Basenotes › Basenotes Forums › Fragrance Discussion › Female Fragrance Discussion › most natural smelling perfumes and most synthetic smelling ones
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

most natural smelling perfumes and most synthetic smelling ones  

post #1 of 108
2/26/13 at 1:39pm
Thread Starter 
100% naturals: profumo.it

are never loud, always sublime no matter the composition...bit raw, i.e. odlfashioned, performance not up to the task always,

50% natural: veroprofumo

they all open sublime and beautiful as 100% naturals....after 2-3 hours synthetic feel comes to the foreplay...like musks...the feeling you know it allready, "perfumed up" , rawness is in control (Onda smells most natural and Rubj most synthetic to my nose), performances are much better then 100% naturals but still issues (Kiki too short lived!), but price is extremely high for unperfect performance

10%naturals??: Chanel Exclusifs(those smell like 5% naturals max), Amouage EDP, Serge Lutens (they smell like 15%naturals to me), Histories de Parfums...etc
at the beginning i thought the high price of these perfumes is justified by expenciveness of the materials they use, but soon after wearing them i realize they hold much more synthetics then i thought....some smell like 100% synthetics....performances are great, longevity, sillage too but there is a problem:

too many of them feel empty after wearing them for a long time, some notes come out you did not expect, like soarness from synthetic musk, sharpness from synthetic civet, powderness from synthetic iris...they smell technical, overly clean, modern, and sometimes remind of hairspray, or airfeshner or detergent, whatever....and one gets bored by them too soon.. AND one very distinctive thing about them is many of them smell most beautiful the day after! where as heavy natural perfumes smell the most beautiful at the begining and first 4 hours

1% naturals: all designers


..... how would you feel someone sells you steel instead of gold, you would not notice at the beginning but later....after you wear it for a year or so..it just starts beeing less and less beautiufl shining thing

no matter how beautiful shape/composition is....something in your expencive perfume starts beeing too sharp, too soar, too powdery, too suffocating with time and none of these things i get with perfumes that hold more of natural sutff(vintages?)....

and today niche houses brand themselves expencive to lead you to believe they use much more natural stuff, where they actually are almost 98% snyhtetic (Ramon Monegal for example)


which perfumes smell the most natural to you and which are the most synthetic to your nose or wich houses stand out by using most valuable ingredients ? curious to know what you think!!

thank you!!!

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 108
2/26/13 at 2:17pm
100% natural isn't necessarily good, because, as you point out, natural materials are fleeting. Luca Turin said it well, synthetics give the skeleton, and naturals the flesh. It is no surprise that all natural perfumes often end up smelling similar, a spicy floral mix that feels a little spineless. Also, there are perfumes that are almost entirely synthetics, and yet smell absolutely natural. An example would be Diorissimo vintage, a lily of the valley that's entirely replicated artificially yet smells wonderfully fresh an natural. Indeed, if I had to choose a perfume that smells natural, I'd say Diorissimo vintage parfum.

As for ingredients, I want to single out JAR. Some of its perfumes contains tons of natural extracts, like the tuberose (Eclair), and, I suspect, Jardenia (Gardenia doesn't really exist as an extract, but I believe that some companies do extract small amounts of it).

I should also mention some ingredients that, no matter how natural, end up smelling synthetic nonetheless: orange flower and, especially, linden. Tauer's linden contains tons of natural linden extract, yet it cannot help giving off a household cleaning vibe.

As for the most horrendously synthetics, Turin's triad is Amarige, Poeme, and Spellbound. Hard to argue with them.

cacio
post #3 of 108
2/26/13 at 2:21pm
Right now, the most natural smelling frag would be Bright Leaf by Murdock. Original tobacco with a touch of cedar. This is great for the winter months. The most synthetic would have to be Pure Leather. IMO this smells like a synthetic suede.
post #4 of 108
2/26/13 at 2:33pm
Thread Starter 
Cacio thank you very much!!

i totaly agree with you...just in my opinion nowdays those houses who use 50-50 ratios are kind of gone? to me many of expencive things smell like 90% snythetic max 10% naturals...am i wrong there?

and yes 100% naturals usually dont have the combination of notes i would go crazy about, or if they do have poor wearing performance and some beautiful compositions i know smell synthetic, and i wish they smell more natural ( L temps du une fette is an example of that).....i think i ahve huge problem with musks...they always give to a perfume synthetic vibe no matter how nice they are...in Rubj it smells too modern, and i dont like the drydown becasue it reminds me of so many other perfumes....7.5ml pure perfume costs just way too much compared to any other perfume house, so i was thinking i dont think Veroprofumo is in the position to sell "brand" the cost reflects the cost of materials too...meanin all other cheaper perfumes must have much cheaper ingredients?? lets say almost like designers..and they sell at 3x price

Chanel 1932...smells so utterly synthetic 100%.....why couldnt they add something natural there?
post #5 of 108
2/26/13 at 3:00pm
I think it entirely depends on what idea the perfumer is chasing (or their brief).

I like the natural camp so far, but I admire the compositions of Mr Ellena and he is the opposite end of the spectrum. Hermes perfumes can be incredibly beautiful and I have worn many of them as staples in the past. If clarity is sought then too many naturals wouldn't manage that without perfumers mud as a result.

I think it depends where a perfumer wants to go, or maybe where they are forced to go. Budgets are not set by the perfumers themselves, but I suspect Mr Ellena has a fairly free hand.

It is a matter for each perfumers skill with whatever material they have. If the perfume fails, then it is not really always up to the type of materials necessarily. That is the true task. Like cooking really, or painting. Some are nearly there but not quite.

If a natural ingredient were added to your Chanel, it may throw another ingredient that was working well, right off track.
post #6 of 108
2/26/13 at 3:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by iivanita View Post

...meanin all other cheaper perfumes must have much cheaper ingredients?? lets say almost like designers..and they sell at 3x price
...

Somewhere (maybe here) I read an interview with Mathilde Laurent, perfumer at Cartier (before then Guerlain). She stated that the price tag of the perfume doesn't reflect the cost of materials.

To me, all Humiecki & Graef fragrances smell particularly artificial.
post #7 of 108
2/27/13 at 2:49am
Thread Starter 
mumsy thank you very much,

yes i understand what you mean,.....and this is what i noticed too 100% naturals if have transparency dont have longevity...

when i smell Les Exclusifs...especially this 1932 it doesnt smell any better then any designer out there, it smells like they all use the same font style...just reshuffle the letters...so what you read is different composition but in the same font style: modern,....the story is new but what if you dont like to read in that font style? and tires your eyes...you want bigger font style

when you smell all naturals they are completely different font style-oldfashioned...so the overall text looking from the distance is very different...maybe to big font style, like you read the text in bold letters....

now which perfume house can mix those 2 font styles so you get somehting in between?...that is not technical-modern and not raw-oldfashioned, but something in between, this is what i get from vintages most easily....i smell they are not 100% natural but the letters are in perfect font style.....easy to read ....

with all synthetic stuff i just get tired with that small font style...i read its the new story but oh my god the same thing all over again for what price??

maybe that is an answer its difficult to mix those 2 fonts to get beautiful story, but i think that is the only way a perfume can keep my interest, should not be predictable as it is!.....with that one can make numerous combinations that would be much more interesting.....

and then they can charge the price this way i dont think one should be payed huge money for making story with just one type of letters....
or like in music someone can make modern music and the singer will still have beautiful voice so it all sounds like pleasure to listen to...here they write different music but the singer is allways the same machine/ synthetic voice and they all sing different text/melodies through the same machine.....


then if they dont use naturals anymore then the price of old creations should go down like the price of old mobile phones.....
i would be so so negatively impacted if i knew how much is the cost of material of juice i am buying for 130eur, if it was 25 eur only.......and somehow i think it may be in that area...

consuming natural food, real tomato cant make me sick of it so easily if i like tomato, consuming synthetic tomato , i may not notice the difference first 4 times if covered smartly..but then you just feel you are not getting what should be there, and suddenly you dont like tomato....you loose interest in it!! that happened to me with potato and tomato, now i buy just good one and not from supermarkets
thats what synthetic perfumes do to me....it looks like i dont like too many notes! i dont like moss, but when i tried vintage mossy perfumes i liked them!...etc etc

i loved the older version of Ubar this new one i dont like....for the first 4 hours! then it becomes nice...like all synthetic stuff...they smell like Tommy girl so Luca Turin is right Tommy girl is beautiful composition! nice story......reeks of synthetic
post #8 of 108
2/27/13 at 5:47am
  • lpp
  • offline
  • Gender:
Firstly, congratulations on expressing yourself so fluently - must be even better in your own language

They must have started using synthetics for many reasons, and they do mostly have to produce to a price as mumsy says.

