Code of Conduct
Results 1 to 44 of 44
  1. #1

    Question Do you believe that "formal" fragrances are generally more interesting than "casual" fragrances ?

    Hey Gals & Guys,

    I have been pondering this thought for a while. Maybe it is just me, but I feel finding a casual fragrance that keeps my interest for a long period of time is difficult. And not just the length of time, but just in terms of being an interesting affair.

    What constitutes the terms formal, casual and interesting ? Well, that is totally up to you.

    What do you think ? Do you believe that "formal" fragrances are generally more interesting than "casual" fragrances ? I wouldn't mind some specific fragrance examples as well.

    Thanks
    Seeking: Bottles/decants : of Feeling Man, Gucci pour Homme, Essence of John Galliano, Nicole Miller (vintage), Opium pour Homme, Oxford & Cambridge...etc.

    Seeking decant/sample of Jil Sander Feeling Man, Cacharel Nemo, Bijan for Men EDC, Lanvin for Men, Giorgio VIP, Il Lancetti and other old school frags ....etc. I have samples to swap.

    More HERE
    Please PM me !

  2. #2

    Default Re: Do you believe that "formal" fragrances are generally more interesting than "casual" fragrances

    i think the formal frags have more character and are more timeless, the casual ones are too low grade in many cases or not that memorable there are exceptions but that is my opinion.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Do you believe that "formal" fragrances are generally more interesting than "casual" fragrances

    I typically enjoy more casual fragrances than formal fragrances. I really enjoy New Haarlem, Virgin Island Water, Nouveau Bowery, Mugler Cologne, Pure Malt, Fuel For Life and etc. I don't think it's either formal or casual is more pleasing or interesting but, rather than the scent itself. I really like Grey Vetiver, Burberry London and Gucci Pour Homme II and I'd classify those as formal.
    Formal to me is something that isn't too loud, and is typically more dry and woodsy and traditional whereas casual is more laid back and fun. You're obviously not going to wear A*men to a business meeting and you woulnd't really want to wear Bois Du Portugal to college.

    I think it just comes down to what fragrances people tend to lean towards.
    Imagine there were no hypothetical situations.

    SALES THREAD
    Pomegranate Noir 100 ml, 95% full no box - $90


    Contact through PM

  4. #4
    DeepSilence
    Guest

    Default Re: Do you believe that "formal" fragrances are generally more interesting than "casual" fragrances

    Yes i do! But what do you mean of formal?
    when i see casual word, i'm thinking about aquatics or floral fragrances.
    sometimes it's subjective. For example Paco Rabbane XS: Spicy, Floral,... I like to keep it in casual category. but it's warm and spicy enough for being formal.
    Last edited by DeepSilence; 29th May 2010 at 02:14 AM.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Do you believe that "formal" fragrances are generally more interesting than "casual" fragrances

    Normally I'd consider formal as very focused and clean fragrances, that are safer.
    I'd think of casual as laid back, fun and subtle.

    Formal as black suit and clean shave, and casual as shorts and tshirt with a stubble.

    In the end, I would imagine any fragrance called as both casual or formal (as I interpret them) to be non interesting.
    I would consider things that are called, romantic, seducing, intimidating;
    things that make people use emotions to label them instead of jobs/attire to be interesting.

    Words are confusing.

  6. #6

    Default Re: Do you believe that "formal" fragrances are generally more interesting than "casual" fragrances

    Quote Originally Posted by sarıpatates View Post
    Normally I'd consider formal as very focused and clean fragrances, that are safer.
    I'd think of casual as laid back, fun and subtle.

    Formal as black suit and clean shave, and casual as shorts and tshirt with a stubble.

    In the end, I would imagine any fragrance called as both casual or formal (as I interpret them) to be non interesting.
    I would consider things that are called, romantic, seducing, intimidating;
    things that make people use emotions to label them instead of jobs/attire to be interesting.

    Words are confusing.
    I like this view much better
    Imagine there were no hypothetical situations.

    SALES THREAD
    Pomegranate Noir 100 ml, 95% full no box - $90


    Contact through PM

  7. #7

    Default Re: Do you believe that "formal" fragrances are generally more interesting than "casual" fragrances

    I really dislike formal fragrances. I just don't think they smell good. I prefer young, casual, jeans and t-shirt frags. I think those are the nicest smelling, and those are the ones I feel comfortable wearing.

  8. #8

    Default Re: Do you believe that "formal" fragrances are generally more interesting than "casual" fragrances

    I'm not sure I can define formal, but like differentiating porn from art, I know it when I smell it. Formal scents (at least to me) will tend to smell more natural, not have any sweetness, and tend to be more complex.

  9. #9

    Default Re: Do you believe that "formal" fragrances are generally more interesting than "casual" fragrances

    Formal and casual are simply not terms in which of think of fragrances, and many of the things I like are suitable for any occasion.

