Did Turin really "blow it" ? The Greatness of the 80s !

[Bigsly]

LT calls them "foghorns." So what? Just use less! The question, it seems to me, is: were the heights of the "masculine" designer frag attained in the 1980s? Just search the BN directory for masculine frags that were first marketed between 1985 and 1990, for example. And that won't even turn up JHL or Oscar Pour Lui, which came out earlier in the decade! Havana was a bit late to the party, but that's still more than 15 years ago (1994). So why didn't LT notice this? Instead, he complained about how pathetic masculine frags are (and have been, historically), dismissing the 1980s with the proverbial wave of the hand! I've been exploring these frags over the last couple of months, and I am quite impressed with these frags: the naturalism, the construction, the balance, the dynamism, etc. And of course the sillage and longevity are usually outstanding. But there's another very important point: they are quite diverse too, that is, not all of them are "lavender bombs." And even those with large amounts of lavender up top often have a drydown where the lavender fades into the background, or is hardly detectable any more. Thoughts ?

[N_Tesla]

In general I have to agree with Turin that men's fragrances have, at least in the past, been "pathetic" creations compared to the quality of ingredients and care in balancing fragrances marketed toward women. Notice I said in general as there are some very good fragrances pour homme out there. The vast majority of purchasers has been women so competition for sales prompted better quality scents. The tide is now turning to some extent as the appreciation of fragrance by men is becoming more sophisticated and fragrance gender barriers are beginning to dissolve. There is a much higher rate of crossover purchases for classic fragrances that, though marketed to women, are perfectly appropriate for men. Mens fragrances are getting better but the movement toward unisex fragrances is inexorably making progress.

[Bigsly]

Well, I have quite a few "women's" frags now, including some "classics," and I don't find them to be all that interesting, especially when compared to some of the 80s "men's" frags. In particular, there are rarely any "gutsy" notes in the base, other than in chypres, of course, which basically have "unisex" drydowns anyway. And even with chypres, I prefer Pheromone for men by Miglin to Mitsouko, Bandit, etc. What impresses me the most about many 80s "men's" frags is how they can have so many notes, remain "legible," be "natural," etc., along with having "gutsy" base notes. Expensive "niche" frags are boring to me, by comparison, as well. The only thing that comes close that was made recently is Cumming the Fragrance, though of course there are plenty I have yet to try, unless you include Michael for Men, though I think that is a bit lacking in the "naturalness" department.

[DustB]

If the subject is the high-grade of 1980s scent creations, you betcha, I'm in full and complete agreement about their value! Bring them on and bring them back, oh yeah! JHL, I'm glad you call out, Bigsly, is what Zeus wears. Quorum? Mars wears that. Apollo wears Kouros. Hephaestus wears Aramis. Fahrenheit is on Hermes/Mercury. Amazing stuff all. The guts on these and the other 80s big-vision scents are wonderfully out there, Bigsly, and I'm entirely with you.

As to LT's judgment, that's less important to me. Some things don't work for him I guess. No loss.

[Bigsly]

LT seems to think that such frags were "neither here nor there" (I think he called them lungfish) or basically "women's" frags with some lavender up top to make them seem "masculine" (like Heritage). I may agree with his assessment of frags like Heritage, but what about a frag like Montana Parfum d'Homme? My guess is that for some reason he found them to violate an unwritten rule of perfumery. Otherwise, I can't understand why "men's" frag get such "bad press" in his "Guide" book, with so many of these frags not discussed (or not discussed positively). Does anyone disagree with me that LT gives the reader a sense that "men's" frags are quite unappealing, with just a few exceptions, in that book?

[Zizanioides]

Doesn't Turin give a lot of top marks to the powerhouse fragrances from the 70s and 80s?

[Bigsly]

Well, there's a difference, IMO, between frags that are simpler than the ones I'm talking about. Antaeus, for example, might be a "powerhouse," but it's not as complex. My point is that getting all those notes to work well together and remain legible, smell "natural," have good dynamism, etc., is quite an accomplishment, one which he simply never acknowledged. If I were to write a fragrance guide of some sort, these kinds of frags might be the "stars of the show," rather than frags like Mitsouko, which might be important for the development of "modern" frags, but I can't consider as being on the same level of accomplishment (though if you want to argue that these were necessary "stepping stone" frags, I would not disagree).