I agree that skill is absolutely the most important, and they're going to need those skills more than ever as markets become even larger & supplies of naturals will inevitably be spread more thinly.

For me, Guy Robert did some amazing things - wonder what he'd be doing today?
post #9 of 108
2/27/13 at 1:12pm
I'm not yet a synthetic user, but I am sometimes a synthetic wearer, so I couldn't say one was any better or worse then the next. The notes are in the hands of the composer and the music just has to suit you. I think synthetics are chosen because they are a certain colour that the perfumer making the perfume requires to achieve their aim. Whatever that aim may be.

The smell you seek may not be that particular perfumers goal, so choose another. That is the very great beauty of it.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and true beauty is natural. IMO only.
post #10 of 108
2/27/13 at 1:43pm
  • lpp
  • offline
  • Gender:
Second that
post #11 of 108
2/27/13 at 2:50pm
Thread Starter 
Oh my answer got lost,was too long anyway lol

Thank you very much lpp!! Trying hard to articulate myself:-) .....

Mumsy i agree with all you said and thanks for sharing your thoughts!!.....just it would be nice if we know the truth :-) i think the same true beauty is natural.....so as one true beauty i would pick Mito for veroprofumo...i know you can not get those dimensions and maybe shapes with naturals as with synthetics,....but smelling some of those naturals i realized they take my breath away by beeing natural, so aromatic in a way , yet never screaming, almost like aromatherapy..and one more amazing thing after a year of wearing it i dont get any ideas how i can fix that perfume, whereas synthetic stuff constantly draw attention to that thought...but where are those perfumes in the middle?

Can you tell me which one stand in the middle like this veroprofumo, or lets say 30 naturals 70 synthetic, like i think vintage are?

If there are more natural stuff around people would not seek vintages so much? thats what i miss, i miss more naturality in todays perfume world,

Cacio if you still there, why is vintage Diorissimo smelling better if this flower is synthetic back then and today?
post #12 of 108
2/27/13 at 3:12pm
I think the ingredients may be not the issue but the composition. A true composer could make anything sing, even the humble penny whistle, but it depends who plays it too. The most beautifully written symphony played by a bad orchestra would maybe not be so impressive.

The beauty of perfume is that the composer and the player are therefore equally important for the final result.
post #13 of 108
2/27/13 at 3:44pm
Thread Starter 
Oh yes just the same as i said the melody and the singer:-)

But i think the singer fails in so many of them:-) ......In Dia amouage, i sent you vial, i smell soar notes, and they choke me now!! I did not notice that on a day i bought it! It must be synthetic musk that kills it for me, i smelled the vintage Dia i can not say i loved it much more, it did smell a bit less harsh to my nose, thinner concentration maybe, or bit more naturals and bit less of that musk!, then chanel no 22 is one of the most synthetic frags i know of,
Chanel 1932 101 % synthetic, beige, jersey......all the same, bel respiro, bois des illes...only sycomore smells acceptable and 31 rue cambon:-)....
Then amouages: gold for woman, ubar ,gold for men, all new batches...they smell synthetic too........some are nicer but...you know cant give me that feeling woooow after 1 year of wearing them, so much less impressed then i was 1 st time......

Or better to say they are synthetic:-) and so it smells.....like models:-) just bones no flesh and all the same, cleaned up from extra shapes like standardized beauty

From things with nice composer and orchestra...there is too little to choose....orchestra beeing the ingredients themselves.....:-)
post #14 of 108
2/28/13 at 1:09am
It would be quite hard to be totally truthful and sell a totally synthetic perfume with any success.

Would you buy this:-
Spicy lemon, Muguet and Sandalwood accords

or this:-
Alpha-amyl cinnemaldehyde dimethyl acetal, 3-methyl-6-ethyl-5octen-1-ol and melozol acetate

If a perfume doesn't actually state the real thing is used, then it would be quite safe to presume it is not. Particularly in the case of muguet where the use of the real thing is virtually unheard of. These muguet perfumes used to be marketed as a simple scent and I had always assumed them to be real, but more than likely were not. I wonder how much 'real' any of us have been smelling for years whilst believing it was. That is where the packaging and advertising comes in with it's own persuasion.

It is common practice is to use a little of the real thing and crank it up with the sub for either economy or intent. Therefore these perfumes are still technically being truly honest in the mention of it as an ingredient. (I didn't mean Muguet here).

The truth is you will never really know the truth unless you either have access to a gas chromatography machine, make your own frags, or just don't care if it smells right. To know the truth is one of the reasons why I began perfumery.

I wonder what perfumes smell really natural and yet are totally synthetic.
post #15 of 108
2/28/13 at 1:37am
Diorissimo was based on Hydroxycitronellal (a synthetic chemical) as there is no "natural" Lily of the Valley extract.

You have none of you articulated what you mean by a "natural" smell as opposed to a "synthetic" smell.

"True beauty is natural". I have absolutely no idea what this means.

Perfumers do not set out to create a fragrance with a specific amount of natural materials and a specific amount of synthetics. There has never been a brief which states that the fragrance must contain a certain amount of any type of material. Perfumers use what is to hand to enable them to create the fragrance that they want, depending on the criteria of the brief. Price is obviously an issue, and where it is possible to replace an expensive natural with a cheaper alternative (which in the opinion of the Perfumer, is as good) then that will be done. There are many expensive synthetics; some much more expensive than naturals. There are some synthetics which are unique in that there is no natural which smells the same. There are some naturals which are unique in that they cannot be duplicated.

You cannot tell, by smell alone, how much of the fragrance is synthetic and how much is natural.

I'm going to get shouted down, but I feel that a lot of you have not thought this through and that you are basing your arguments on feelings and nothing more.
post #16 of 108
2/28/13 at 2:01am
  • lpp
  • offline
  • Gender:
No shouting down David, your knowledge is very valuable & the sharing much appreciated - thank you.

For me, my feelings are so intricately connected to my (uneducated) but lengthy experiences of scent - the way it makes me feel, memories connected with it, things evoked, etc. that maybe I look for scents that re-create experience/feelings.

So if someone doesn't like a particular smell or if they associate it (even sometimes subconsciously) with something else, they will keep searching & avoiding what they think is their dislike? And if that's a commonly used item, problems arise.

You have the clarity of your experience, where we're floundering around!
But enjoying the exploration!

Edit:
Sorry, multi-tasking/being interrupted again so didn't answer yuor question, - I love scents like the old Sandalwood we used to wear in the 1960's, so 'natural', to me, probably means 'old fashioned'.
Not sure about everyone else

A lot of 'modern' scents that I've experienced are just simply not something that I appreciate, as to me their smell seems synthetic, as opposed to older scents like the old Caleche, Joy, Mitsouko, Quadrille.
Maybe it's a question of styles?

- sorry, inaccurate posting here! (a bad habit).
post #17 of 108
2/28/13 at 3:59am
I love the musk my all time favorite
post #18 of 108
2/28/13 at 4:16am
Thread Starter 
hello David, glad you joined here!! thank you very much

so let me explain what i refer to synthetic: it means really synthetic stuff produced in lab, and no real plants....as opposed to extracting from real plants and woods etc...
or it can mean something smells synthetic.... i know those are 2 different things ......

so why is Homage a beautiful perfume? its not only cause of the beautiful composition , its becasue it has some real materials extracted from the nature? this is what my nose tells me (correct me if i am wrong)

L temps du une fette (i read some other perfume composers like to wear this one too), i find very beautiful but it smells a bit too synthetic....i would say 95% synthetic

now if we could go throught that thing mumsy mentions gas chromatography i would love to know if my nose is wrong there....

that is my point....ok there is no law nor book what they must put in the perfume, but if someone sells something at high price i expect it to be more natural then something that sells at 3 times lower price...

i like Vanilia from L artisan....it is not one of the things that smells overly natural to me yet i like how it smells!...would like to know how much real sandalwood there is...if any?

what is synthetic: it may be my impression thats why i started this thread to hear someone elses structures perfumes in a way i tried to structure them from 100% to 1% naturals....
i thought i explained what is synthetic....it should be easy as a perfumer can you pls tell me how much naturals can be put in the base?

musk is synthetic and smells like detergent (Musk intense by Nicolai.which is the example i could wear after it stays 1 day on my clothes ), like hairspray, modern, clean (Beloved amouage! look at the price pls), or just like something you have allready smelled elswhere, clean (Rubj), or soarish (Dia)
sandalwood- it is the fact too its synthetic.....so beautiful Samsara is just not usable anymore.... Chanel Bois des illes....its nice fake but later it smells clean, bit powdery...and thin very thin!!! the only sandalwood i like is from La myrrhe...there it smelss natural
oak moss- any vintage one smell its modern version and its unrecognizable! i tried Caleche vintage and was so surprised this perfume has oak moss!! becasue modern i smelld i did not notice nothing but lemons and vintage is all about moss and i thought i dont like the oak moss note in perfumes (becasue i cant stand how sharp masculine and ....soarish it can be in those synthetic perfumes)

now need your help patchouli vetyver smell like real to me?....