    If forced to think of these categories separately, I don't see any general difference in the quality between them. Each has its classics and duds, with neither class offering a greater number of good scents than the other. I certainly don't gravitate more to one than to the other. My wardrobe is eclectic and varied, and I care only about the quality and composition of a fragrance, not of its applicable social use.

    I suspect most here are the same. We just want good scents, and we realize they come in all kinds.
    Rare, vintage, and niche off-site sales.
    Splits: O'driu, La Via del Profumo/AbdesSalaam Attar, Nasomatto, Chanel Les Exclusifs, Profumi del Forte, Mona di Orio, Kurkdjian, Slumberhouse.
    New atomizer and decanting supplies for sale.
    For me a work of fiction exists only insofar as it affords me what I shall bluntly call aesthetic bliss, that is a sense of being somehow, somewhere, connected with other states of being where art (curiosity, tenderness, kindness, ecstasy) is the norm. - Vladimir Nabokov

  10. #10

    Default Re: Do you believe that "formal" fragrances are generally more interesting than "casual" fragrances

    I really have no conception of this as it translates to what I wear. If I was going to some formal event I'd simply wear what I felt like but less of it.

    When I think formal in terms of a fragrance, I think of that's reserved, on the traditional side, and dare I say it... Often boring. Subdued citrus; demure flowers; tamed woods; emasculated herbs. Formal isn't a bad thing per se, but when I call something formal I'm usually saying it's well put together but a bit staid and doesn't take any risks.

    It doesn't have anything to do with age, either. Caron Pour Un Homme, for example, is formal to my nose; Jicky, though much older, is not.

  11. #11

    Default Re: Do you believe that "formal" fragrances are generally more interesting than "casual" fragrances

    I was just thinking the same thing over the last week or so !

  12. #12

    Default Re: Do you believe that "formal" fragrances are generally more interesting than "casual" fragrances

    Quote Originally Posted by Surfacing View Post
    What do you think ? Do you believe that "formal" fragrances are generally more interesting than "casual" fragrances?
    I don't think either group is inherently more interesting or necessarily smells better.

    For me a "formal" scent is one that I feel would work best worn to accent my best efforts at grooming and clothing for a special occasion or event. So it would be a waste to go with something "safe", "inoffensive", or "boring" - on the other hand, a floral chypre like Knize Two, a dry incense like Hinoki, or something calculatedly outre' like Ma Griffe works well.


    "Casual" is a bit more difficult to choose for, as the whole point is that one isn't putting unnecessary effort in, and there might end up being some sweat and dirt involved. I've had decent results with English Leather and English Leather Musk, CdG Sequoia, Yatagan, Aelopile. Surprisingly, CdG Tar doesn't stay as fugly on a warm day as the name would imply, and l'Heure Bleue survives yard work better than many more traditionally "casual" and "masculine" scents.


    Betwixt and between, it all depends on my mood and what shirt I'm wearing for the day. If I find myself overthinking my choice, there's always Knize Ten.

  13. #13

    Default Re: Do you believe that "formal" fragrances are generally more interesting than "casual" fragrances

    I think of formal fragrances as ones that are more traditional, but opulent. Van Cleef & Arpels first men's fragrance comes to mind. A formal fragrance should be like formal dress, a black tuxedo for example: simple, yet forceful.
    For me, a casual fragrance would be something uncluttered and natural, like a neroli in the summer or a hippie amber in the cooler months.
    But, ultimately, I love to mix it up. Van Cleef & Arpels poolside is very cool. Neroli Portofino at a black tie event is nice and sexes it up a bit.
    I guess my answer to your question is no, all fragrances are different.
    Last edited by Kevin Guyer; 29th May 2010 at 05:48 AM.

  14. #14

    Default Re: Do you believe that "formal" fragrances are generally more interesting than "casual" fragrances

    For me, the key question is, does any one type of fragrance represent the "height" of "perfume art?" We'll put aside fragrances that are clearly "feminine" because a lot of guys won't wear them, except perhaps in private. I am leaning in the direction of "yes," and such frags must have:

    1. Many notes, especially ones that have some "contrast."
    2. At least fairly good note articulation (meaning you can smell most of those notes, though perhaps not entirely clearly).
    3. Development over time (which leaves out many orientals).
    4. Naturalness (or lack of "synthetic" qualities, whichever you like).
    5. Technical adequacy (longevity and sillage).

    If you think of frags this way, the "winners" are the "formal" frags, such as Oscar Pour Lui or Acteur, but also Cumming the Fragrance (is it a "formal" frag?). Of course, sometimes you want a simple frag, perhaps because you want to smell specific notes, and you don't want contrast. Or it could be for "social" reasons. But the question was about whether formal frags are more interesting, not the most pleasant or whatever.
    Last edited by Bigsly; 29th May 2010 at 04:36 AM.