[SculptureOfSoul]

Just a quick interjection: I don't think there is any direct correlation between the listed number of notes and the complexity of the fragrance. I am sure that there are any number of cases where fragrances with less listed notes actually utilize more chemicals/notes than those with more listed notes.

I always found it funny that people thought Antidote was complex simply because of the notes list. I mean, one scent might list "amber" in the base, while the other might list every note that goes into the amber accord "opoponax, myrrh, benzoin, patchouli, vanilla, tolu balsam, etc." The one that merely lists amber may actually have a far more complex amber accord. Who knows? This can be true of any and all notes. "Carnation" as a note, may be a combination of many things, and may not feature any carnation absolute at all. I remember Scentophile stating that there was one highly regarded vetiver fragrance that doesn't use any vetiver at all.

[Bigsly]

That's why I used the term "legible," in reference to the many notes.

[petruccijc]

I don't really care what LT likes or dislikes. I love many things about the 80s, including men's fragrances - much better than the long list of "anti-fragrances" that followed.

[DustB]

Well, there's a difference, IMO, between frags that are simpler than the ones I'm talking about. Antaeus, for example, might be a "powerhouse," but it's not as complex. My point is that getting all those notes to work well together and remain legible, smell "natural," have good dynamism, etc., is quite an accomplishment, one which he simply never acknowledged. If I were to write a fragrance guide of some sort, these kinds of frags might be the "stars of the show," rather than frags like Mitsouko, which might be important for the development of "modern" frags, but I can't consider as being on the same level of accomplishment (though if you want to argue that these were necessary "stepping stone" frags, I would not disagree).

Bigsly, I think you're an interesting critic and I think your guidebook of fragrance reviews and criticism will be very interesting.

[perfaddict]

If the subject is the high-grade of 1980s scent creations, you betcha, I'm in full and complete agreement about their value! Bring them on and bring them back, oh yeah! JHL, I'm glad you call out, Bigsly, is what Zeus wears. Quorum? Mars wears that. Apollo wears Kouros. Hephaestus wears Aramis. Fahrenheit is on Hermes/Mercury. Amazing stuff all. The guts on these and the other 80s big-vision scents are wonderfully out there, Bigsly, and I'm entirely with you.

As to LT's judgment, that's less important to me. Some things don't work for him I guess. No loss.

Very wise words!

The thing with opinions such as Turin's is that while they may have "authority" they are not neccessarily always correct.

Personally, the 80s was the zenith of men's mainstream frags. And my nose is still stuck in the 80s

[adonis]

LT is really good at pushing buttons. At the end of the day, he's just a another guy with an opinion.

[subhuman85]

Yeah, I thought Turin had lots of love for big '80s scents like Azzaro, Aramis Tuscany, and the original Fahrenheit, among others, not to mention the feminine equivalents (Poison, Opium, Angel, etc). All scored high marks in the Guide.

I find nothing wrong with such "foghorns", precisely because you can play with the volume, something impossible to achieve with the sheer, watery concoctions of the mid/late-'90s (and beyond). An inherently loud scent like Angel or Drakkar Noir becomes more subdued and intriguing when dialed down. Spray on more L'Eau d'Issey or Light Blue, on the other hand, and you'll just smell like an alcoholic lemon popsicle soaked in Febreze. It's like trying to lighten an underexposed photo: If you've got little to work with, you just end up emphasizing all the sharp edges and noisy haze, and the final image is a wash. But darken a properly exposed photo, one with a lot of contrasts, and you get a more subtle, but still clear, impression.

[Derbyman]

I find nothing wrong with such "foghorns", precisely because you can play with the volume, something impossible to achieve with the sheer, watery concoctions of the mid/late-'90s (and beyond). An inherently loud scent like Angel or Drakkar Noir becomes more subdued and intriguing when dialed down. Spray on more L'Eau d'Issey or Light Blue, on the other hand, and you'll just smell like an alcoholic lemon popsicle soaked in Febreze. It's like trying to lighten an underexposed photo: If you've got little to work with, you just end up emphasizing all the sharp edges and noisy haze, and the final image is a wash. But darken a properly exposed photo, one with a lot of contrasts, and you get a more subtle, but still clear, impression.