perfume base is something one smells almost 7 hours !so if it is synthetic the feel of smelling synthetic can not be easily avoided?? and that makes sense that so many perfumes nowdays smell like have too little real stuff in??

then middle notes: jasmine in the new Chanel 1932!!! there is 0 jasmine! my nose tells this....then rose, in some perfumes even the rose smells like its not real (chanel 18), iris (insolence edp? shalimar initial, imposssible iris -here i am not sure becasue i never tried real iris natural one....if you can help which iris smells most natural?
Chanel La pausa smells like there they put something natural! and Iris silver mist smells like "perfumed " up iris, but it smells like it has some natural notes in it

now if we dont know the fact (natural or synthetic) we can talk about smelling natural or synthetic) and i wrote some examples and asked peopel to name things that smell natural to them! not necessarily beeing natural

i am getting either picky!! or crazy because everything smells of very low % of naturals!!! i tried some 100% naturals and it was at first like i could not smell ...the nose was shocked! by the difference...but no matter how composition may not suit you ...the feel froms sniffing it is ....unmatchable!!! i dont think its only due to composer...must be ingredients thing too!!

so i would say Homage is stunning not only becasue it has nice composition(new batches not so stunning)...but becasue it uses some real stuff obviously so many perfumes dont use nowdays...and am sure majority of people dont even know their lovely perfume has only 0% roses and jasmine and sandalwood ...so nowdays you see notes like whiskey, cookies, praline etc give me a break i want something real!....how much should i pay ? and where to buy?

and it is not true that one can not understand what means that true beauty is natural- it is hard to recognise maybe nowdays becasue we can only smell 90% synthetic frags!! thats maybe the best truth? and why i started this thread

.....would you recognise strawbery grown on land and one from plastics?? tomato as well?? i can cause i have tried really original one the differences are in fullness roundness of taste, more intensive smell!! are sweet, ripe not raw , and plasticky under tounge etc etc...just like with perfumes! that is what i call synthetic when it doesn smell remotely of any beauty but cleaned up , skeleton , plasticky , metallic, soar, sharp...simple! one dimensional...and better after 5 hours that is all synthetic!!

maybe the conclusion is ....the real beauty is becoming more rare and rare nowdays almost extinct like bengale tigers...one must settle for a cat
post #19 of 108
2/28/13 at 6:31am
No shouting down from me either. Quite the opposite because quite unlike my norm, I was sort of standing up for perfumers using synthetics here.

Firstly, you are quite correct. All my thoughts are certainly based on feelings, as is much of what I make. Any skill I hope will follow along as we go.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Ruskin View Post

You have none of you articulated what you mean by a "natural" smell as opposed to a "synthetic" smell.

Something without that 'flyspray' vibe. The toilet cleaner style perfume nuance seemingly present in more modern perfumes that did not seem present in any old ones I have ever smelled. Either made with or without synths. I couldn't tell you what causes it. It is in the new Ma Griffe but not in the 1960's perfume version for instance. It is in the new Guerlains, but not in the old ones. It isn't an ingredient I can identify, but a harsher brassiness about the whole thing.

"True beauty is natural"

I stand by that comment. It doesn't say unnatural cannot be beautiful. For myself, true beauty being natural means the truest to itself, as in how it is found in nature. The detail in which a flower is made, formed and coloured for instance is nothing short of a miracle. No amount of copying that has such wonder. The copy can be beautiful and it may get my admiration for it's accuracy or own beauty but it cannot possess the wonder of natures natural ability for me. I value the natural for that.

It is also true that nature is cruel, ugly and harsh just to balance the books on that statement.


Quote:
Originally Posted by David Ruskin View Post

You cannot tell, by smell alone, how much of the fragrance is synthetic and how much is natural.

Yes, agreed, hence the exploration of the muguet and the perception and packaging to look real when it wasn't.

Something that would be most interesting is to obtain some most 'natural' smelling synths and smell them. This is a process I have just begun and so far I haven't found one yet.
post #20 of 108
2/28/13 at 7:53am
Thread Starter 
what do you think of a Slumberhouse??

did anyone try Pear and Olive from that house? that is probably some synthetic frag, but it smells so natural..

this is one in 1000 frags that has that effect....

i have nothing against using synthetics, but pls not 90%! thats waaay too much of synthetics! any idea what smells 50-50? that would be so nice if someone can say .....

so lets see if there are plenty of perfume houses to choose from .....i am sure skilled perfumer can tell difference more then i can or not really?
post #21 of 108
3/1/13 at 1:57am
I sort of understand what you are all saying , and still cannot agree with it. You seem to think that you can quantify the quality of a fragrance simply by knowing how much of it is natural; I cannot agree with you. There are good fragrances, and there are bad fragrances; there are fragrances that are well blended and there are those that are not. It is irrelevant how much natural and how much synthetic is present.

You mention Samsara containing Indian Sandalwood, and it is true that the original formulation did ( I doubt if the recent formulation does as it is impossible to get any good Indian Sandalwood now), but the original formulation also contained several synthetic sandalwood smelling molecules such as Osyrol, Baccdanol and Sandalore. You could say that the Perfumer who created Samsara created a Sandalwood accord that was better than the Sandalwood oil on its own. Removing any component (as has been done with Sandalwood Oil in the most recent version of Samsara) will change the fragrance. Natural materials are more complex than synthetic molecules (Essential Oils contain hundreds of chemicals) so it is very difficult to keep that complexity in a fragrance when an Oil is relaxed.

Every innovation in Perfumery, every important fragrance that caused a change in Perfume fashion, or caused other "me too" fragrances to appear on the market happened as a result of the use of a new aroma chemical. From Shalimar (with Ethyl Vanillin), and Mitsouko (with gamma Undecalactone), to Chanel 5 (aliphatic aldehydes), to Eau Sauvage (Hedione), to Drakkar Noir and Eternity (damascones), onto today's powerful woody "oud" type fragrances (Ambrocenide) we are reliant on the synthetics to provide the new.

A Perfumer's palette consists of naturals and synthetics; each material has its role to play. Neither one nor the other is better, but all provide a unique function.
post #22 of 108
3/1/13 at 2:00am
To me sometimes even natural ingredients smell "synthetic"! For example Oakmoss: I don't know why, but it just smells so unnatural to me. I have tried the Oakmoss-perfume from Profumo.it, so I am sure that it's 100% natural, but still it gives me headaches and it just doesn't feel right. Nothing against Oakmoss in a mix, but I don't like it when it stands out, smells somehow plasticky to me!
post #23 of 108
3/1/13 at 2:13am
I very much agree with David Ruskin's post above.

Let me make another point on natural ingredients. The previous version of The Different Company's website listed how many kg of flowers were needed to produce some of their fragrances. I was utterly shocked when I became confronted with it - the quantities are HUGE (sorry, don't remember the numbers, only my shock upon reading them)! I'm not sure if I am totally comfortable with so many natural resources being needed for a tiny amount of perfume. I also don't think that my beloved Jasmin de Nuit (which was the cause of my shock and which I find gorgeous, btw) smells better than many of the other scents I own and love and many of which (I am guessing) have a much lower rate of natural ingredients.

David Ruskin's last sentence above summarises the argument very neatly (quoting):
A Perfumer's palette consists of naturals and synthetics; each material has its role to play. Neither one nor the other is better, but all provide a unique function.
post #24 of 108
3/1/13 at 2:22am
  • lpp
  • offline
  • Gender:
Yes, I think, like most things, it's just down to individual taste versus fashion trends in the end.
Thanks for your wisdom, David!
post #25 of 108
3/1/13 at 3:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mumsy View Post

The notes are in the hands of the composer and the music just has to suit you. I think synthetics are chosen because they are a certain colour that the perfumer making the perfume requires to achieve their aim. Whatever that aim may be.

I know that normally I am riding the natural horse with sword in hand, but actually on this thread I wasn't for once. (All of post 5).
post #26 of 108
3/1/13 at 9:53am
Thread Starter 
hello all, glad to see some new opinions here

i know i wrote a lot and am surprised some facts i wrote were not taken into account so let me try with new facts

1. anything in this world that is built consists of: material, ingredients, and human work (craft, talent, or call it expertise)
if i look at the building it can be nice building built of beton blocks or of nice wood, or of nice bricks.....where you prefer to live is matter of taste! but if you dont know the fact, and think one can not know the fact thats something completely different from what i was saying, i think the fact is 90% of perfumery today is built of synthetics...if you know this is false fact pls say your fact we dont have to agree.....
the same goes with food, i gave you nuuumerous examples, so will repeat once again, i can tell the difference between industrilaized chicken and the one that was walking around in the garden my taste....

i asked here for your rough guesses what you smell is synthetic nowdays..generaly speaking , so macro view and i even gave nice scale which was ignored

David would love to hear few more facts.....and not axioms, what matters is everything to his own, and that will not chnage the fact that 90% of perfumery is synthetic unfortunately, now i am so more sure of this because obviously noone knows i just smell it

i continue with fact no 2
post #27 of 108
3/1/13 at 10:31am
  • lpp
  • offline
  • Gender:
To answer iivanita's original question, Jour d'Hermes smelled very synthetic indeed to me.
I tried to like it for a while too, just not my style I guess!.