  15. #15

    Default Re: Do you believe that "formal" fragrances are generally more interesting than "casual" fragrances

    Quote Originally Posted by Bigsly View Post
    For me, the key question is, does any one type of fragrance represent the "height" of "perfume art?" We'll put aside fragrances that are clearly "feminine" because a lot of guys won't wear them, except perhaps in private. I am leaning in the direction of "yes," and such frags must have:

    1. Many notes, especially ones that have some "contrast."
    2. At least fairly good note articulation (meaning you can smell most of those notes, though perhaps not entirely clearly).
    3. Development over time (which leaves out many orientals).
    4. Naturalness (or lack of "synthetic" qualities, whichever you like).
    5. Technical adequacy (longevity and sillage).

    If you think of frags this way, the "winners" are the "formal" frags, such as Oscar Pour Lui or Acteur, but also Cumming the Fragrance (is it a "formal" frag?). Of course, sometimes you want a simple frag, perhaps because you want to smell specific notes, and you don't want contrast. Or it could be for "social" reasons. But the question was about whether formal frags are more interesting, not the most pleasant or whatever.
    Not for me. I just want it to smell good. (And I want girls to think so too.)

  16. #16

    Default Re: Do you believe that "formal" fragrances are generally more interesting than "casual" fragrances

    Exactly, you are not interested in "interesting." LOL.

  17. #17

    Default Re: Do you believe that "formal" fragrances are generally more interesting than "casual" fragrances

    Quote Originally Posted by Bigsly View Post
    1. Many notes, especially ones that have some "contrast."
    2. At least fairly good note articulation (meaning you can smell most of those notes, though perhaps not entirely clearly).
    3. Development over time (which leaves out many orientals).
    4. Naturalness (or lack of "synthetic" qualities, whichever you like).
    5. Technical adequacy (longevity and sillage).
    I really don't smell these qualities as formal... In fact I'd say bold and interesting contrasts almost preclude a "formal" vibe for my nose.

    I guess it just goes to show the relativity of formality.

  18. #18

    Default Re: Do you believe that "formal" fragrances are generally more interesting than "casual" fragrances

    Quote Originally Posted by Bigsly View Post
    Exactly, you are not interested in "interesting." LOL.
    I think I'm lucky that my fragrance needs are fairly humble.

  19. #19

    Default Re: Do you believe that "formal" fragrances are generally more interesting than "casual" fragrances

    No, I'd say "bold" is too "spiky," and not part of the "formal" idiom here, but that's what makes the formal frag really interesting, that is, you experience notes that contrast but the contrast is subtle.

  20. #20

    Default Re: Do you believe that "formal" fragrances are generally more interesting than "casual" fragrances

    Formal fragrances are more interesting than casual fragrances, like formal clothes are more interesting than casual clothes

    J/K. I think there are interesting and boring fragrances in both categories.

  21. #21

    Default Re: Do you believe that "formal" fragrances are generally more interesting than "casual" fragrances

    I guess that in many ways, the casual fragrances are more prone to being generic and thus the formal ones often startle me much more frequently through their elaborateness and uniqueness

  22. #22

    Default Re: Do you believe that "formal" fragrances are generally more interesting than "casual" fragrances

    Good responses all around.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrFragranceReview View Post
    I... Burberry London and Gucci Pour Homme II and I'd classify those as formal.
    Formal to me is something that isn't too loud, and is typically more dry and woodsy and traditional whereas casual is more laid back and fun. You're obviously not going to wear A*men to a business meeting and you woulnd't really want to wear Bois Du Portugal to college.

    I think it just comes down to what fragrances people tend to lean towards.
    I do agree that it certainly has to do with what fragrances people lean towards. Good point. I once got caught walking behind a man in his late 40s, wearing a black suit, and who was leaving a trail of A*Men. I thought it was odd. Mostly because it was at daytime in a formal "business" setting. Maybe better to wear A*Men on casual Friday .

    And with your examples of Burberry London and Gucci pour Homme II, that would definetly be an example where differing opinions on whether a particular fragrance is formal or not. I find them both casual, but can see why you would feel that they are formal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamid View Post
    Yes i do! But what do you mean of formal?
    when i see casual word, i'm thinking about aquatics or floral fragrances.
    sometimes it's subjective. For example Paco Rabbane XS: Spicy, Floral,... I like to keep it in casual category. but it's warm and spicy enough for being formal.
    I don't always think of casual fragrances equalling aquatics. I think you can include some citrus's or woody amber fragrance's as well. And floral fragrances, to me at least, generally fall into a more formal feel. But, of course, it depends on the particular fragrace. XS is casual, for you and me. Many other florals, like Czech & Speake No 88 or Washington Tremlett Black Tie, fall into the more formal feel. Maybe its a rose thing ? Caron 3rd Man I feel is a bit floral ( but no rose), and also feels formal.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sugandaraja View Post
    ....