Exactly! The trick with all the 'powerhouse' fragrances is careful application - the negative image I held of some of these fragrances were from experiencing over-application on others when they were at the height of popularity. For example YSL Kouros (which I now regard as a masterpiece) could be smelled regularly in many UK pubs & nightclubs but almost always the wearer had doused himself in the stuff to the point of being a walking olfactory weapon! It took me many years to leave this association behind and learn to re-appreciate these fine fragrances which when applied in keeping with their strength are nothing short of magical.

[great_badir]

I'm sat on the fence and can neither agree nor disagree with LT - I think the 80s represents both the best and the worst of male fragdom (yes, even when comparing the slew of aquatics in the 90s and 00s and all those "classic" frags from the first half of the 20th century that most people wish were still around). Lots of excessive pongy powerhouses lacking the restraint of their 60s and 70s counterparts (I'm looking at you, Boss No. 1), much like the decade in general, but also lots of really interesting invention thanks to the (then) new ease of transporting raw materials around the globe before restrictions and bans started creeping in in the 90s.

[Kevin Guyer]

Yeah, I thought Turin had lots of love for big '80s scents like Azzaro, Aramis Tuscany, and the original Fahrenheit, among others, not to mention the feminine equivalents (Poison, Opium, Angel, etc). All scored high marks in the Guide.

Agree.

[pourhomme]

farenheit got 2 stars. he liked kouros, versace l'homme, antaues, krizia uomo, dior jules and just a few more. i wish he'd review more older frags that are still available rather than just the new ones the companies sent to him. i think he likes pre 70's perfumery more. but it's all so subjective. i noticed he really likes lavender. what if that's not your favorite note for fresh perfumes? vetiver the best note for woodies?

[Sugandaraja]

I find both men's AND women's scents of the '80s to early '90s ( there is some overlap during that time ) to be in general richer, more complex, and often more natural-smelling that what designers offer today. Some of my favorite genres, for example the dark feminine chypres ( things like Ungaro Diva, L'Arte di Gucci, and Rose de Nuit ) were truly products of the era, infrequently found before and almost never found after.

That being said, there is some truth to the fact that men's releases were often modified variants of women's fragrances. Smell Aramis 900 and Aromatics Elixir for probably the best example of that I can think of.

[AromiErotici]

Bottom line is that, if YOU LIKE the creations from this era ( I truly do), then that's all that matters. I'm as opinionated as Turin, so I can't fault him there. He likes what he likes. We don't have to agree or disagree with him.

I think masculines will come full circle again, but through the niche houses who seem to have less constraints than their designer counterparts.

[Advocate]

I thought that it was about time for another "Hey guys, isn't Luca Turin an idiot?" thread from Bigsly.

As previous posters have already noted, with specific examples, Turin did not "blow it" regarding 1980s fragrances.

[Primrose]

I don't really care what LT likes or dislikes. I love many things about the 80s, including men's fragrances - much better than the long list of "anti-fragrances" that followed.

JC, I agree. Luca Turin is great at reviewing, but we all need to keep in mind that enjoyment of scent is like the enjoyment of food, wine or art. What someone adores, another abhors.

How many times have we discarded a bottle scent to a relative of friend who was enraptured?

[Bigsly]

I think most of the "non-expert" (non-BN fanatic) crowd gets the impression from the book that aside from a few exception, the 80s were not a good decade for "men's" designer frags, whereas my experience leads me to conclude that the opposite is the case. This is my main point. You can agree or disagree with it. However, if you agree, I think the next logical step is to think that LT made a rather big and incomprehensible error, even if it is just that he doesn't spray less when he tries these frags. It would be nice if he posted here and clarified his position. I really don't care about "showing anyone up," but rather I know he has tremendous knowledge on his subject and I'd just like an explanation.