Patchouly Indonesiano by Farmacia SS. Annunziata smells very much like a nice patchouli, but doesn't mess with your clothes/bracelets.
Not that I wear it often, but sometimes is nice.
post #28 of 108
3/1/13 at 10:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bonsai View Post

I very much agree with David Ruskin's post above.
...

+1
post #29 of 108
3/1/13 at 11:46am
Thread Starter 
2. i was thinking of veroprofumo scents, she built so far only 4 perfumes in how many years? she claims her perfumes are 60-70% natural
and was thinking why they were built the way they are...in Rubj she had to use musk, thats why this perfume in the 2nd half of its life smells to me like any other perfume i have in my wardrobe i.e. synthetic....the first half is beautiful, aromatic! not aromachemical (you know aromas in processed food?) all of her perfumes were cleverly built around materials that still can be used...and her perfumes still smell like 50-50 ....Kiki smells most natural to me, and also dissapears most quickly...
is she so bad nose that she could not launch 10 more creations? i dont think so

3. i have seen recently every perfume that had sandalwood is either reconstructed to beeing terribly unpleasant (Samsara), not nice as before (Ubar) or dicontinued (i will put Vanilia)....this is no coincidence this is the fact...and all happened around 2010/11??...now Amouage attars beeing withdrawn from the market...what does that tell to you?

i am total outsider so to say and still this is all so obvious to me

4. you completely missunderstood my thread, i am not seeking for 100% naturals! i am seeking for 30% naturals!! please tell me where to look?.....vintage Samsara ofcourse does not smell like 100% naturals i told that i dont even like 100% naturals...my only shock came from the fact that there is nothing to choose from in that range...

so i would love to agree with you when you say naturals and synthetic beeing perfumers palette for his creativity...so tell me a perfume where these 2 are evenly used will be so thankful !! becasue i have smelled everywhere so far found just too few examples
and started the thread: not to collect points pro and against we dont vote here for anything? but rather sharing informations and opinions
i just see that i need to spend too much money to even find decent perfume...and then i find it in some vintage stuff that was probably nothing so "exclusive" at a time

thank you for contributing... ...i love how Cacio responded to this so would love to hear from you perfumes that support this idea that each material has its role to play. Neither one nor the other is better, but all provide a unique function. ...can you name few naturals that are still heavily used in modern perfumery in general? you can group into niche, designer and some extra class?


thank you lpp for this!! basicly this is how i thought people would answer show examples of their thesis

oh yes i am trying to quantify the % of naturals beeing used today what is wrong with that? i did not talk about quality of composition but materials, yes to my taste naturals smell more interesting ....i am just seeking something for my taste...i have problem with every other scent...becasue some synthetic notes comes out of it and they just dont give me aromatherapy i need from a scent...its something lot more then just smell like fresh, modern , clean wardrobe ....i need a scent that will touch my soul and i ve noticed it comes only from those that have something natural in it
post #30 of 108
3/1/13 at 11:50am
You cannot say with any certainty that "90.0% of perfumery today is built of synthetics". Where is your proof? Even if you were to analyse every fragrance there is, by GC/MS you still would not be able to make that statement. You are basing your entire argument on your personal feelings, and whether you like a particular perfume, or not. Sorry, that is not good enough.

If you want to use a musical analogy then a Natural material is like a big chord played on a piano, or an organ. A synthetic is like a note struck on a triangle. Both are needed to create a good tune.
post #31 of 108
3/1/13 at 11:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by iivanita View Post


which perfumes smell the most natural to you and which are the most synthetic to your nose or wich houses stand out by using most valuable ingredients ? curious to know what you think!!

thank you!!!

Perhaps we should all return to the question at the beginning. Not whether anyone agrees or disagrees with either type.

I think that Amouage Gold was a perfume that I considered to smell softer and more gentle to my nose. I can only presume that when I smelled it, that it had a high percentage of natural materials in it by its softness. I wouldn't know what percentage of synthetics were present but I couldn't detect any.

In direct contrast, Fan di Fendi, which I bought because I was a fan of the old Fendi was an absolute screecher to my nose. This just screamed all chemical to me and i would be surprised if it had anything natural in that. I will stand corrected.

In support for the good composer, I really liked Hermes Eau de Merveilles. It was well blended and an abstract notion that was well put together. I liked it very much, but I wouldn't say it smelled soft or natural to my nose.

The adorable original Ma Griffe perfume of the late 50's in the tough square stripy box with the glass stopper. This was a soft perfume and the later formulations of the same are very harsh on comparison.

The same goes for the original Cabochard. A powerful leather smoky bar beast of a perfume that took no slack. The new one is a good copy but a pale ghost of a descendant by a more than a few generations away.

I adore the composition of the original Armani by Armani. I have no idea of those ingredients. i'm sure there must be some chems in that. It has a softness and i would dearly love to get that analysed one day just for perfumers curiosity.

I don't really fully comprehend what causes it yet but the mystery I seek and would call it a good frag for having it, is that full and soft roundness. A soft voluptuousness, an all encompassing initial rapture. A comparison such as the body of a Reubens woman compared to a skinny matchstick. A Turner painting next to a pencil sketch. A bowl of steaming mussels in cream and garlic compared to some chicken broth. Like all of those things put together.

I have always put this 'huge softness' aspect down to naturalness, and am very happy to be proved wrong with some examples that I would scurry off and get hold of to sniff and see.

A fragrance that would be most interesting to know of, is a completely chemical frag that smells very natural. Any suggestions?
post #32 of 108
3/1/13 at 12:15pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Ruskin View Post

You cannot say with any certainty that "90.0% of perfumery today is built of synthetics". Where is your proof? Even if you were to analyse every fragrance there is, by GC/MS you still would not be able to make that statement. You are basing your entire argument on your personal feelings, and whether you like a particular perfume, or not. Sorry, that is not good enough.

If you want to use a musical analogy then a Natural material is like a big chord played on a piano, or an organ. A synthetic is like a note struck on a triangle. Both are needed to create a good tune.

exactly i am total outsider....i asked you for some help and info....
1. what are the naturals still most heavily used in perfumery, please help me build some knowledge here..
2. this fact of 90% i read from several people who are part of perfumîe industry , + this was what i was thinking when i was 25 and smelling only designers(only available in my country at a time)
3. i asked for a help to give me few examples where you think ratio is 30% 70%...look sorry i dont buy it if i can not know the fact...its not fair...i dont see it in jewelry, in clothing, everyone must say how much of real silk is there and how much gold is there...why would i have to settle for perfumer mystery?? i dont know any product where people sell me so much lies
4. analogy with food is very logical to me, explain please why not? i went like this...my taste in food is very versatile i really like all good food, and somehow in perfumes i dont like too much of it....i must seek for a special fragrance? this does not make sense!! should search for nice scent look like searching for a gold?
And the price i pay for frag is just entry ticket ?
Fashion designers make beautiful creations too yet they must say what materials they use, do you think i have to spend days analyzing if a frag has some ugly note before buying it at high price or if its been reformulated since the last year??Hm hm....something doesn't feel right here, pure logic!

i like all that is natural!! it is versatility that i lack, all perfumes are the same....because i concluded are not natural...apple, tomato, strawberry ..you don't notice the difference anymore if you don't buy the real one! .....

thank you very much for answering David i concluded you are one experienced perfumer? so would so much love to know your answers on the above 4 looking forward to it!!!
and yes i feel like that triangle became the only music ...am i overreacting? some examples would be most helpful!
post #33 of 108
3/1/13 at 12:22pm
  • lpp
  • offline
  • Gender:
mumsy - yes, love Eau des Merveilles, when in the mood, agree a very good composition - they didn't use actual ambergris in there, but unlike many 'modern' scents, it has that 'fullness' to me, or maybe is capable of holding one's interest?
And the original Gold was so lovely, really sumptuous, like Joy, the vibe rather than the actual smell.
Haven't smelt 'Ma Griffe' recently.
post #34 of 108
3/1/13 at 12:28pm
This is an excellent thread!!!
Well Done Ivana!!!!!

