Originally Posted by noirdrakkar
high longevity is not ideal
"high longevity is not ideal" for you
. That's an important distinction. To suggest that greater longevity isn't ideal for perfumery, period, is silly.
Originally Posted by silentrich
What about the time the fragrance projects at an acceptable rate before it becomes a skin scent. That's time so it's part of longevity.
Excellent point. I've always enjoyed reviews that state how long the reviewer experienced each stage of the perfume. Even though I know better than to expect the exact same results on my skin, I still find that to be really helpful info.- - - Updated - - -
Originally Posted by SculptureOfSoul
I strongly second Alain and ericrico's points. Longevity, high or low, is neither ideal or unideal in any absolute sense. That would be like saying music in a major key or minor key is ideal, or that red is ideal and blue is unideal or something equally inane. There are times when high longevity is ideal, and to my taste, certain styles of scent seem to benefit from high longevity (a strong, very complex arabic themed scent should not fade in a few hours imo, just like you might prefer unnatural 'bigger than life' sound effects in a bigger than life movie. Sorry, random analogy, I know.) just as there are times when low or moderate longevity is ideal.
The one thing I do want to state emphatically, as it bothers me to no end seeing this correlation all the time, is that great longevity does not
mean a scent is using objectively better or "higher quality" materials. In fact, none of the pricey naturals last nearly as long as many common, very cheap, synthetics. Shit like Stetson or the Bogarts or any other number of cheapies last all day (and then some). I really really
wish reviewers (YT reviewers especially) would stop figuring longevity into their ratings. Yes, mention the longevity - but don't use moderate to low longevity to down rate a scent. It would be like lowering your rating on a folk band's latest release because they didn't use heavily distorted guitars. Silly and ridiculous.
Absolutely. Specifically addressing the use of longevity in ratings, especially on YouTube... many of those reviewers also use projection as part of their rating, downgrading for less projection. And that's equally silly. Ill informed is probably a better way to put it. It shows ignorance to say more projection is always good and less is always bad. For a clubbing scent, more projection is good. For a scent for intimate occasions, less projection is good.