[Kevin Guyer]

Some perspective is needed: The 80s - 10 years out of the roughly 120 that modern perfumery has existed. As Haircut 100 sang in the 80s: ay yay, yay, yay, yah!
Honestly, I don't think the 80's fragrance mentality ever really went away. Aquatics began in the 80s - New West, Cool Water, they're certainly still with us.
And the big and loud aesthetic certainly lives on in many of the creations of Maurice Roucel. His Insolence and Lalique pour Homme are quintessential big 80s fragrances, created after the fact.
There were some good fragrances from the 80s, just like any other decade.
Turin doesn't single them out for hate or ignore them in The Guide. BTW: Aramis came out in 1965.

[pluran]

We know a different Luca Turin.

From The Guide - Not all 80's but close enough. The word "powerhouses" is highly subjective.

Numbers indicate star ratings:

Yatagan - 5
Kouros - 5
Azzaro pour Homme - 5
Or Black - 5
Jules - 4
Lauder for Men - 4
Paco Rabanne pour Homme - 4
Rive Gauche pour Homme - 4
Bel Ami - 4
Krizia Uomo - 4
Halston Z-14 - 4
Polo - 4
I can't remember them all right now....

From various Turin reviews in the 90's:

Balenciaga pour Homme - 4
Havana - 4
Montana Parfum d'Homme - 4
Givenchy Gentleman in its original formulation - 4
Oscar de la Renta pour Lui - 4
Ungaro 1 - 4
JHL - 4
Zino Davidoff - 4
Ted Lapidus pour Homme (1979) - 4
Van Cleef & Arpels pour Homme - 4
Leonard pour Homme - 4
More when I think of them....................

[Zizanioides]

I think most of the "non-expert" (non-BN fanatic) crowd gets the impression from the book that aside from a few exception, the 80s were not a good decade for "men's" designer frags, whereas my experience leads me to conclude that the opposite is the case. This is my main point. You can agree or disagree with it. However, if you agree, I think the next logical step is to think that LT made a rather big and incomprehensible error, even if it is just that he doesn't spray less when he tries these frags. It would be nice if he posted here and clarified his position. I really don't care about "showing anyone up," but rather I know he has tremendous knowledge on his subject and I'd just like an explanation.

The book left me with the impression that the 90's were the beginning of weak and bloodless masculines.

[MOONB]

We know a different Luca Turin.

From The Guide - Not all 80's but close enough. The word "powerhouses" is highly subjective.

Numbers indicate star ratings:

Yatagan - 5
Kouros - 5
Azzaro pour Homme - 5
Or Black - 5
Jules - 4
Lauder for Men - 4
Paco Rabanne pour Homme - 4
Rive Gauche pour Homme - 4
Bel Ami - 4
Krizia Uomo - 4
Halston Z-14 - 4
Polo - 4
I can't remember them all right now....

From various Turin reviews in the 90's:

Balenciaga pour Homme - 4
Havana - 4
Montana Parfum d'Homme - 4
Givenchy Gentleman in its original formulation - 4
Oscar de la Renta pour Lui - 4
Ungaro 1 - 4
JHL - 4
Zino Davidoff - 4
Ted Lapidus pour Homme (1979) - 4
Van Cleef & Arpels pour Homme - 4
Leonard pour Homme - 4
More when I think of them....................

Grey Flannel was considered "a masterpiece" in The Guide.

Tania Sanchez seems to think Jovan Sex Appeal warrants 4 stars. WTF???

[Sugandaraja]

Tania Sanchez seems to think Jovan Sex Appeal warrants 4 stars. WTF???

Funny thing is, I bought this with no expectations - in fact negative ones; I thought it would be trash - and found it very enjoyable.

[MOONB]

Funny thing is, I bought this with no expectations - in fact negative ones; I thought it would be trash - and found it very enjoyable.

Yeah it's not a bad scent, but I find it strange that the fragrance made it that far in the ranking. Although she does sort of disparage it by likening it to something cheesy guys would wear . . . like she's nostalgic for the brash cheesiness of the past more than she actually likes the scent itself. Huh. Weird. What does one take from that I wonder? Like, this is a scent you should buy because it's the best of the "cheesy" men's colognes?

