last forever, but nothing does. Relish in the fact that you've had this olfactory experience in your lifetime and you understand the fragrances (and notes) that have been with you in their true and original formulations. We can look to the future with hope...but I live each and everyday in the moment, and that includes my passion of scent.

From a positive perspective, we are truly lucky to have had this experience. We can also enjoy listenening to Brahms while we wear our classic scents - yet he did not have the scents we love so dearly, while he was composing his timeless pieces of music.

Enjoy the beauty now...for the future is uncertain.

Cheers.

ericrico

Quote:
Originally Posted by dogodojo View Post

I agree that the public is unlikely to appreciate it, as is posted several times in this thread. But, as a musician, just had to comment on the parallel with a Penderecki atonal work. Civet is from the emotional romanticism of Brahms through Richard Strauss. The atonal movement is the move towards syntheticism (if there is such a word) and then to the cleanliness of digital, as someone mentioned. Both are devoid of those sensual emotions of the past. Hopefully, as someone mentioned, there will be a move back to those emotional days that those of us who are old enough experienced, but, unfortunately, I suspect not. Those were the days where people had time to live and experience life. There is no time anymore. We are caught in the "now" without dreams of past memories or the anticipated future. How sad really.
Reply
Reply
post #33 of 51
11/20/12 at 6:30pm
Ive appreciated this thread from the start.

Perhaps some perspective? According to the fine BN directory, a query response to civet brings up (only) 91 responses: 16 masculine; 43 feminine; 32 shared. Of the 16 masculine, 5 originate from the last decade, about as many in each the 70s and in the 80s, and only 1 pre-70s and only 1 in the 90s. Of the 43 feminine, 11 or so originate from the last decade, about as many from pre-70, and the rest roughly spread evenly across the decades 70s/80s/90s. Of the 32 shared, except for 1 they all originate from the last decade.

Of course all the fragrances listed in the directory do not have a note pyramid and/or accuracy is debatable. That aside, however, what do these numbers tell us?

Perhaps theyre saying civet
- was not and is not a relatively frequently identified note in the universe of perfumes, or, at least, the 13,000+ that make up the BN directory. In other words, civet was never a popular note in commercial fragrance.
- is approximately 5 times more noted in directory fragrances produced within the last decade as opposed to the oldies of pre-70s. In other words, and as counter-intuitive as it may seem, the note (civet) is not dead or dying and is arguably identified in more modern fragrances than those with earlier origination dates of decades past.

Please, do shoot holes in either conclusion.

I own or have smelled maybe a couple dozen from those listed in the BN directory as having a civet note. Somewhat interesting is that the following fragrances frequently noted, rightly or wrongly, for civet are not on that list: Ungaro II, Kouros, MKK, Leather Oud, Bal a Versailles, Aramis 900, Oud 27, Mouchoir de Monsieur, Ubar, MCM 24 Evening, Kingdom, Chanel CdR, Eau dHermes, Cuba, Cuir Mauresque, Rien, Peau dExpagne, Jean Pascal for Men, YSL pH, Iquitos, Absolue pour le Soir, Yatagan, Dzing!, . Uh, but what the hell, Civet by AbdesSalaam Attar Profumo does not come up either, so take from this what you want.
Reply
Reply
post #34 of 51
11/20/12 at 7:20pm
Vintage GG. I would love some of that juice.
Reply
Reply
post #35 of 51
11/20/12 at 7:21pm
Thread Starter 
Hey DuNez!

Great to hear from you - fantastic contribution to the thread. Conceptually alone, it raises an eyebrow and questions if (perhaps) there is a great misconception. For sure, still the "association" goes to Vintage scents (probably due to the use of real civet, not synthetic)...those of us lucky to have some old bottles.
;-)

I like your list and how you broke things down, according to decades & listed fragrances. Interesting that 32 are "shared" - which shows the versatility of civet (and also that even far more feminine/women's fragrances with the listed note).