    It doesn't have anything to do with age, either. Caron Pour Un Homme, for example, is formal to my nose; Jicky, though much older, is not.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Guyer View Post
    ....
    But, ultimately, I love to mix it up. Van Cleef & Arpels poolside is very cool. Neroli Portofino at a black tie event is nice and sexes it up a bit.
    I guess my answer to your question is no, all fragrances are different.
    Very good examples guys.

    In the past, sometimes my own personal bias has left me to believe that when a fragrance was created before another particular fragrance, it is more formal. The more I had sampled and read have helped combat this.

    And I do love mixing it up. A Van Cleef & Arpels scent in a casual fragrance ? Why the heck not. I really like rose scents at the moment, and because I am more of a casual settings guy, I have little choice but to force them into a casual setting. Unless I don't mind going long periods of time not wearing them.
    Seeking: Bottles/decants : of Feeling Man, Gucci pour Homme, Essence of John Galliano, Nicole Miller (vintage), Opium pour Homme, Oxford & Cambridge...etc.

    Seeking decant/sample of Jil Sander Feeling Man, Cacharel Nemo, Bijan for Men EDC, Lanvin for Men, Giorgio VIP, Il Lancetti and other old school frags ....etc. I have samples to swap.

    More HERE
    Please PM me !

  23. #23
    hednic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    McLean, NYC, & B˙zios
    Posts
    79,204

    Default Re: Do you believe that "formal" fragrances are generally more interesting than "casual" fragrances

    Not at all.

  24. #24
    Point Blank
    Guest

    Default Re: Do you believe that "formal" fragrances are generally more interesting than "casual" fragrances

    I think the division between formal and casual fragrances is quite simple. A formal fragrance lacks any overtly seductive or eccentric elements, which goes along the lines of separating business from pleasure. This does not necessarily mean a boring and impersonal fragrance, with sweetness or certain notes being faux pas. It just means that any seductive or eccentric elements must be treated subtly. It is all about intellectual and cultural power, rather than bodily power. But of course the former brings about imagination of the latter, but it is not in your face. A casual scent, on the other hand, is more raw, carefree, uncomplicated, in the open. Whether a scent is interesting or not, I think, depends on execution rather than category.
    Last edited by Point Blank; 30th May 2010 at 10:10 AM.

  25. #25

    Default Re: Do you believe that "formal" fragrances are generally more interesting than "casual" fragrances

    Yep, IMO they are much more interesting. The "formal" ones smells more luxurious and refined, and I like that! The smell of "high class" is more interesting than a ordinary/everyday scent..

  26. #26

    Default Re: Do you believe that "formal" fragrances are generally more interesting than "casual" fragrances

    I don't know if interesting is the word I would use, but I do prefer more formal, dressy scents no doubt.

    Most of my favorites require a bit of sartorial support. But living in casual SoCal, I've head to break down that wall a bit.
    Last edited by StylinLA; 30th May 2010 at 04:35 PM.

  27. #27

    Default Re: Do you believe that "formal" fragrances are generally more interesting than "casual" fragrances

    I think what surprises me about some of the responses here is with regards to formal fragrances being clean or conservative...etc. I guess I kind of feel that with formal fragrances, you are able to get away with fragrances that are more eccentric or outgoing...etc. It certainly depends on the occasions, of course.
    Seeking: Bottles/decants : of Feeling Man, Gucci pour Homme, Essence of John Galliano, Nicole Miller (vintage), Opium pour Homme, Oxford & Cambridge...etc.

    Seeking decant/sample of Jil Sander Feeling Man, Cacharel Nemo, Bijan for Men EDC, Lanvin for Men, Giorgio VIP, Il Lancetti and other old school frags ....etc. I have samples to swap.

    More HERE
    Please PM me !

  28. #28
    Point Blank
    Guest

    Default Re: Do you believe that "formal" fragrances are generally more interesting than "casual" fragrances

    Quote Originally Posted by Surfacing View Post
    I think what surprises me about some of the responses here is with regards to formal fragrances being clean or conservative...etc. I guess I kind of feel that with formal fragrances, you are able to get away with fragrances that are more eccentric or outgoing...etc. It certainly depends on the occasions, of course.
    That almost seems contradictory to me. A formal event is a event that by definition is strict in terms of clothing, behavior, progression etc. It can be a business meeting , a wedding or a black tie night - the common denominator is that there are certain expectations and rules to follow. You don't wear a bow tie to a business meeting, a white suit to a wedding or a pink shirt at a black tie event. Formal events are ritualistic and everbody is supposed to participate - you are not supposed to play it your own way. Why would a fragrance be any different? You are not supposed to wear something distractingly loud in a business meeting, overtly sexual on a wedding etc.