[AromiErotici]

I guess we can chalk one up for the masculine cheese.

[shamu1]

Being a fan of both classic scents and the powerhouse style macho frags, I can understand where Turin is coming from, even though I don't agree with him. I think it's pretty simple - he's a classic scent guy, and not a big fan of super-heavy fragrances. Particularly, he seems to be a big fan of classic chypres. The 80s re-defined what a men's chypre was: no longer was Chanel Pour Monsieur acceptable - the chypre structure in the 80s needed to have a megaton of oakmoss along with enough patchouli to kill off every moth within 5 miles. For someone like Turin who was used to stuff like Chanel PM, the 80s powerhouse must have seemed like an abomination. Personally, I love those old power scents, but I can understand where he's coming from. Plus, he was probably around guys who bathed themselves in Fendi Uomo back in the 80s.

The problem I have with Turin's position is that he implies that most 80s-style frags were of poor quality and lacked artistry. I don't agree at all with that. Sure, after a while the powerhouse frags seemed to duplicate one another (patchouli - leather - oakmoss), but that doesn't mean they were of poor quality.

[Kevin Guyer]

Funny thing is, I bought this with no expectations - in fact negative ones; I thought it would be trash - and found it very enjoyable.

What a coincidence that Sex Appeal is being discussed now, I actually tried it again on Wednesday and I found it to be quite wonderful. There is a point in the drydown where I thought I was wearing Jicky and then it morphed into Ambre Sultan. Stetson and Chaps are always called the drugstore masculine masterpieces, I'm not a big fan of either, but Sex Appeal really delivers the goods. An easy ****, IMHO.

[Bigsly]

I agree with shamu1. LT seems to like classic colognes, chypres, and the women's classics especially. He also likes simple lavender frags. And that is what I was getting at: he seems to think the 80s frags are too complicated or something, whereas I view them (the "power frags") as an incredible achievement, because there were a lot of contrasting notes, with good legibility and naturalness (the many "good ones," of course, though not all were). So it sounds like a "generational thing." As to the ratings, few casual readers are going to add them up. However, the essays at the front of the book, along with comments about "foghorns," "lungfish," etc., in some of the reviews, give that reader the impression that there are a few "good" men's frags here and there, but that women's frags are generally much "better." I disagree because the power frags were able to incorporate much more than any of the women's frags (again, because there are a lot of notes, the notes contrast well, they are legible, and there is an overall "natural" feel), now or in the past. The only major exception is the chypre, but that is really a unisex drydown (and at least for me, the chypre is somewhat boring and can only be worn every couple of weeks anyway).

[granola357]

Turin made a good point: a lot of 1980's fragrances are very, very strong. That doesn't necessarily mean that they were "bad," as others pointed out, and it doesn't mean that there weren't "quieter" fragrances in the 1980's but he did capture one trend of the decade, much as the 1990's gave us a lot of calone-based fragrances and now we're in fruity-floral land.

I think another point Turin was making was that in the 1980's men's fragrances were mostly fougères; unlike women's fragrances, many of the 1980's men's fragrances stuck to that particular category. So part of his critique was the lack of range available to men as opposed to women. It does seem to be generally true to me that innovation in perfumery tends to be in women's or unisex rather than men's perfumes.

[Bigsly]

I don't agree. Instead, I got the impression that many were basically women's orientals that were changed just a bit so that they could be marketed to men (perhaps true for JHL but not the majority). You may be right that LT thought this, though, because he may have just taken a quick sniff on paper, as many of these frags do have a fougere-like opening, but then change significantly (quite a few go into sweet leather, with oakmoss, patchouli, etc., after a complex middle with floral notes, for example). I'm finding the range to be excellent rather than narrow, actually, now that I can tolerate the strong lavender top notes, which are common. As I said, if LT could jump in here and clarify, that would be great.

[shamu1]

I always thought fougeres were more of a 70s thing, not an 80s thing. I think of the 80s as the era of the men's Power Chypre.