Fantastic research, perspective - thoughtful, and thought-provoking...always appreciate what you add, my friend!

Thank you - you made this thread more complete and opened some interesting doors...

Cheers.

ericrico

Quote:
Originally Posted by DuNezDeBuzier View Post

I’ve appreciated this thread from the start.

Perhaps some perspective? According to the fine BN directory, a query response to ‘civet’ brings up (only) 91 responses: 16 masculine; 43 feminine; 32 shared. Of the 16 masculine, 5 originate from the last decade, about as many in each the 70s and in the 80s, and only 1 pre-70s and only 1 in the 90s. Of the 43 feminine, 11 or so originate from the last decade, about as many from pre-70, and the rest roughly spread evenly across the decades 70s/80s/90s. Of the 32 shared, except for 1 they all originate from the last decade.

Of course all the fragrances listed in the directory do not have a note pyramid and/or accuracy is debatable. That aside, however, what do these numbers tell us?

Perhaps they’re saying civet…
- was not and is not a relatively frequently identified note in the universe of perfumes, or, at least, the 13,000+ that make up the BN directory. In other words, civet was never a popular note in commercial fragrance.
- is approximately 5 times more noted in directory fragrances produced within the last decade as opposed to ‘the oldies’ of pre-70s. In other words, and as counter-intuitive as it may seem, the note (civet) is not dead or dying and is arguably identified in more modern fragrances than those with earlier origination dates of decades past.

Please, do shoot holes in either conclusion.

I own or have smelled maybe a couple dozen from those listed in the BN directory as having a civet note. Somewhat interesting is that the following fragrances frequently noted, rightly or wrongly, for civet are not on that list: Ungaro II, Kouros, MKK, Leather Oud, Bal a Versailles, Aramis 900, Oud 27, Mouchoir de Monsieur, Ubar, MCM 24 Evening, Kingdom, Chanel CdR, Eau d’Hermes, Cuba, Cuir Mauresque, Rien, Peau d’Expagne, Jean Pascal for Men, YSL pH, Iquitos, Absolue pour le Soir, Yatagan, Dzing!, …. Uh, but what the hell, Civet by AbdesSalaam Attar Profumo does not come up either, so take from this what you want.
Reply
Reply
post #36 of 51
11/20/12 at 7:23pm
Civet is a wonderful note.

I adore Narcisse Noir, Jicky and Mouchoir de Monsieur.

It is dated only for those accustomed to new aquatics.
Reply
Reply
post #37 of 51
11/20/12 at 7:48pm
I haven't really read everything everyone has said so far, but I do think that civet is dated, and I don't like it much at all, even in small amounts. The real stuff (non-synthetic) smells like poo, literally. The synthetic variants can smell like anything from cat pee to, again, poo. hahah That's my own opinion though.

My own opinions aside, a lot of modern fragrances still use it, some masterfully so, such as:

Invasion Barbare by MDCI
Absolue pour le Soir by Maison Francis Kurkdjian
Neroli 36 by Le Labo

I don't mind it so much in those, but I'm still not a fan. I guess I missed the civet boat.
Reply
Reply
post #38 of 51
11/20/12 at 9:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericrico View Post

There is an element of classicism in these Vintage bottles and it transcended men's and women's fragrances wonderfully.

Ah. Sorry to be picky, but classicism is very different than romanticism. ;-)

Quote:
I would like to focus on your last couple sentences...we still have time to live.

Ah, again. ;-) I was speaking of time in the philosophical sense, not in the "we have time to live each day to the fullest" sense. What I was trying to say is that this modern, very "clean" era has only the vertical sense of time - time in the present, without a horizontal sense of time - time in the past, present and future. It is only through the stretch of time that we experience beauty/ugliness, pain/pleasure, want/fulfilled, etc. But, in the clean present we don't have those contradictions that civet seems to embody. Anyway, it was just a thought.
Quote:
We can also enjoy listenening to Brahms while we wear our classic scents - yet he did not have the scents we love so dearly, while he was composing his timeless pieces of music.