    How else would you separate formal from casual???

  29. #29

    Default Re: Do you believe that "formal" fragrances are generally more interesting than "casual" fragrances

    Quote Originally Posted by Point Blank View Post
    That almost seems contradictory to me. A formal event is a event that by definition is strict in terms of clothing, behavior, progression etc. It can be a business meeting , a wedding or a black tie night - the common denominator is that there are certain expectations and rules to follow. You don't wear a bow tie to a business meeting, a white suit to a wedding or a pink shirt at a black tie event. Formal events are ritualistic and everbody is supposed to participate - you are not supposed to play it your own way. Why would a fragrance be any different? You are not supposed to wear something distractingly loud in a business meeting, overtly sexual on a wedding etc.

    How else would you separate formal from casual???
    Nothing contradictory here.

    Just because a fragrance is eccentric or unique or even BOLD, does not mean it will be "...distractingly loud..." in a situation. As long as one applies accordingly, it will work fine.

    I'll take your example of a wedding. Yes, everyone is suppose to participate in a certain expected way. However, I think a unique or even "strange" scent will not be inappropriate. Business meeting, that is different. Its formal, but you ( or I ) would not want something too sexual or inappropriate. So I agree with you here.
    Seeking: Bottles/decants : of Feeling Man, Gucci pour Homme, Essence of John Galliano, Nicole Miller (vintage), Opium pour Homme, Oxford & Cambridge...etc.

    Seeking decant/sample of Jil Sander Feeling Man, Cacharel Nemo, Bijan for Men EDC, Lanvin for Men, Giorgio VIP, Il Lancetti and other old school frags ....etc. I have samples to swap.

    More HERE
    Please PM me !

  30. #30

    Default Re: Do you believe that "formal" fragrances are generally more interesting than "casual" fragrances

    Quote Originally Posted by Sugandaraja View Post
    I really have no conception of this as it translates to what I wear. If I was going to some formal event I'd simply wear what I felt like but less of it.

    When I think formal in terms of a fragrance, I think of that's reserved, on the traditional side, and dare I say it... Often boring. Subdued citrus; demure flowers; tamed woods; emasculated herbs. Formal isn't a bad thing per se, but when I call something formal I'm usually saying it's well put together but a bit staid and doesn't take any risks.

    It doesn't have anything to do with age, either. Caron Pour Un Homme, for example, is formal to my nose; Jicky, though much older, is not.
    LOL! "Boring, subdued citrus, emasculated herbs."

    We need to keep in mind that "traditional" gentlemanly scents are often mistaken on these forums. In the early 19th century, (post-Brummell, that is...) "gentlemanly" sometimes meant musk or jasmine with tons of sillage!

    I agree with Suga on this. I do not distinguish the occasion and the scent. I wear what I feel like wearing. I *do* think, however, that "safe" and light scents can be worn for social events.

    The bottom line is wear what you like, be it aquatic, floral, or oriental. Just don't over do it. Smelling like a Parisian maison close of the 19th century while at a weddling or at the theatre is the height of bad taste.
    Last edited by Primrose; 30th May 2010 at 09:12 PM.
    "No sweet perfume ever tortured me more than this." Desert Rose by Sting and Cheb Mami, Album 1999.

  31. #31
    Point Blank
    Guest

    Default Re: Do you believe that "formal" fragrances are generally more interesting than "casual" fragrances

    Quote Originally Posted by Surfacing View Post
    Nothing contradictory here.

    Just because a fragrance is eccentric or unique or even BOLD, does not mean it will be "...distractingly loud..." in a situation. As long as one applies accordingly, it will work fine.

    I'll take your example of a wedding. Yes, everyone is suppose to participate in a certain expected way. However, I think a unique or even "strange" scent will not be inappropriate. Business meeting, that is different. Its formal, but you ( or I ) would not want something too sexual or inappropriate. So I agree with you here.
    But how do you distinguish between formal and casual?

  32. #32
    Point Blank
    Guest

    Default Re: Do you believe that "formal" fragrances are generally more interesting than "casual" fragrances

    If someone shows up with "strange" shoes, like pink suede, on a wedding, it would be considered inappropriate if one sticks to formality (lest it is a casaul affair and not formal). Likewise, a "strange" scent, like Yatagan, is out of place. I cannot see a way around this without redefining what "formal" means... Just claiming that anything is ok, just means that you don't observe formality and that's fine, but I cannot see how it can be formal to wear something "strange". What, then, does "formal" mean...

    I just want to add, as I said before, that I think formal scents can be unique, they just have to be more subtle. And, in a way, that makes them more interesting...