[Diamondflame]

If you regard fragrances as wearable accessories, you'll realise what the 80's & early '90s stood for: big hair, shoulder pads, baggy pleated trousers, double breasted boxy suits. Cue Joan Collins in Dynasty. Now that slimmer profiles are in vogue, is it any wonder that many of the new releases are lighter and sheer?

[pourhomme]

And the big and loud aesthetic certainly lives on in many of the creations of Maurice Roucel. His Insolence and Lalique pour Homme are quintessential big 80s fragrances, created after the fact.

are villoresi stuff powerhouses too? he also doesn't like them.

From various Turin reviews in the 90's:

Balenciaga pour Homme - 4
Havana - 4
Montana Parfum d'Homme - 4
Givenchy Gentleman in its original formulation - 4
Oscar de la Renta pour Lui - 4
Ungaro 1 - 4
JHL - 4
Zino Davidoff - 4
Ted Lapidus pour Homme (1979) - 4
Van Cleef & Arpels pour Homme - 4
Leonard pour Homme - 4
More when I think of them....................

Read more: http://www.basenotes.net/threads/253...#ixzz0q0KQNDyx

i have most of these. any link to where he reviewed them? was it in the french version of his guide? his blog reviewed mostly new stuff.


also the way he tests them as i''ve read in the faq of which tania sanchez is mostly the author would be hard to notice longevity but they do mention it sometimes i guess only when they notice it.

[Sugandaraja]

Bigsly - have you tried writing or emailing Luca directly?

[Bigsly]

Sorry, but I have an aversion to "bothering people" so I won't contact someone. My thought is that if he or she doesn't read the thread (or did but doesn't want to respond) then that is "the end of the story." Even if LT said that he didn't think most people were smart enough to spray less, that would be a reasonable explanation to me, though it would then mean that this should have been mentioned in the book. I think it's really simple: either you think the period circa 1980 to 1990 represented a great achievement in "modern perfumery" for "masculine" frags or you do not. In his book, LT gives the reader the impression that this period did not represent anything especially good, let alone great. My conclusion is that this was not just a great age for "masculine's" but should be considered the greatest achievement of all time (though tastes may have changed), in perfumery. LT seems to have put his preference for simpler, more "transparent," etc. frags above the obvious great technical achievement of the 1980s. How long did he say he wore PdN's NY? I get bored by it within a couple of hours, and that is based on a few wearings only. I think LT's terminology (lungfish, foghorns) provides us with the most likely explanation, which as I said, is that he was unable to put aside his personal tastes and spend some time explaining to the reader what a great achievement these kinds of frags were. In fact, the reader is told men's frags are a kind of "wasteland," even though many of the 80s frags are still available and not expensive.

[Sugandaraja]

I won't speak for Luca, but I think I'd be far more bothered by someone writing a thread about me - a thread I might not not even be aware of - and speaking for me on my opinions on a subject. I think it would be much fairer to Luca - and the only chance this thread has of a real resolution - to give him the chance to answer these comments.

A thread came up about Luca calling niche perfumery "all base notes" and was similarly cleared up when people looked closer and read the comments in context, so I think it's worth giving getting the opinion from the source.

[Bigsly]

Then go ahead and contact him and tell him about this thread. You have my blessings !

[Sugandaraja]

I'm not particularly wrought up about opinions one way or another. Luca doesn't decide what fragrances I wear, and I don't decide for him. I've tried a few of his personal favorites and they don't work for me, and many of my favorites he's not too fond of ( for example, some of the modern versions of the Carons ).

It's all personal taste, in my view.

[Bigsly]

Yes, that is my point too, that is, he appears to have put his personal tastes above a great achievement, and in doing so the reader is given an impression that is clearly not correct. Is Shalimar any less ornate than those men's "power frags"? I do remember him writing that projection is not good for a masculine frag (I don't remember the exact wording), so the question now is, does anyone disagree that LT seems to have let his personal tastes interfere with his assessment of these frags, in general?

[Zizanioides]

Yes, that is my point too, that is, he appears to have put his personal tastes above a great achievement, and in doing so the reader is given an impression that is clearly not correct. Is Shalimar any less ornate than those men's "power frags"? I do remember him writing that projection is not good for a masculine frag (I don't remember the exact wording), so the question now is, does anyone disagree that LT seems to have let his personal tastes interfere with his assessment of these frags, in general?

