Code of Conduct
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 31 to 33 of 33
  1. #31

    Default Re: Article in National Post - Allergen rules...

    Quote Originally Posted by Redneck Perfumisto View Post


    Exactly. I'll bet they are stomping their feet in private. They most likely pray that nobody will notice the difference. They are probably getting big bonuses when nobody spots the switcheroo.
    The devious bit is that it's already started. I had foolishly imagined that we would have until the end of the year before these new products hit the stores (why on Earth did I imagine that? :P) but a BNer pointed out that the latest Bandit has no oak moss listed in the ingredient sections. Intrigued, I pulled out the sample the FF&C New York branch sent me last month and, lo an behold, no oak moss on the list! The contents of the vial smell like a neutered Bandit that joined a convent. Pleasant enough but not worth spending real money on and no where near the strength of the bottle sitting on my desk.
    I realize that oak moss is not prohibited, just regulated to something like .1% combined with the amount of tree moss. Tree moss is still included in this Bandit formula although it may be because Givaudan has yet to produce a suitable tree moss base.


    So far we have Chanel on record saying that (concerning No. 5) "Evidently when the new standards were issued we immediately checked the percentages in our finished products and in none of our fragrances is the recommended level exceeded.'" So what we need is a comparison of the recent Chanel No. 5 ingredient list ( I mean the ones they are forced to tell you about on the back of the box =) ) to see if anything has changed. If they have we can call their bluff and perhaps dissuade them from shilling cheap junk and pretending it's still the unchanged formula.

  2. #32
    Moderator

    Redneck Perfumisto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Spiritually, Kansas
    Posts
    13,379
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default Re: Article in National Post - Allergen rules...

    Quote Originally Posted by Zizanioides View Post
    The devious bit is that it's already started. I had foolishly imagined that we would have until the end of the year before these new products hit the stores (why on Earth did I imagine that? :P) but a BNer pointed out that the latest Bandit has no oak moss listed in the ingredient sections.

    ....

    So far we have Chanel on record saying that (concerning No. 5) "Evidently when the new standards were issued we immediately checked the percentages in our finished products and in none of our fragrances is the recommended level exceeded.'" So what we need is a comparison of the recent Chanel No. 5 ingredient list ( I mean the ones they are forced to tell you about on the back of the box =) ) to see if anything has changed. If they have we can call their bluff and perhaps dissuade them from shilling cheap junk and pretending it's still the unchanged formula.
    I think that would be very interesting! I'm in the market for Eau Première, and presumably that one's safe. But maybe somebody has a very recent box of the regular EDP.

    Now I may have spent too much time around liars in my youth and lawyers in my adulthood, but that statement by Chanel completely skates on a pre-emptive reformulation. As in, "Thank God the reformulation went out in time, well before the new standards were issued, and nobody noticed." Not saying it's true - just saying it's possible.

    Personally, I think the solution is for the industry to move to the sale of limited edition original formula stuff with fancy bottles and heavy warnings on shocking orange tied-on tags. The people who want the real McCoy are going to frankly drool at the orange tags hanging from the nice packaging, as in "OMG! REAL oakmoss! Original strength!" The perfumistas take off the tags, throw them in the garbage, and it's all over. Or keep the tag in the packaging for resale. The companies can sell the unlabeled stuff to everybody else. It's a win-win situation for everybody. What I'm thinking is something in between the absurdly priced corporate gifts in real crystal and the regular department store stuff.

    The problem with IFRA is that is says everybody has to drink beer, not wine or whiskey. It's clearly ridiculous. There's no need to have a lowest common denominator.
    * * * *

  3. #33

    Default Re: Article in National Post - Allergen rules...

    Quote Originally Posted by Redneck Perfumisto View Post
    I think that would be very interesting! I'm in the market for Eau Première, and presumably that one's safe. But maybe somebody has a very recent box of the regular EDP.

    Now I may have spent too much time around liars in my youth and lawyers in my adulthood, but that statement by Chanel completely skates on a pre-emptive reformulation. As in, "Thank God the reformulation went out in time, well before the new standards were issued, and nobody noticed." Not saying it's true - just saying it's possible.

    Personally, I think the solution is for the industry to move to the sale of limited edition original formula stuff with fancy bottles and heavy warnings on shocking orange tied-on tags. The people who want the real McCoy are going to frankly drool at the orange tags hanging from the nice packaging, as in "OMG! REAL oakmoss! Original strength!" The perfumistas take off the tags, throw them in the garbage, and it's all over. Or keep the tag in the packaging for resale. The companies can sell the unlabeled stuff to everybody else. It's a win-win situation for everybody. What I'm thinking is something in between the absurdly priced corporate gifts in real crystal and the regular department store stuff.

    The problem with IFRA is that is says everybody has to drink beer, not wine or whiskey. It's clearly ridiculous. There's no need to have a lowest common denominator.
    That would be a great solution! And its one possible ray of sunshine for fragrance lovers everywhere.

    And yes, I agree, it does reek of a preemptive reformulation, they have had a year to tinker with the formula. Still, I think there could be some merit in revealing any changes that would refute their claims. I think people might actually take notice if it were proved that the great Chanel No. 5 no longer exists. If anyone has a box with the Chanel No. 5 ingredients listed on it I would greatly appreciate them being posted along with the date of purchase. I'm also writing to Chanel to see if they will provide me with any information (we will see how well that goes :P)

    And I thought the date for the changes was January 10, 2010 but according to the IRFA website its now in August (http://www.ifraorg.org/Home/Code,+St...s/page.aspx/56 )

Similar Threads

  1. Cannot post fragrance to the USA?
    By musky_monkey in forum Male Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 1st February 2007, 06:12 PM
  2. Washington Post article
    By Informer in forum Male Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 28th December 2005, 06:48 PM
  3. The Rules
    By Grant in forum Announcements Archive
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 14th June 2005, 03:08 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  



Loving perfume on the Internet since 2000