  33. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,306
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default Re: Do you believe that "formal" fragrances are generally more interesting than "casual" fragrances

    I definitely see something like Chanel Pour Monsieur or Gucci Nobile being typical examples of "formal."

    I guess things like Acqua di Gio, Unbound for men, Jovan Sex Appeal, Escape by CK, etc are of "casual" ilk.

    Between the two, the formal stuff wins out for me. But then there are things that fall in-between both categories, like Creed Original Vetiver and Yatagan . . . I'm hard pressed to determine just how formal or casual scents like that actually are. OV seems perfect for weddings; Yatagan is good for autumn cookouts. Even Kouros seems difficult to define that way, as it's too hardcore for me to think of as casual, but too brash to be formal.

  34. #34

    Default Re: Do you believe that "formal" fragrances are generally more interesting than "casual" fragrances

    Quote Originally Posted by Point Blank View Post
    If someone shows up with "strange" shoes, like pink suede, on a wedding, it would be considered inappropriate if one sticks to formality (lest it is a casaul affair and not formal). Likewise, a "strange" scent, like Yatagan, is out of place. I cannot see a way around this without redefining what "formal" means... Just claiming that anything is ok, just means that you don't observe formality and that's fine, but I cannot see how it can be formal to wear something "strange". What, then, does "formal" mean...

    I just want to add, as I said before, that I think formal scents can be unique, they just have to be more subtle. And, in a way, that makes them more interesting...
    Yeah, it is tough to distinguish between formal and casual. I guess it is based on opinion to a certain extent. Some guys may feel that Armani Code is a scent that has a formal feel to it. Because of where I smell it and who I smell it on ( including myself in the past), it comes across as a casual scent. There are other reasons why I find it casual as well.

    I was thinking about Serge Lutens Ambre Sultan. I'm not sure if you have sampling this one before, but I think it is a good example. Because it comes across as spicy in a way that may not suit jeans or casual wear. Its a bold scent with a identity of its own. So, with that all in mind, I feel that Ambre Sultan is more of a formal scent. Something you could wear in the evening while one is more dressed up. Doesn't have to be a "black tie" event. But just somewhere you would be expected to present yourself well.

    Also, I feel like men can get away more with floral fragrances when they are dressed up a bit more. Just my opinion, though.
    Last edited by Surfacing; 30th May 2010 at 11:41 PM.
    Seeking: Bottles/decants : of Feeling Man, Gucci pour Homme, Essence of John Galliano, Nicole Miller (vintage), Opium pour Homme, Oxford & Cambridge...etc.

    Seeking decant/sample of Jil Sander Feeling Man, Cacharel Nemo, Bijan for Men EDC, Lanvin for Men, Giorgio VIP, Il Lancetti and other old school frags ....etc. I have samples to swap.

    More HERE
    Please PM me !

  35. #35

    Cool Re: Do you believe that "formal" fragrances are generally more interesting than "casual" fragrances

    Quote Originally Posted by StylinLA View Post
    I don't know if interesting is the word I would use, but I do prefer more formal, dressy scents no doubt.

    Most of my favorites require a bit of sartorial support. But living in casual SoCal, I've head to break down that wall a bit.
    +1

    Quote Originally Posted by Primrose View Post
    LOL! "Boring, subdued citrus, emasculated herbs."

    We need to keep in mind that "traditional" gentlemanly scents are often mistaken on these forums. In the early 19th century, (post-Brummell, that is...) "gentlemanly" sometimes meant musk or jasmine with tons of sillage!

    I agree with Suga on this. I do not distinguish the occasion and the scent. I wear what I feel like wearing. I *do* think, however, that "safe" and light scents can be worn for social events.

    The bottom line is wear what you like, be it aquatic, floral, or oriental. Just don't over do it. Smelling like a Parisian maison close of the 19th century while at a weddling or at the theatre is the height of bad taste.
    And to add to the confusion, it would seem that it's easier to categorize 19th or early 20th century women's scents--I can't imagine a woman wearing a heavy oriental, albeit a great one, like Guerlian's L'Heure Bleue (1912) to an informal occasion but I'm ignorant of the men's early 19th century scents with jasmine or musk--Primrose, any help on this? I assume that since B. Brummell kicked the bucket in 1840 you meant scents after his death to 1889? Or pre-1840 when Brummell had lost sway over fashion, or--I dunno.

    It's all I can manage to remember that 4711 was not made in 4,711 B.C. at a laboratory in Atlantis.

    (if I'm mistaken, then no wonder Atlantis sank!)

    Dazed and Confused,

    Mario
    My Wardrobe

    Reviews: http://www.basenotes.net/reviews/30

    Absinthe makes the heart grow fonder.

    My Antaeus can beat up your Armani.

