Do you prefer vintage/classics or "modern" frags ? POLL.

[Bigsly]

I became curious about this after reading through the thread about the ending of updates to the Turin/Sanchez guide book. I've tried quite a few of the older "masterpieces," and while I can stand some of them, I don't really think any of them are great, in terms of "wearability" (Shalimar Light, which is not really an "oldie" and the latest Mitsouko are among those I like once a month or two). For me, the "modern" side of the dividing line starts with Yatagan. So, the question here is, how often do you wear a frag that was marketed before 1976?

[Sugandaraja]

I place my dividing marker at a different spot - when aquatics entered the scene, the heavy frags of the '80s switched to lighter ones of the '90s, and niche houses started becoming a larger presence.

As a generalization, I prefer older designers to newer designers, and modern niche to either. As usual, though, it all depends on the frag...

[Bigsly]

Right, but I'd like to start with this dividing line. Perhaps another poll would be called for, asking about which decade most of your frags are from.

[Ken_Russell]

If some post-1976 creations weren't stunning, I'd go entirely for the classics.

[jenson]

i cant be without R de Capucci, Krizia Moods Uomo, Sagamore, Furyo, Maxims, Habit Rouge + others on one hand and Mazzolari, TDC, Tauer, PG, MPG, L'Artisan + many others on the other...pretty even balance

[Sugandaraja]

I guess I don't really smell any big change happening around 1976, but I could be wrong.

I own a couple pre '76 bottles, one just one year before and niche ( Diptyque's discontinued L'Eau Trois ), and the other a classic women's fragrance ( Dior's Diorissimo ). I'd say I wear either about once or twice a month at most - assuming they don't go off, they'll last me decades. I "borrow" a spray from my mother's Youth Dew on occasion, too.

Of pre-'76 frags, there aren't many I'm likely to purchase, not because they're not good, but because a huge percentage of them are either discontinued or reformulated, making it mostly not worth the cost and effort of hunting the good juice down.

Yesterday I experienced a lovely fragrance from the '50s, La Rose Jacqueminot. If this were available today, it would be something I'd buy without a doubt. However, not only is it discontinued, the more recent incarnation, from the '80s, was nothing like it, so the effort involved in searching for a pristine bottle from half a century ago it a touch too Quixotic for me.

For better or worse, if forced to make a choice, I'd clearly be in the modern camp.

[Bigsly]

I guess that for me, 1976 represents a good boundary for the blending of frags. As Jenson pointed out indirectly, many of the popular pre-1976 frags feature notes that are very pronounced. Yatagan doesn't bother me at all, as it does some others, probably due to the blending, and Z-14 (also 1976) is strong but also well-blended, and softens up over time. Many of the pre-1976 frags seem to lack that "softening" quality, and instead can be "rough" all the way through. Thoughts?

[timaru]

I cant really judge, I havn't been able too smell that many Vintages yet. The ones I did smell however seemed more 'original', like the perfumer cared more to create something artistic than about the sales-numbers or wearablility of the things. Lots turned out to be brilliant which however does not necessarily mean I would want to wear them.
Just my 2 cents on the topic, all I can say is that IF I manage to find a classic that really meets my taste its way more likely to be my holy grail than a modern one, just because one who dares to fail greatly might also succes more spectacularly than a safe player.

[Bigsly]

I should have mentioned that old frags that have been seriously reformulated (into "drug store frags"), such as Old Spice or Tabu, should not be counted as anything here (just to keep things "tidy").

[tott]

I place my dividing marker at a different spot - when aquatics entered the scene, the heavy frags of the '80s switched to lighter ones of the '90s

This is also my feeling.

Anyway, I guess you could call me a classicist. I wear a few modern fragrances, but I really prefer my oldies.

[Sugandaraja]

To be truthful, I have no experience with vintage pre-76 men's fragrances i.e. actual bottles with juice produced before that date, when it comes to mens fragrances. What I have noticed with women's fragrances though, is that reformulations always tend to skew things towards being brighter and harsher, as oakmoss and other naturals are stripped away and replaced with often inadequate synthetics. I often find many moss replacements harsh, musty, or sour, or sometimes just freakishly unlike moss to the point where the note is unrecognizable ( as I've smelled in baffling where's-the-moss modern chypres like PC Jasmine White Moss ).

I'm sure others can add more here, but I'm wondering if more modern fragrances smelling better blended comes from many classics being raped rather than a reflection of the style of their times.

[L'Aventurier]

I like modern reinterpretations of classic fragrances, like Invasion Barbare.

[Bigsly]

It depends on which ones you have sampled. Obviously, you are correct about such frags as Old Spice and Tabu, but I find Mitsouko to be more "articulated" than "modern" designer frags that I enjoy (which would also explain the appeal of "niche"). Being "well blended" (or more blended than classics) does not guarantee a good frag, of course. It's just a style.

[Ron199]

More times than not It's hard for me to recall the scent of any certain fragrance from that long ago, and if the same fragrance is still being offered, you can bet It would probably be almost impossible to recognize it in It's current formulation, as opposed to It's original formulation. None the less I do like alot of the vintage/classics, as well as more mordern fragrances.