For me, I try not to get too wrapped up on synthetic or natural unless I am talking about my Oud collection(which then becomes strictly a batch varient and what type). In today's mass production market even small amounts of "natural" parts to the composition are difficult and problematic at best to replicate exactly.
For me and my addiction to amouage Attar's I had to set this bias aside and judge what I like just on it's merits alone. Not the composition of it.
That being said, I also have issue with things smelling to "chemically" lmao. I just stay away from what doesn't suit me and hoard what does!!
Paul
post #35 of 108
3/1/13 at 12:39pm
Thread Starter 
oh mumsy exactly!!! this is what i wrote above too, i connected softness with beeing natural!--

i found out this too...those synthetic frags scream(look at Samsara new jezus this one yells )...and then they smell nice after several hours even next day...they smell the best

oh 5.th fact is this....why is Ellena great composer today?? because he really knows how to make synthetics bearable to a nose Chanels exclusifs are all EDT? Hermes makes lots of EDTs..why?? i think in stronger concentration those synthetics would kill peoples noses so the overall trend is to tone it down...that's what bores me to death!! so the whole trend had to change because then we would have Poemes. Amarige, Samsara everywhere

oh this Amouage Gold i have 2009 version probably? but the drydwon is terribly synthetic (( it smelled like that 1st time i tried it and friend told me oh dont buy this its ugly..and i went no no its very much praised this is Guy Robert hahaha....ok i love it how it smells first 2-3 hours ---later it suffocates me that ugly synthetic civet! what else can it be?? when civet is synthetic today...

yeah pls what basenotes can be used today that are natural? i ask this 3rd time

Eau des Merveilles....i dont like the drydown..synthetic moss, its also like without flesh..almost same type as
mouage Gold problem...sharp for the nose and masculine ....but the opening is marvellous i sold it immediately after the blind buy....

from that frag and Cristalle Chanel i concluded i dont like oak moss then i tried vintage Mitsouko(which is probably very synthetic frag too..but the moss there or the galbanum , something in there smells so gorgeously..aromatic!!) , vintage Caleche and smelled how beautiful they are...until then i was beeing puzzled why are people crazy about chypre.......
before i smelled vintage Shalimar i could not understand who would go crazy for that syntheticly crazy bergamot at the top and that dry hay in the middle still its one of better reformulations! its bearable!

my suggestion of completely synthetic frag but smelling natural? was Pear and Olive from Slumberhouse?? but i heard they use lots of natural materials, and so it smells form other frags...but this one smells so so weird! and beautiful!!!amazing

i love your post mumsy now i am sure my nose is right!....and not mistaking much .....i did try only few naturals and from there concluded it all, because when one smells naturals its like from another planet....and i am really not experienced nose!!
post #36 of 108
3/1/13 at 1:04pm
  • lpp
  • offline
  • Gender:
iivanita - which Eau des Merveilles did u try?
I only have the original 2004
post #37 of 108
3/1/13 at 1:08pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by str8shooter View Post

This is an excellent thread!!!
Well Done Ivana!!!!!

For me, I try not to get too wrapped up on synthetic or natural unless I am talking about my Oud collection(which then becomes strictly a batch varient and what type). In today's mass production market even small amounts of "natural" parts to the composition are difficult and problematic at best to replicate exactly.
For me and my addiction to amouage Attar's I had to set this bias aside and judge what I like just on it's merits alone. Not the composition of it.
That being said, I also have issue with things smelling to "chemically" lmao. I just stay away from what doesn't suit me and hoard what does!!
Paul

hello Paul thank you very much!!! )

yes i think i will do the same thing!! , i stopped buying perfumes at 25 when i concluded they can sell that chemistry to whoever they want, i am not falling for it.... then long break and gave it a chance once again 1 year ago now i know i have to use the old tactics again...

be extremely picky... those perfumes are like sirenes call , and then wearing them....oh man you realise you are not on a tropical island but on the rocks , hurt and bruised by some synthetic note from the drydown you did not notice before lol...

yes i agree on that too , making just little change in naturals throws everything out of balance (example new Ubar)...i am really amazed someone calls synthetic civet a civet, i would make a new name for that note they are so different!..one should use it only when nothing else helps, this note is onyl about giving some kind of sharpness, bitternes and nothing more, i dont get it...new Ubar is built on that note(sweaty smell), and Gold too.......this is not worth 90 eur for 100 ml edp to me let alone 200eur what they charge....

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:
Originally Posted by lpp View Post

iivanita - which Eau des Merveilles did u try?
I only have the original

i bought it last year 2012....was blind buy based on beautiful descriptions and i loved the opening veeery much...but the drydown...thin, masculine bitter skeleton which goes for hours...so i concluded oak moss is some terrible masculine note lol
post #38 of 108
3/1/13 at 1:33pm
  • lpp
  • offline
  • Gender:
Well, iivanita, don't get me started on Ellena...
And Guy Robert's 'Gold', to me, is now a very different re-formulated product which I would not personally buy. The spirit of the original is missing now.
More foot & mouth posting here
post #39 of 108
3/1/13 at 2:02pm
The Gold I smelled was an old one here. It didn't smell at all synthetic to me.
post #40 of 108
3/1/13 at 2:03pm
  • lpp
  • offline
  • Gender:
Yes, the contents of the old heavy crystal 'mosque' bottles were very different to the new.
post #41 of 108
3/1/13 at 3:18pm
Thread Starter 
They are different no doubt about that!! New one has completely synthetic base...very ugly one, and i am sure Guy Robert would not call it beautiful, one doesn't have to be rocket scientist to know what is beautiful and what is not, they changed it for sure, its like a theft do it once you will do it for ever:-) ....this is indeed a shame that someone like me reads so nice things and then goes naively for it, and there you go......luca turin said its still ok better then the rest lol, yeah then imagine what the rest is like! I could even agree partially.

Such a shame, and is this something perfume industry really needs ? Is this something that will bring out new thing everyone wants to have? To kill the good old classic.....anyway this is huge mess to be enjoyed at all.

Yes forgot to say those perfumes that get reformulated should drop half in price!! Like old mobile phones! Otherwise its all huge criminal! And a theft!
post #42 of 108
3/1/13 at 3:44pm
  • lpp
  • offline
  • Gender:
Problem maybe is that we're a bit fussy, Ivana!
Loads of people buy them, spray & go
post #43 of 108
3/1/13 at 11:54pm
The OP said this: "100% naturals - are never loud"


Of this I can't agree. I'm composing a fresh Fragrance from all materials available, with a Shiso leaf note. (Perilla Frutescens)
And until the percentage of the natural Shiso leaf gets to about 0.5%, it is too loud. And I would say the same about Buchu Leaf, which would curl your nose of you smell it raw... But in defense of iivanita, I may in fact be completely misunderstainding her post, as I read down the thread, I seem to get a different nuance to her OP.

But I felt compelled to voice this about my work, My Perfume Composition ideology goes something like this:

“Use the best materials available to make the best perfumes possible. Naturals for rounding and complexity, and an ease of beauty, and other aromatics for cleanliness, abstraction, specificity, power, longevity, and projection, and access to animalic and endangered materials not easily or ethically used as compared with naturals.”

That’s how I choose and use different materials, I choose them for their strengths, and not their weaknesses, and how they fit my vision. This is the Art of Perfumery.

iivanita, it seems that you are voicing a preference in this post, of desiring more roundedness to your perfumes... Is that correct? This would seem to hearken to Past masterpieces of perfumery, Do you agree? One can still have beautifully rounded fragrances, of you use enough synthetic chemicals to make up the body of the fragrance, but this is difficult and time consuming, and also doesn't seem to be the trend of the vast majority of Commercial perfumes. Thus is where you would leave Commercial perfumes, and move to the more Niche houses that do in fact use more naturals.

"i am seeking for 30% naturals!! please tell me where to look?"

Of this you can look at at my work, if you like...

But I think placing a numerical quantification on how much naturals are included falls into a trap, because a talented perfumer can make something of extraordinary beauty even without naturals included, but it still may not be to your preference. It may be too abstract for you... and it seems like you might like something more literal...?
Abstraction has it's place, but it may not be for you...

Of my work, Cafe Diem is 50% naturals. The least naturals content of my work is probably about 18%.


(After writing the following, I realize that it might be a bit askew of the topic, but I think I should post it anyway...)

As for musks, Yes, natural Musk is very complex, but extremely expensive, and extremely difficult to discern if it is even ethically produced and not destructive to the animal. Natural materials are made up of hundreds of constituents, and so, are therefore more complex than even a dozen aromatics combined to try to accomplish the same type of odor profile. But there comes a place that a decision must be made to accept the musk that we can make, versus the use of a material that is destructive to life to produce. A compromise of odor profile must be undertaken. The same thing goes to Sandalwood. Sure, it is very difficult to match the odor profile of the elegant creamy Mysore sandalwood that I smelled in Mysore 30 years ago, because the forests have been decimated, and ethically, the use of Mysore sandalwood is a difficult choice. It is possible that in the future we can go back using some cultivated Mysore Santalum album from other countries growing it, but right now, the best option is to accomplish the sandalwood odor profile out of synthetic elements. This act and necessity of encouraging the use of synthetic replacements is being responsible with the resources we've been given on the planet, and not driving the Santalum Album into extinction.