Hmm.... I don't know the history of perfume. But, surely it has been around as long as civilization? It would be interesting, as an aside, to find out what perfume people were wearing in Brahms' day.

Nice thread. Thanks.
Reply
Reply
post #39 of 51
11/20/12 at 10:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogodojo View Post

It would be interesting, as an aside, to find out what perfume people were wearing in Brahms' day.

Well he died just a few years after the advent of the early synthetics in perfumery, so presumably those early "modern" classics like Jicky at the end of his life, along with Victorian floral concoctions and Eaux de Cologne that had been around for decades.
Reply
Reply
post #40 of 51
11/21/12 at 12:44am
Thread Starter 
Dogodojo -

Well said, my friend. I think we can agree that both classicism & romanticism exist in these Vintage bottles...! ;-)

Regarding time...perhaps I leaned to my left brain a bit there - but, then again, there is that element we need to consider as Vintage bottles become more scarce and we are the last generation to "know". I can relate to what you said about a horizontal sense of time versus vertical. Good points you bring up in relation to that as well. Elegantly stated.

Brahms was probably wearing something of distinct quality and richness...but I doubt it smelled like Vintage Kouros.

I sincerely appreciate your well-written and thoughtful comments to this thread, which is turning out to be a wonderful one! Thank you to all of you - regardless of your love or disdain for civet...

Cheers,

ericrico

Quote:
Originally Posted by dogodojo View Post

Ah. Sorry to be picky, but classicism is very different than romanticism. ;-)


Ah, again. ;-) I was speaking of time in the philosophical sense, not in the "we have time to live each day to the fullest" sense. What I was trying to say is that this modern, very "clean" era has only the vertical sense of time - time in the present, without a horizontal sense of time - time in the past, present and future. It is only through the stretch of time that we experience beauty/ugliness, pain/pleasure, want/fulfilled, etc. But, in the clean present we don't have those contradictions that civet seems to embody. Anyway, it was just a thought.

Hmm.... I don't know the history of perfume. But, surely it has been around as long as civilization? It would be interesting, as an aside, to find out what perfume people were wearing in Brahms' day.

Nice thread. Thanks.
Reply
Reply
post #41 of 51
11/21/12 at 2:06am
Ehhh, NO and NEVER.
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 51
11/21/12 at 2:34am
It still has its place today.
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 51
11/21/12 at 6:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marais View Post

I agree with this. Some of the currently available civety ones are 'too much' and everyone has their own threshold. I love MdM but can't stand Rochas 'I wet myself' Moustache, for example.

I wish it were used more though as it helps to make a fragrance more interesting, done right. There are so many boring gutless smell-alikes out there.

Yes civet is regarded as dated, since the 'pure clean' drive of the 90s; soapy is the new sexy! Does this go hand-in-hand with the Bieber/infantilising of sexuality? I wonder...

I suspect the younger members who are attracted most to lollipop scents and clean laundry scents would like civet least. I'm generalising of course.

I think the oud craze amongst perfumistas may be a response to the current sterility. An acceptable skank.

/ramble

Yes! I love Moustache!
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 51
11/21/12 at 6:48am
  • vbs
  • online
  • Gender:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoombung View Post

It's certainly not used in the same amounts anymore. Perfume is now more 'overground'; nearly everyone has a bottle these days- and the general public are probably as unlikely to appreciate it as a Penderecki atonal symphony. I personally think the synthesised version of civet can smell a bit 'blunt' on occasions

I don't think it's a matter of appreciation. People don't wear ascots and stovepipe hats, corsets and bustles anymore, and it's not because they are unwashed plebes who lack the sophistication to appreciate them.

Fashions change. Traditionally-presented animalics are not currently fashionable in fragrance, especially because they were very fashionable in the past. But these things are cyclical. If bell bottoms can make a comeback, so can civet.
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 51
11/21/12 at 6:49am
Since the ban on harvesting civet from the animal, the synthetic note is dead on.
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 51
11/21/12 at 7:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyBars View Post

Well he died just a few years after the advent of the early synthetics in perfumery, so presumably those early "modern" classics like Jicky at the end of his life, along with Victorian floral concoctions and Eaux de Cologne that had been around for decades.