[monsieur_sparkle]

Like G_B, I don't have a lot of experience with pre-1976 mens' fragrances, although I own both Habit Rouge and Guerlain's Vetiver and wear them regularly.

[TimothyX]

I'm 23 and it's hard for me to pull off a lot of the classics, but I just recently got myself a bottle of guerlain vetiver, and it's slowly becoming one of my top 5's. I also love grey flannel to death, but can't find many situations that are suitable for it.

so most of my frags are mostly 90's and 00' scents.

[KMF]

Just to make this thread a little more confusing, I prefer modern scents that capture the essence & spirit of vintage scents from the past...

[Redneck Perfumisto]

Just to make this thread a little more confusing, I prefer modern scents that capture the essence & spirit of vintage scents from the past...

LOL - and quite true. I'm a modernist, but the moderns that are either truly novel, or at least live up to, or even update the grandeur of the classics, are my faves.

[Mimi Gardenia]

Just to make this thread a little more confusing, I prefer modern scents that capture the essence & spirit of vintage scents from the past...

That I can relate to. I just love scents of yesteryear too like the Guerlains, the Carons and even - God help me - some of the 80s perfumes. I think I am in love with the history of a scent as well as the perfume itself.

[LiveJazz]

I don't think I discriminate much. Here are my two cents on the topic:

Classic scents are not necessarily better made than modern ones. It's just easier to distinguish between them and find the ones you like because they were released less often, and the scents seem more diverse.

With modern releases, it's easier to just throw up your hands and say, "forget it!" because there are just so many to choose from, and so many smell approximately the same. But there are plenty of great, modern, designer releases out there if you know where to look.

As others have said, older releases do seem more "harsh," but I most often find this to be the case only in their topnotes.

[LiveJazz]

but I'm wondering if more modern fragrances smelling better blended comes from many classics being raped rather than a reflection of the style of their times.

That's a good question. I don't think I've smelled any juice that was actually produced before 1976 either.

I wonder how much thought goes into making quality reformulations, compared to the thought that goes into completely new releases.

[chocolateguy]

I am young. Ok I'm 26, not so young anymore :P I still like vintage/classic frags so much. I do not wear them so often but sometimes. I love Carons, Guerlain Habit Rouge, Knize10. These timeless scents have their own and unique character that modern scents can't have.

[da_markos]

some "modern" scents just have to "get older" and they also become timeless, culty and classic . our childer or granchildren will talk about them like we do about scents of your parents or grandparents.

[AromiErotici]

pre-1976??? Not very often. My favorites are all between 1978 and approx. 1993.

The current designers don't have enough substance to them for me. There are quite a few niche however that have got the "Oomph" that I need.

[Hasupk@gmail.com]

any reason its pre 1976?
im thinking anything older than 1990 would fall into this category
but I am no expert

[monsieur_sparkle]

any reason its pre 1976?
im thinking anything older than 1990 would fall into this category
but I am no expert

Yeah, this date seems pretty arbitrary to me too. I don't think very many people would consider stuff like Kouros, Aramis, Drakkar Noir, Antaeus, etc. as "modern."

[Bigsly]

Well, I must have done something right by choosing 1976, because the poll is fairly well balanced, actually, considering how many frags have been marketed since that year. This was a year I chose based upon my own ideas about a big change that took place, as I stated in detail in posts above. My view is that "niche" frags have come into being because of this distinction, as well as for the desire for novelty. In any case, it is obviously a generalization, and I'm mostly talking about "designer" frags rather than "drug store" or "niche" ones.

[Redneck Perfumisto]

some "modern" scents just have to "get older" and they also become timeless, culty and classic . our childer or granchildren will talk about them like we do about scents of your parents or grandparents.

I agree. Classics have to come from somewhere. It will be interesting to see which of our current "designer trash" become the reference scents of the future. Will they be the ones that we cull out as exceptions? Or will they be the ones affirmed by years of popular love? Or both? It will be worth sticking with this hobby for a long time, just to see.

[heynow]

I'm still fairly new to collecting fragrances (about a year) but thus far in my sampling I find the vintage fragrances (which includes the ones first made pre 76 and still in production) are the most distinct and interesting. I'm doing a LOT of sampling these days and I'm trying to balance sampling modern and vintage scents. I'm not all that familiar with the specific ingredients that are no longer used, but just from sniffing the new stuff in general comes off as more synthetic, lighter, and not as rich. There are plenty of exceptions of course, and many of the niche houses I'm sampling for the first time have amazing fragrances, but as far as the designer stuff goes I prefer the vintage. Since I'm wearing the samples I've been buying i'd have to say I'm wearing vintage 2+ times a week and will continue to.

If there is a fragrance I like that's been continuously in production for a long time... say... Mitsouko or Habit Rouge, should I automatically look for an older bottle instead of a newer one? Have all these types of fragrances been reformulated with different ingredients in the last few years? Just curious...

[Bigsugarman]

I think the surviving classic fragrances just have so much character and ultimately are more interesting than modern stuff. Perspective takes time however.

[Tony T]

Rarely

[hednic]

Very rarely - from this resurrected 2009 poll.