I think they mean the predominant or dominating note is Ambroxan.
... supposed to both be "single-molecule-only" perfumes, i.e. just plain ol' diluted Ambroxan in a bottle, and nothing else. Then, I ask, why the hell don't they actually smell exactly the same as one another ???
Surely the exact same molecule, if say produced by two different sources, wouldn't smell that divergent from one another ? Shouldn't they smell exactly the same ?
Isn't Ambroxan supposed to smell like Ambroxan ???
Or what am I missing ??? ... Do these two scents really smell the same to you guys ??? Or am I really the only one who thinks these smell different ? (And can't understand why.)
"The earth laughs in flowers" - (E.E.Cummings)
Basically, they're lying.
If you've ever tried on real chemical ambroxan, it's a basenote. It smells vaguely light and metallic for a few minutes and then pretty much smells like nothing for a couple of hours before blooming into that rich creamy animalic incense-ish sort-of-ambery smell that we know it as.
No company would ever release pure ambroxan because people would try it on and say it didn't smell like anything, not being able to give it enough time. So they basically have to "enhance" it with similar notes, hence the differences between the two. Then they lie about it because us perfume freaks want to smell the real ingredients...
Has everyone checked out my Top 100 Blog??
Not that I dispute that fragrance houses wouldn't lie, of course. As we know for a fact that they are notorious for it. ... So if anyone is lying here, then I propose that it is possibly JHAG, as it differs from the Molecule 02 one which indeed seems to smell just like diluted Ambroxan and nothing else.
Not A Perfume = cetalox
Molecule 02 = ambroxan
Ambroxan and cetalox are different animals. :-)
Compare these entries at The Good Scents Company:
"Mixture of diastereoisomers (EFFA, 2010a)."
"Produced from a natural starting material, this chiral product contains one main high-impact isomer."
So the bottom line is that Ambroxan is actually a true single molecule, and Cetalox is only a single molecule if one disregards stereochemistry (handedness) - otherwise it is a mixture of molecules with the same connectivity, but different handedness at 4 carbon atoms where up and down are possible variations relative to the rest of the molecule.
Because we ourselves are molecularly handed, mirror-image molecules (enantiomers) and partially-mirrored molecules (diastereomers) don't smell the same to us. Our noses are basically chirality detectors. We can sense that Ambroxan and Cetalox are not the same.
And since purifying an optical isomer from its diastereomer complements is an additional effort, one could conclude that ambroxan is a higher value product.
I'm not sure if they're using similar processes to produce these, but with a good and readily available chiral starting material (like a cheap and pure natural product), it may actually be easier to make a chiral product. On the other hand, the non-chiral process may use cheaper, non-chiral, petroleum-based starting materials, so there may be advantages both ways. But still, Ambroxan does appear to be the purer and higher-value component!