I had the chance to take a tour of the Taylor Guitar factory this year.
Bob Taylor needs Ebony wood to make his guitars. He has travelled the world seeking this wood. When He toured Cameroon, he was astounded by what he heard from the men who bring Ebony logs to the mill that he just bought for turning ebony logs into materials for making Guitars. Bob Taylor heard that the men cut down ten trees to find one tree that is all black inside. The other nine trees have some streaking of brown and white in the grain, and are not bought by the guitar companies. So the other nine trees are left to rot in the jungle, and are wasted.

When Bob Taylor heard this, his heart was just sick, (as was mine). He realized that in this country of Cameroon, it is *THE* very last place on the planet where Ebony is available to harvest and use, because it has been decimated in every other country by over harvesting and illegal cutting (Just like sandalwood in India). He said right then and there, because he owns now the mill of ebony in Cameroon, that EVERY ebony tree would be bought now, and that the standards of acceptability would just have to change, and as the business owner, he was going to lead that change in aesthetics and acceptability, for the Worldwide Musical Instrument industry, because he is in fact in control of the only remaining ebony on the planet.

This is responsibility with the resources we have available, and like it or not, the aesthetics of perfumery faces the same challenges of the over-plundering of natural materials, and some compromises must take place in order to conserve what we have left. Yes, I certainly miss the beautiful creaminess of sandalwood. I have a few ounces of 90 year old Mysore Sandalwood Santalum Album that is the most fantastic fragrant beautiful sandalwood I've ever smelled. But I also have to be realistic and not expect to be able to use that beautiful sandalwood in anything but bespoke fragrances for the very wealthy who can afford this material, since it just isn't available like this much anymore...

Grace and Beauty balanced with realism and responsibility..
post #44 of 108
3/2/13 at 12:19am
  • lpp
  • offline
  • Gender:
That's a really lovely, informative post, Paul.
& ethics in business (& everywhere else) is an interesting subject.
Thank you

Continuing in ethical mode, did anyone else see Grant's new article about Pell Wall yesterday?
post #45 of 108
3/2/13 at 2:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by iivanita View Post

exactly i am total outsider....i asked you for some help and info....
1. what are the naturals still most heavily used in perfumery, please help me build some knowledge here..
2. this fact of 90% i read from several people who are part of perfumîe industry , + this was what i was thinking when i was 25 and smelling only designers(only available in my country at a time)
3. i asked for a help to give me few examples where you think ratio is 30% 70%...look sorry i dont buy it if i can not know the fact...its not fair...i dont see it in jewelry, in clothing, everyone must say how much of real silk is there and how much gold is there...why would i have to settle for perfumer mystery?? i dont know any product where people sell me so much lies
4. analogy with food is very logical to me, explain please why not? i went like this...my taste in food is very versatile i really like all good food, and somehow in perfumes i dont like too much of it....i must seek for a special fragrance? this does not make sense!! should search for nice scent look like searching for a gold?
And the price i pay for frag is just entry ticket ?
Fashion designers make beautiful creations too yet they must say what materials they use, do you think i have to spend days analyzing if a frag has some ugly note before buying it at high price or if its been reformulated since the last year??Hm hm....something doesn't feel right here, pure logic!

i like all that is natural!! it is versatility that i lack, all perfumes are the same....because i concluded are not natural...apple, tomato, strawberry ..you don't notice the difference anymore if you don't buy the real one! .....

thank you very much for answering David i concluded you are one experienced perfumer? so would so much love to know your answers on the above 4 looking forward to it!!!
and yes i feel like that triangle became the only music ...am i overreacting? some examples would be most helpful!

So much to try and answer, that I doubt if I will succeed. Indeed I think others have answered some of your questions already; and others have repeated what I have already said.

I am not going to list all of the natural materials that are still used in commercial perfumery as there are too many. The company that I worked for ordered what I think is a typical selection of naturals available. As a rough estimate would be well over a 100; maybe more.

You cannot calculate the percentage of naturals to synthetics as a given. Each fragrance will be different. As I have said before a fragrance is simply a mixture of chemicals that smell. Where those chemicals come from (in an Essential Oils, or added as a single chemical) is unimportant. What matters is the end result. There are good fragrances and bad fragrances. I have smelled many fragrances that were 100.0% natural (indeed have created some myself!) which were terrible. Thick and stodgy, and flat. Others that worked. But in my experience, a very high level of naturals cannot achieve the effects of a fragrance that is a well blended mixture of naturals and synthetics. I don't actually care what is in a fragrance; I do care if I like it or not. The raw materials are less important than the skill with which they are used.

Of course the quality of the raw materials is important (your analogy with poor quality food is very good) and it is not possible to make a good fragrance with ingredients that smell bad. I think that is a separate issue. Indeed it is harder to maintain a constant quality of fragrance if that fragrance contains a lot of naturals. The quality of naturals will vary from year to year, and it is necessary for the Essential oil producers to try to blend together several batches to maintain that constant quality. Much easier to main tai quality with synthetics.

To return to the original question, I seriously don't know what you mean by "smelling natural". I cannot classify a fragrance as more or less natural smelling. I either like a fragrance or I don't. I either think a fragrance well made, and well blended, or I don't. I do not try to calculate the various percentages of synthetics or naturals, and I doubt if I would get any more enjoyment from a fragrance if I did.

I was a perfumer for 30 years, so your conclusion was correct; and I haven't changed my mind about this during that time.
post #46 of 108
3/2/13 at 6:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Ruskin View Post

I either like a fragrance or I don't. I either think a fragrance well made, and well blended, or I don't.

Agreed!
I think it all comes down to personal taste. This article may be interesting in this light:
http://virsanghvi.com/Article-Details.aspx?Key=904

It basically says that what you 'think' you smell and smells 'right' to do doesn't say anything about how 'natural' that is.
Part of my perfumer's training was to reverse engineer several fragrances with the help of a GC/MS analysis and my nose. I was shocked to find out how much more 'natural' some fragrances smelled to me that were at least 95% synthetic.

With 'natural' I mean here: true to nature, a lavender scent that smells like the lavender bushes in my garden. I have smelled lavender essential oils that were terribly not accurate to that 'natural' smell while being 100% natural!

Conclusion: it is also a matter of expectation, psychology, taste, culture, exposure, much more of the brain is involved here than the olfactory bulbs.

So my advice to you Ivana is to trust your nose and develop your own taste, letting go of % of naturals and synthetics. You might find your Holy Grail unexpectedly in the discount bin at the drugstore

p.s. and interesting read about what kind of perfume ingredients are in what fragrance is this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Scent-Chemistr.../dp/3906390667
post #47 of 108
3/2/13 at 3:17pm
Thread Starter 
heeello dear basenoters

pkiler your post was really very nice! and i completely agree with many things you have said!

but why i wanted to know some rough numbers?

simply becasue i want to know and develop a feeling for it (analogy with jewlery- the same as they would say if you like what you see buy it i want to know what value am i buying as well, not just the "looks" or "the smell" ...good analogy is with clothes too, becasue wearing a silk is not just about how it looks but how it feels on the skin too...compared to some synthetic material...where the side effect may be i sweat more or whatever)

you are very correct from what i know about myself i lean more to natural things! and i think i am very open to many ideas...am not narrow in tastes hehe....can like many things only if they are genuine!thats so important to me! i hate fakes.....but they are also a lot cheaper!!

now my opening post came from the data i collected so far , i could correct my opinion if i knew more facts,and i opened this threat to be confonted by the facts if thats possible, i can not create my opinion on the general idea that creativity of perfumer is more important then the material he uses,becasue that is never true in any other industry i know of so i dont think perfumery is much different , for me to spend $$$ i want to know how much value it really has not just the idea....the same as in jewlery, watches, food, clothes....(all of them MUST show the facts, beside great idea , beauty , creativity etc)

so i like very much how you answered providing some numbers!....if your lowest frag has 18% and you are so to say...." small manufacturer" compared to Chanel...then they probably use 9% in their best scent (31Rue cambon i dare to say lol)

and i agree if something is rare and not obtainable anymore it should be replaced with what is available at the moment BUT at the same time its a crime that frags are beeing changed , replaced by synthetics and PRICE stays the same! thats huge lie

1.this is why i want to know what is possible today and what price to attach to it?....i feel stupid when i discover that some perfume smells worse then it was only 3 years ago! because none of them tells anything about the change!