Well, yes, of course he does :P He's a critic and critics can't help but be subjective. If you think 80's powerhouses are just as good as Shalimar you are just as correct as anyone else (and depending on which ones, I'll agree with you). But LT gives 5 star ratings to a number of power masculines so it looks like you all just might be agreeing.

I don't recall him having anything against longevity except when it was a particularly uninspired or obnoxious note. Could you find the source for us?

[granola357]

Yes, that is my point too, that is, he appears to have put his personal tastes above a great achievement, and in doing so the reader is given an impression that is clearly not correct. Is Shalimar any less ornate than those men's "power frags"? I do remember him writing that projection is not good for a masculine frag (I don't remember the exact wording), so the question now is, does anyone disagree that LT seems to have let his personal tastes interfere with his assessment of these frags, in general?

Being a professional critic is of course an exercise in subjectivity to some extent, and I think any critic has to struggle to completely put aside his personal tastes. I don't always agree with LT's comments. But I disagree that he lets his personal tastes interfere with his assessment of fragrances or that he gives "an impression that is clearly not correct." Look, the guy has been doing this for decades now. He knows the industry, he's trained in the notes, he's a chemist... if he has a reputation as a critic then it's because he deserves it. Most of us here are amateurs by comparison, if only because we don't have any of his professional experiences. So in general, I'd be inclined to trust his judgment. That doesn't mean that I'm not going to wear something just because I like it and he doesn't.

It's great that you like men's fragrances of the 1980's but I don't think LT's assessment of them was necessarily unfair.

[DustB]

Bigsly, I think you're way off base. The man's a critic and he writes about he thinks about scents. You seem to take it as for granted that the period of scents in question is a magnificent achievement and that your conclusion is somehow more certain, more absolute, more fixed, more whatever; Turin, however, you say, lets his "personal opinion" get in the way of recognizing the magnificence of the period of scents you like. For the purposes of debate here, although many posters have made it clear Turin praised highly many scents of the period, ne doesn't agree with you, Bigsly, he doesn't agree with you. He doesn't think your conclusion is right. Who are you to claim greater certainty for what a critic's audience of readers should be told when it's really the critic's duty him or her self to testify what he or she thinks? Bigsly, you are way off base.

[Bigsly]

Why I don't think I am way off base can be found in the book itself (I only have the first, hardcover edition). In his chapter on "masculine elegance...," he does not include any discussion of these kinds of frags. None, whatsoever. Whether they are a great achievement "artistically" or not is subjective, but whether or not they are one technically is not. If a professional perfumer wants to chime in here and say that for some reason no perfumes were made like this before, great. I want to hear his or her explanation about that.

Later in the book, in the Heritage review, we are told that Joe Blow wasn't ready for these kinds of frags and that they missed their intended target by miles. Fine, but what does that have to do with wearing them today (especially if you are the kind of guy who reads such books!)? He tells women to consider wearing Yatagan, for goodness sake! Yet as others have said, he (and TS) gives some of these frags high marks (many are not reviewed of course). There is an undeniable logical inconsistency here, regardless of the subjectivity involved in criticism. But this is so strange that only LT could clear it up at this point, too my satisfaction at least.

[shamu1]

The overall impression I got of Turin's views on the 80s scents were that there were many excellent ones (e.g., Kouros, Poison), but after awhile they became tiresome because they basically, in his eyes, repeated the same super-heavy feel over and over again. Uniqueness in perfumes also seems to be an important factor in Turin's reviews, which may account for some of this.

[Bigsly]

That may be it, but I wish he had told us. This was probably my impression too, until recently. What happened is that I had developed a bad aversion to lavender so I couldn't explore these frags as much as I would have liked until the last few months. I've been quite surprised at how much variety there is, however, and at some point it struck me that this general idea that guys have been given the short end of the stick is nonsense. Women's frags lack those "gutsy" base notes, with very few exceptions (or the aforementioned chypres, which are basically unisex, and are simpler anyway). If you acknowledge the greatness of the 80s men's frags, then LT's thesis, as I understand it, does not hold water. In fact, he seems to agree on some strange level (perhaps not entirely conscious), by his suggestion that women wear Yatagan (and a couple of others, I think).