  36. #36
    Point Blank
    Guest

    Default Re: Do you believe that "formal" fragrances are generally more interesting than "casual" fragrances

    Quote Originally Posted by Surfacing View Post
    Yeah, it is tough to distinguish between formal and casual. I guess it is based on opinion to a certain extent. Some guys may feel that Armani Code is a scent that has a formal feel to it. Because of where I smell it and who I smell it on ( including myself in the past), it comes across as a casual scent. There are other reasons why I find it casual as well.

    I was thinking about Serge Lutens Ambre Sultan. I'm not sure if you have sampling this one before, but I think it is a good example. Because it comes across as spicy in a way that may not suit jeans or casual wear. Its a bold scent with a identity of its own. So, with that all in mind, I feel that Ambre Sultan is more of a formal scent. Something you could wear in the evening while one is more dressed up. Doesn't have to be a "black tie" event. But just somewhere you would be expected to present yourself well.

    Also, I feel like men can get away more with floral fragrances when they are dressed up a bit more. Just my opinion, though.
    Perhaps the question is obscured by the fact that people associate "casual" with both "informal" and "laidback"? It does not seem like a loud or strange or seductive or eccentric fragrance really fit a formal setting, on one hand, but neither does it seem to go well with being laidback, on the other. Perhaps, it's better to make a distinction between formal and informal, where conservative scents belong to the former. And then divide informal into casual and extravagant? The former being a walk in the park, the latter being nightclubbing. This division would place conservative fragrances in the formal category, eccentric/seductive in the extravagant, and aquatics and alike in the casual category.

    In any case, at the end of the day, I think you are right. People judge scents by association. So, since everybody is using Code as an everyday cologne it will not strike anyone as particularly formal, no matter its inherent qualities. In general, I think you can get away with most things in formal and informal settings alike, because people are not that exacting about scents if they are even aware of what the decorum is. Personally, however, I would feel much more comfortable at a formal event with a conservative scent, for the same reason it feel better about fitting shoes for the occasion. If the scent or shoes have a subtle twist Id feel even better

  37. #37

    Default Re: Do you believe that "formal" fragrances are generally more interesting than "casual" fragrances

    Quote Originally Posted by Mario Justiniani View Post
    +1



    And to add to the confusion, it would seem that it's easier to categorize 19th or early 20th century women's scents--I can't imagine a woman wearing a heavy oriental, albeit a great one, like Guerlian's L'Heure Bleue (1912) to an informal occasion but I'm ignorant of the men's early 19th century scents with jasmine or musk--Primrose, any help on this? I assume that since B. Brummell kicked the bucket in 1840 you meant scents after his death to 1889? Or pre-1840 when Brummell had lost sway over fashion, or--I dunno.

    It's all I can manage to remember that 4711 was not made in 4,711 B.C. at a laboratory in Atlantis.

    (if I'm mistaken, then no wonder Atlantis sank!)

    Dazed and Confused,

    Mario
    Mario, Beau Brummell and the Comte d'Orsay were the polar opposite of both tailor and scent-wearing. Brummell was austere in colour and cut and hated scent of any kind, insisting that bathing and clean linen was enough to make a man a gentleman. (Bathing was a costly and intensive activity in the days before running water.)

    The Comte d'Orsay, on the other hand, was more colourful in dress and less austere in clothing--he thought nothing of accentuating the curves of his athletic physique with the lines of his lapels and skin-tight trousers. He also was quite fond of eau de Cologne and eau de jasmin.

    Yes, Brummell died in 1840, having fled London in 1815 or so. The Comte's fashion trend-setting in Europe started in the late 1820s until the 1840s. I recall something of the Empress Josephine, consort of Napoleon I, being fond of musk scents.

    EDIT: As Guerlain had their originals in 1828, and had a storefront in a hotel catering to English visitors, we can presume the English as well as the French were using scent by this time; we need to keep in mind there were no gender differences at this time. (The Comte, his wife and mother-in-law all used orange flower water.)
    Last edited by Primrose; 31st May 2010 at 10:05 PM.
    "No sweet perfume ever tortured me more than this." Desert Rose by Sting and Cheb Mami, Album 1999.

  38. #38

    Default Re: Do you believe that "formal" fragrances are generally more interesting than "casual" fragrances

    Quote Originally Posted by Point Blank View Post
    Perhaps the question is obscured by the fact that people associate "casual" with both "informal" and "laidback"? It does not seem like a loud or strange or seductive or eccentric fragrance really fit a formal setting, on one hand, but neither does it seem to go well with being laidback, on the other. Perhaps, it's better to make a distinction between formal and informal, where conservative scents belong to the former. And then divide informal into casual and extravagant? The former being a walk in the park, the latter being nightclubbing. This division would place conservative fragrances in the formal category, eccentric/seductive in the extravagant, and aquatics and alike in the casual category.
    I think you really hit the nail on the head about there being a wide gap between formal and casual where a lot of fragrances fall in mood. Using my own favorite as an example, Tubereuse Criminelle is way too out-there and brash for formality, yet also too unusual and "difficult" to be considered casual. I think Yatagan, mentioned earlier in the thread, also fits in this space - if it's not a night at the opera scent, it's certainly not going to remind many of a pool party.