hello Mr. David, i suppose this is your true name, thank you very much for replying,i did not even try to say that higher % of naturals used guarantees anything, just that many higher % of natural perfumes hold more beauty even less nicely done then 100% synthetics greatly done....(i know only widely known perfumes, not someones private perfumes ...)
this is good to know that there are around 100 natural essences still beeing on average used by 1 house...though we still dont know if that % in the final product goes around 90% or 75% or 95% which i think is important, i dont think perfumers can make astonishing beauty with 90% synthetics used, give me an example pls?

since many of you agree its the COMPOSER of the fragrance who is so important, and his creativity....i followed Luca Turin*s book, becasue i think he made very good attempt to value fragrances based exactly on that: perfumer skill, so perfumes like Tommy girl, and Shalimar, and Gold go into the same group of 5 star scents....and artistic beauty of a fragrance is valued not the quality of ingredients!(CLive Christian..got only 3stars max?)
if you follow statistical probability function then around 5% of normal distribution represents excellence, and i think out of 2000 something frags he sniffed he gave 5 stars to 85 scents (this is something below 4%)....this make sense!

then i went on sniffing many of the frags from the book, and i noticed that many of the 4 and 5 stars scents are no better then tommy girl ....you all kind of talk of outliers when you mentions synthetic frags that smell astonishing! otherwise i think you would throw out some examples wouldnt you? and i talk in general!
i dont think search for a good perfume should resemble the search for a gold?

i concluded that it makes no sense at all...i dont think my taste is that picky...i just concluded that Amouage , Les Exclusifs are the same kind of industrial production as designers arei.e. they are not 3 times better as their price is higher!...

so if some of you would come out and say Ivana my experienced perfumer nose says Les Exclusifs smell around 80% synthetic i would reevaluate what i think..becasue to me only 31 Rue cambon, Sycomore....stand out ....maybe Cuir de russie..although i got some very synthetic vibes from it during wearing 2 days in a row....it is nice composition though, but not so nice as i think once was

2.when noone talks about it(except pkiler) does it mean that % of naturals varies so much from perfume to perfume even within the same house?

hm to my nose they all smelled like programmed on a computer to the 4 digits


Amouage Gold, who dares to say this is not a 5 star scent by the quality of the composition? yet i think its ugly, the drydown is ugly as can only synthetic material be....its thin its harsh its...skeleton, its not 5 star scent, its def not luxury as it used to be when created!

so too many perfumes out there, with which i have no problem compositionwise dont stand up to their price! nor to the fame they had before, becasue of heavy use of synthetics ....


Irina this is only i can do now trust my nose! i will never ever go for a frag that was beautiful before, because today most certainly it is not anymore!...but this means devoting a lot of time and money finding something valuable of owning ......

3.so the question for all is: in your own book how many % of frags get your 5 stars?

in my book from what i have tried and used so far i think it would be 0.1% of frags produced now.....i find this not normal...and concluded that it must be the very small quantity of natural ingredients that makes them standardized to beeing boring to death for wearing...
they provide all just 3-4 hours of pleasure 1st day you smell them...in 10 days are passe! just as long as you smell the idea its interesting....when you chew the idea ....nothing holds you there anymore!...just huge emptiness of ingredients
post #48 of 108
3/3/13 at 1:20am
Ivana, dear, here is a nice blog about it:
http://boisdejasmin.com/2012/02/the-...perfume-1.html

You know my favorites
post #49 of 108
3/3/13 at 1:23am
  • lpp
  • offline
  • Gender:
That pretty much sums up my feelings, Irina - thank you!
post #50 of 108
3/3/13 at 1:30am
Most of the frags from the house of Greed (I can already sense many a BN's stare and a few even swearing on my comment), sorry, house of Creed smell synthetic to me, own many as they were amongst the first I started my collection with...But the cost to satisfaction ratio (if it can be calculated) is not great IMO for this house.

Anyone looking for natural should buy the oils, can't be beat. However, storing, quality & shelf life are a huge issue as they can turn turbid & bcom useless...
post #51 of 108
3/3/13 at 1:37am
  • lpp
  • offline
  • Gender:
@badarun - yes, have personally reverted mainly to oils, which have their own idiosyncrasies.
And even trying to make my own.
Desperation or disillusion?
post #52 of 108
3/3/13 at 3:43am
Firstly iivanita my name is David Ruskin, why would I lie about my Name? Assuming, that iivanita is your real name!

I think I have worked out where you got the 90.0% synthetics to 10.0% naturals in modern fragrances, that you claim. I mentioned that my old company used to buy about 100 natural materials; well they used to buy in about 1000 synthetics and speciality bases (bases containing a captive molecule, only sold in the base). So, the Perfumer's palette contained 10.0% naturals, 90.0% synthetics; but that did not mean that every fragrance made contained that same ratio. Of course the percentage of naturals varied hugely from perfume to perfume. It depends on so many factors, that I don't have space to list them all.

In general the cost of a Fine Fragrance has nothing to do with the percentage of naturals in it. In fact the cost of the liquid in the bottle contributes very little to the final cost. You can easily work out the actual cost of the liquid and see that it amounts to pennies rather than hundreds of pounds. Very quickly I will show you. Assume that the Raw Material cost of the concentrated fragrance is £100.00 / Kg. By the way, that would be a very expensive fragrance indeed. The Fragrance House that created that fragrance would sell it, and make a profit. A big profit. Let us assume that they sell it for £300.00 /Kg. The fragrance is then diluted to 20.0% in alcohol (as for the sake of this example let us assume that the ethanol costs nothing). So the diluted fragrance costs £300.00 for 5 Kg ( or £60.00 /Kg). So the cost of 1000 gms diluted fragrance costs £60.00. You sell a 100 ml bottle for £100.00. The juice costs £6.00. To the Perfume House it costs £2.00.

As I have written before, the worth of any fragrance is if you like it or not. I don't care what is the fragrance I wear, although I sometimes enjoy trying to sniff out what the ingredients are. All I care about is whether the fragrance is well made, and if it gives me pleasure.
post #53 of 108
3/3/13 at 5:23am
What David says is true. Here is another popular article that shows you the price breakdown of perfumes:

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/05/...ost-breakdown/

Here is an illustration, a picture says more than a 1000 words

post #54 of 108
3/4/13 at 9:22am
Thread Starter 
Hello dear David, Irina,

I could not answer before, basenotes was closed, i love your replies, it makes it much easier now to understand:-) .

I don't know why i ever thought that niche perfumes make more expensive juices:-) , now i understand this idea that what matters only is the composition itself,

And now understand as well why it doesn't satisfy my taste and perception of what i would pay for something smelly, pkiler said it right, i would like it to have more flesh, this was very helpful thread to me:-) ...

Thank you all very much, i think i realized which way to go from now on:-)

Was very interesting discussion, now we can focus more on tastes:-) hehe

I would so much love to hear what is David your taste , what are your top 10 perfumes of all time please:-)
post #55 of 108
3/4/13 at 10:33am
I have often read the complaint that modern perfumes aren't rich enough, or as you said iivanita "more flesh", and it is all down to the materials used. I'm going to stick my neck out here and say that the main difference between modern fragrances and "classic fragrances', and even between vintage versions and modern, reformulated versions, is that the old perfumes used a lot of animal extracts. Lots of real Civet, Musk, Ambergris and (to a lesser extent) Castoreum. Oakmoss and Labdanum and real Sandalwood also help but it is the animal notes that are the key; in my opinion. I have a book called "Perfumes, Cosmetics and Soaps" by W.A.Poucher. It is the second of three that he wrote in the early 20s. The edition I have is from 1983. The book is about, amongst other topics, the production and manufacture of Essential oils and fragrances based on those oils (yes my dears, mainly naturals!!) He goes through a short history of Perfumery, his theory of olfaction and his division of Aroma Chemicals (natural and synthetic) into top, middle and base notes. The most interesting part of the book is called "Monographs on Flower Perfumes". He describes the characteristics of popular single floral notes; sometimes describes their method of extraction from flowers if this is possible, and describes those materials needed to produce the smell of each flower. At the end of each section he provides two formulations (an expensive one with lots of Naturals in, and a cheaper version). He also provided a formulation for a Fine Fragrance soliflore, and in each case, in every fine fragrance formulation there is some Civet and/or Musk/and or Ambergris. Every formulation (from the 1920s) in his book had masses of animal notes. Even before IFRA had started restricting materials, the perfumery world stopped using Animal products; and I think that is where the rot set in. Tastes change, and most young people would not like to wear the style of perfume that their mothers and grandmothers wore. "It smells of Old Ladies" is a common comment. You can translate that into "It smells too dirty". The modern world in now obsessed with cleanliness, resulting in the hissy aquatics, and the thin fruities we are drowning in. Those with a more sophisticated palette (hem hem) prefer more complexity, and even a bit more body odour in their perfumes. You can disagree with me if you want; it's only what I think.