[DustB]

Whether they are a great achievement "artistically" or not is subjective, but whether or not they are one technically is not. If a professional perfumer wants to chime in here and say that for some reason no perfumes were made like this before, great. I want to hear his or her explanation about that.

You're playing word games here and you're suggesting only a professional can properly answer you, those of us who are replying to you already effectively aren't qualified. Again for the purposes of your debate (since many posters above have pointed out Turin's thoughts about the scents in question) Turin didn't mention what you think smells of masculine elegance in his description of what he thinks that is. You claim "technicality" about something that is about a critic's tastes. The man has to do justice to his thoughts on scents. The man doesn't have to do your thoughts justice for you. You do, so write your own book about the milestones as you see them regarding masculine elegance. We all know the field is wide open.

There is an undeniable logical inconsistency here, regardless of the subjectivity involved in criticism. But this is so strange that only LT could clear it up at this point, too my satisfaction at least.

I don't agree with you. You should stop being so passive/aggressive in your seeking of Turin's attention. You want it? Be a man and do the man the respect of seeking it directly.

[Kevin Guyer]

Uniqueness in perfumes also seems to be an important factor in Turin's reviews, which may account for some of this.

I completely agree with this statement.

[Addict]

Luca Turin is a great connoisseur. I have his guide - Tania is there just for filling in, no offense ( : . However, he has a thing for so-called classic Guerlains and such which doesn't always convince me.

When reading a LT review (he IS an enjoyable writer), enjoying one of his Guerlain or Patou gushing ***** reviews more than the reviewed perfume itself becomes a problem, in my metaphorical book.

Also he has a marginally annoying propensity for Creed-bashing. Some Creeds he doesn't like (e.g., Love in White) I don't like. I know though enough Creeds, and closely enough - AND the perfumes he compares them disparagingly with - to think, perhaps subjectively, that there is something more than mere taste there. He doesn't seem to like the arguably over-sold upper class of the *brand* itself, imo.

Five stars for Cool Water and four for GIT... with NO credible detail about it. Awful, just unjust reviews of many other Creeds, too. Some excellent Creeds ignored altogether...

Just my 2c. I like HOW he's expressing his opinions, anyway. You don't have to agree with him.

He does make you think and that's a plus.

[Bigsly]

I am satisfied with the argument I made in this thread, and short of having a moderated, formal debate on this subject, I don't think I have anything more to say that is relevant.

[SculptureOfSoul]

Why does it matter so much what Turin thinks? Or what you think of what Turin thinks? I really think this thread should be aimed at creating a conversation with BNers about our opinions regarding the subject - not our opinions on Turin's opinions - or else it shouldn't have been made (no, I'm not saying can't be made or that it should be locked or anything, just that you ask yourself what this discussion is bringing to BNs as a whole).

[vitorscpaiva]

The thing with opinions such as Turin's is that while they may have "authority" they are not neccessarily always correct.

I agree. He may be a very respectful critic, but his points of view can't always be right.

And there is nothing wrong about criticizing his work. Isn't it what he does with other's work?

Also, probably he would prefer a reader that thinks and discuss about what he said, rather than a mindless one that just accept and repeat his thoughts. I'm not telling anyone here is like this, just mean the discussion can contribute with everybody's continuous learning.

[Asmo]

I see no reviews of Bijan, Giorgio, Sung Homme, or Fendi. That is blowing it, in my opinion, as the 80's were the golden age of modern fragrances. And no Boss #1, Lapidus, Obsession for Men, or Drakkar Noir; I am not sure what to say.

[shamu1]

I see no reviews of Bijan, Sung Homme, or Fendi. That is blowing it, in my opinion, as the 80's were the golden age of modern fragrances.

I like Luca Turin's reviews a lot, and I too would really be interested in knowing what his opinions would be of these three. These three are pretty representative of the 80s style IMO. Though I like all three scents a lot, I could easily see why someone would call them (esp. Sung Homme) "rivers of syrup".