  39. #39

    Thumbs up Re: Do you believe that "formal" fragrances are generally more interesting than "casual" fragrances

    Quote Originally Posted by Point Blank View Post
    Perhaps the question is obscured by the fact that people associate "casual" with both "informal" and "laidback"? It does not seem like a loud or strange or seductive or eccentric fragrance really fit a formal setting, on one hand, but neither does it seem to go well with being laidback, on the other. Perhaps, it's better to make a distinction between formal and informal, where conservative scents belong to the former. And then divide informal into casual and extravagant? The former being a walk in the park, the latter being nightclubbing. This division would place conservative fragrances in the formal category, eccentric/seductive in the extravagant, and aquatics and alike in the casual category.

    In any case, at the end of the day, I think you are right. People judge scents by association. So, since everybody is using Code as an everyday cologne it will not strike anyone as particularly formal, no matter its inherent qualities. In general, I think you can get away with most things in formal and informal settings alike, because people are not that exacting about scents if they are even aware of what the decorum is. Personally, however, I would feel much more comfortable at a formal event with a conservative scent, for the same reason it feel better about fitting shoes for the occasion. If the scent or shoes have a subtle twist Id feel even better
    Quote Originally Posted by Sugandaraja View Post
    I think you really hit the nail on the head about there being a wide gap between formal and casual where a lot of fragrances fall in mood. Using my own favorite as an example, Tubereuse Criminelle is way too out-there and brash for formality, yet also too unusual and "difficult" to be considered casual. I think Yatagan, mentioned earlier in the thread, also fits in this space - if it's not a night at the opera scent, it's certainly not going to remind many of a pool party.
    Very good points guys !
    Seeking: Bottles/decants : of Feeling Man, Gucci pour Homme, Essence of John Galliano, Nicole Miller (vintage), Opium pour Homme, Oxford & Cambridge...etc.

    Seeking decant/sample of Jil Sander Feeling Man, Cacharel Nemo, Bijan for Men EDC, Lanvin for Men, Giorgio VIP, Il Lancetti and other old school frags ....etc. I have samples to swap.

    More HERE
    Please PM me !

  40. #40
    N_Tesla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Center of the Universe; California.
    Posts
    4,599
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Do you believe that "formal" fragrances are generally more interesting than "casual" fragrances

    While I enjoy formal scents there is a time and a place for casuals as well. One does not have to drive the Rolls to the store to get a loaf of bread and a gallon of milk. Besides it is difficult to find a parking place where you don't have to worry about someone scratching the paint when they open their car door.

  41. #41

    Default Re: Do you believe that "formal" fragrances are generally more interesting than "casual" fragrances

    I don't really distinguish one fragrance from another in terms of formal and casual. I'll just wear whatever seems to fit with the situation
    ôLove is when a girl puts on perfume and a boy puts on shaving cologne and they go out and smell each other.ö
    Karl, age 5

    Swapping
    Selling
    Seeking

  42. #42

    Default Re: Do you believe that "formal" fragrances are generally more interesting than "casual" fragrances

    Yes........I find that those fragrances in my wardrobe which I consider to be "formal" are indeed more complex and refined than my "casual" fragrances.

  43. #43

    Default Re: Do you believe that "formal" fragrances are generally more interesting than "casual" fragrances

    Quote Originally Posted by Point Blank View Post
    How else would you separate formal from casual???
    Does the invitation say "RSVP requested" or "how does pizza sound?"

  44. #44
    Point Blank
    Guest

    Default Re: Do you believe that "formal" fragrances are generally more interesting than "casual" fragrances

    Quote Originally Posted by Hob Dobson View Post
    Does the invitation say "RSVP requested" or "how does pizza sound?"
    You need to read the invitation?? I can tell by the choice of envelope - if it is black with letters printed in silver it is a formal event.

Similar Threads

  1. "Dupe oils" aka "imposter designer fragrances"... any sources to recommend?
    By TaoLady in forum Female Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 14th February 2010, 01:48 PM
  2. Interesting article on "Endangered Fragrances"
    By SlimPickins in forum Male Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 18th April 2009, 07:19 PM
  3. A "summery" fragrance for someone who loves "wintery" fragrances
    By rem_dreams in forum Just Starting Out
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 18th February 2009, 04:02 PM
  4. Obsessed with "formal" fragrances
    By Ged in forum Male Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 6th May 2006, 12:34 PM
  5. Obsessed with "formal" fragrances
    By in forum Male Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 1st January 1970, 01:00 AM

Posting Permissions

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