The reason that Niche fragrances tend to be more expensive is nothing to do with the cost of fragrance except that Niche companies will tend to order smaller batches, and a smaller batch of perfume costs more to make than a larger batch. Niche companies order smaller numbers of everything and it all mounts up.

Not sure if I can restrict myself to 10 fragrances but I'll have a go.

Vintage Shalimar, vintage Mitsouko, vintage L'Heure Bleu, vintage Apres L'Ondee, vintage Jicky (do you see a trend here?), vintage Bals a Versailles, vintage Habit Rouge, vintage Guerlain Vetiver, vintage Bandit, vintage Vent Vert. That's 10, but there are a few I need to add. The original Chloe perfume (in the bottle with the lilies on the stopper), Perfumer's Workshop Tea Rose. Not many moderns I'm afraid, although I love Serge Lutens' Musk Koublai Khan, L'Artisan Perfumer's Timbukto and Dzing. There are others, and other moderns honest!!
post #56 of 108
3/4/13 at 10:41am
  • lpp
  • offline
  • Gender:
That's fascinating, David - thank you

Forgot all about that 'Chloe', think I damaged the top on mine.....
post #57 of 108
3/4/13 at 2:55pm
Thread Starter 
hehehe hello David, oh thank you so much for this!!

of course! so you are no different then i am...i was lucky to try almost all of those vintages(thanks to some dear basenotes friends): i even got small samples of vintage Mitsouko PDT (gorgeous galbanum note, more then oak moss), vintage Shalimar PDT , and vintage Bal a Versailes EDC(own a bottle, it smelt sooo civety to me when i tried it 1st time....i wanted to vomit almost !)

never tried vintage Bandit, but i think if i did i would have to own it ....

this is exactly why i started this thread i noticed some huge differences and especially as you say in the base! all those beautiful basenotes are missing in new perfumes....and as obvious as it may seem to you,it took me a while to understand that i must like basnotes to appreciate the perfume enough becasue the base is something one smells 60-70% of the time

when i tried Bal a Versailes for the first time i smelled some real civet, and understood what it means animalic note, becasue i could not smell anything animalic from indolic jasmine and some styrax leathers no no ...it took me several wearings to get used to those new notes! and after those experiences i find out my standard against everything i have smelled so far has risen! now when i smell new modern Gold, omg i am dissappointed a looot!becasue thats not civet!i want that real civet note , the synthetic one to me is so bad replica i can not find it luxurious at all

i must add Samsara and the sandalwood there beat Ubar, which i thought was the best female perfume ever....Samsara smells soo sublime, that sandalwood note, although has lots of synthetic too, but its nothing compared to modern perfumes

then when i smelled profumo.it scents...i also noticed his scents resemble a lot of vintages, his bases are animalic...and real animalic.....i dont smell anything animalic in modern scents..i thought i dont miss it that much, i miss more those other notes like real sandalwood , labdanum, oak moss....but going back ....my taste chanaged so rapidly by smelling perfumes with more natural stuff in it...they are much more interesting, one doesnt get bored so soon, and it just went spontaneously...i never thought i will like the old lady vibe! they smellt also too complex...messy in a way...but now i want it, it feels alive!

SO i would totaly agree with what you say...all those vintages like Tabu, Arpege , Bal a Versailes had that dirty complex bases, with what smells to my nose 100s of ingredients...its all so full of details..wheras in modern perfumes you have like 3-4 clean accords..and not that much complexity let alone dirtiness......
it all started when i discovered i can smell musk note, and it dawned on me that musk is everywhere, and what else could they use when there is nothing much left to be used for the base and i cant help it but it reminds me of body products, of detergents , of hairsprays...whatever...

i agree, consumers taste overall has changed a lot !! .....it is only a matter of fashion i think and what one is exposed to majority of time....also i think taste can chnage pretty quickly (as mine chnaged from thinking i dont like vitnages to now that i want more real things and complexity)

and probably when those vintages were made , perfumers followed the same logic as today...just materials not beeing available any more , price rose in the mean time...makes them greater value nowdays....i understand this better now!.....but i was a bit angry that modern perfumery is not using enough of stuff that is still available, like Vero Kern uses etc...they just went for synthetics..and are like Mc Donalds producing standardized product and people even want that (think batch variations are bad) , also anything more complex would not sell so well, so i guess thats the circle we are in i was reading about L Feu d Issay, what do you think of that one?

in the end , we have very similar taste lol , i think modern perfumery has issue like modern world in general, we have variety of techical products where variety of big animals, animal life in general is just decreasing rapidly, and world feels cleaned up from nature!

oh i wore Timbuktu one winter, was my favourite scent , becasue i never wore any vetyver before, this is one of the best vetyver transformations that reminded me of some nice herabl tea too....now i love Vanilia , so much ....
i love Le temps du une fete, its the only modern perfume i know that has some animalic dirty note, which is "clean" its not real..but its there, that was fascinating...i dont own it because i cant smell anything real in it but so nicely done...
Odalisque too...then i smell those scents and imagine how would they be if they have real oak moss, some real musk(ok i know it cant have it lol)...but you know that is what i get with so many modern frags image how i would want them to be much more real.

Iris note...this at least could be made of real thing...but there is sooo much of synthetic iris that its unbeleivable! even in expencive stuff like Chanel.....i must say i never tried real note so may be irring here? (no 22, and even curi de Russie...whereas 28 La pausa smells like real iris note ?
post #58 of 108
3/4/13 at 3:50pm
This thread is a really good thrash out of why perfumes have changed styles, in the most eloquent way. Thank you for starting it Livanita and to you David for sharing your expertise and not losing it when our inexperience makes us explain things strangely and have odd views as a result sometimes.

I have those lovely books too. They were my first purchase and mine are the 1932 and the 1950's versions, amongst others like Askinson and Jarabes. Those are my bibles and how I have been practicing. One of mine still has the cosmetics colour chart in the back. There is such a lot to learn and it is all just so fascinating.

It is you David who has made me now realise exactly why I like these vintage frags so much. My Sin, Givenchy III, Cabochard, Tabu, Magie Noir, Armani, Houbigant Ambergris and Civet, Bal AV, Amazone, Mystere, Bandit, Cuir de Russie, Chanel 22, Vent Vert, Cuir de Lancome and loads more. L sent me Dzing last year and I have been quite passionate about that one so I shall try Timbuktu as well.

Modern... I do like some. I like modern but classic style colognes, Barry Lindon by Maria Candida Gentile, Aqua di Genova and Aqua di Sicilia. I'm not crazy on Serge L but I love the type of journey they go on to explore a thought. I like that developmental movement from one thing to another to peruse an idea or a feeling. I too would like to smell real Orris butter, I do have some real Mysore and real animalics. I remember wearing sandalwood oil with abandon... if only we had known and saved some.

So much to learn...... just love it.
post #59 of 108
3/5/13 at 1:13am
I am so glad that everyone on this thread is enjoying it. When people care passionately about something it always sparks. I must add my thanks to iivanita for starting it.

Timbukto may contain Vetiver, but it owes its character to one of the very new, highly powerful woody/sweaty chemicals that have been developed over the past few years (Norlimbanol or Ambrocenide for example). They are difficult to use because they are so strong, and so long lasting. It needs a skilled Perfumer to use them properly.

Sadly the amount of Orris being produced is going down year after year. It is a very long process and produces very little . I think that the Iris rhizome has to left to mature for about 5 years (maybe longer). According to Wikipedia one ton of dried rhizome produces 2.0 Kg of Orris Butter. Many people who used to produce Orris are now growing more profitable crops. Whilst there are very good Orris duplications, it is one of the Naturals that really can't be copied.

Feu d'Issey has a chemical in it that smells of hot milk, and it is a note that I cannot stand. I hated Feu d'Issey when it was launched, and thought it a mess. Of course, only my opinion. Luca Turin gave it five stars in his book.

It is sad that people no longer enjoy the richness provided by the animal extracts, and other base notes, but I'm not sure if I could support the use of those animal extracts. If only there was a better alternative...
post #60 of 108
3/5/13 at 2:36am
I suppose there are alternatives. Iso e super is a long lasting woody thing and I have recently purchased Norimbanol and it is a bit like paper/cedar squeezed sooo dry. I would imagine it would need a lot of taming, but as you say these are still thin and need padding. I suppose that is why a milky molecule is sometimes used. I would imagine that smells 'fat'. It would explain the increase in gourmand frags with cocoas and coffees and caramels. All 'full' smells without animal.

There is no going back is there.....? What a fine challenge for a nose to match the beasts. I like that idea.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Female Fragrance Discussion
This thread is locked  

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 › Female Fragrance Discussion › most natural smelling perfumes and most synthetic smelling ones