Cool. Thanks! So, when you say early synthetics, what do you mean? (sorry if this info is elsewhere.) For instance, I love BaV in its original formulation. Would there be synthetics in that or was it all "natural" essences? (I really know nothing about this, so if that question requires knowing a whole history, please don't feel you need to answer! I don't want to waste your time.) :-)

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericrico View Post

I think we can agree that both classicism & romanticism exist in these Vintage bottles...! ;-)

Yes. :-) (With MonkeyBars' info, I understand that better!)

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:
Originally Posted by vbs View Post

Fashions change. Traditionally-presented animalics are not currently fashionable in fragrance, especially because they were very fashionable in the past. But these things are cyclical. If bell bottoms can make a comeback, so can civet.

That is a true statement! But things always "come back" a little differently. And, I suppose I was taking the question as "real" civet rather than synthetic civet, and so was thinking that real civet will never come back due to the laws about animal abuse. If I, knowing so little about perfume, can smell the difference between the two, then to me they are quite different "animals," thus making civet dated, and, unfortunately, never to return.
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 51
11/21/12 at 8:42am
I still think it has a prominent place in perfumery, but the trends of today make it less used, although no less usable; creating mystery, depth and sexiness to perfumes.
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 51
11/21/12 at 12:06pm
Civet for me is old fashioned, but in a sensual, mystical, primal way. It does smell offensive in a sense, but also very exotic and compelling - there is much more to it than "fecal" or "urine-like".

The real stuff is still available, I have some myself. I don't know of any ban on it. I don't think it necessarily has to be a product of cruelty. I've read about civet raising facilities in Thailand that seem relatively humane - although that is of course a matter for people to decide for themselves.

I think the fashion throughout history has been to use less and less of it. Where once it was used to cover up the even more offensive smells of unwashed bodies, it is now generally used at a subconscious level in perfumes. So in that sense, a prominent civet note is dated, isn't it?

But then of course we have Muscs Koublai Khan, very trendy these days as far as I can make out.
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 51
11/25/12 at 8:58pm
Thread Starter 
Very well-stated...I fully concur!

Then again, since when did us Basenoters follow trends in today's mainstream fragrance community?

Civet is, perhaps, one of the most defining notes in the history of perfumery...along with musk, castoreum and ambergris. The animalic notes are wonderful and truly create "mystery, depth and sexiness to scents" (as you stated) - both male and female, as DuNez articulately put forth some information. We are all primal, at some level, and Freud tried to unravel the human mind down to the simple fact that we are *gasp* - sexually-driven animals! As humans, we simply rationalize thoughts, suppress our id & wanton libido by allowing our super-egos to keep us within moral boundaries...some, more than others.

I found a link I would like to share as this thread has been one that I have thoroughly enjoyed and learned from. To me, civet is only "dated" if you feel the composition it is in makes you feel a lack of sophistication and maturity...and perhaps someone who is suppressing themselves. I find it fascinating.

A great link on animalic notes in general, not just civet - http://perfumeshrine.blogspot.com/20...-animalic.html

Cheers, my friend.

ericrico

Quote:
Originally Posted by southerngardens View Post

I still think it has a prominent place in perfumery, but the trends of today make it less used, although no less usable; creating mystery, depth and sexiness to perfumes.
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 51
11/26/12 at 5:48pm
I still haven't experienced anything I would consider 'too much civet'.
I just can't get enough of it. I have to try Muscs Koublai Khan.
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 51
11/27/12 at 3:58am
Amouage Gold (Man and Woman): Civet galore!
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: MFD Archive
Basenotes › Basenotes Forums › Fragrance Discussion › Male Fragrance Discussion › MFD Archive › Is civet a dated note in fragrance?