Earthy. That's not a word I would normally think of to describe a rose soliflore. This sounded like a rose perfume to me, but not what I thought of as a soliflore. And yet Flechier considers it to be one....Une Rose seems to emanate from the skin, the intoxicating, earthy aroma of a garden rose pulled from the ground with its roots - that's Une Rose. A master’s rose.
So a rose perfume that adds some synthetic fruity chemicals - aldehydes or whatever - still smells like a rose because it's staying within the rose's repertoire. If a perfumer amplifies this fruity aspect to an unnatural level, is this still a soliflore? At some point our brains will say "this isn't a rose" and it becomes a fruity floral. Similarly, the addition of something un-rose could add texture, freshness, warmth, etc. but too much and it becomes a rose+X perfume.
People see things differently, and this line is going to be very subjective. Tocade to me is not a rose soliflore, and Jicky is not a Lavender soliflore. With those, the rose or lavender combines with vanilla in a "more than the sum of the parts" way. They form an accord that seems like something different than its components. These are "proper" perfumes. Synergy leads to abstraction in these compositions whereas soliflores are meant to smell like a specific thing.
I'm still figuring out what I like, but I can say this: I'll gladly wear a rose soliflore, but I won't be walking around in symphonic French floral cloud any time soon.
No one has really commented on this, so maybe I've gone off the deep end. :-)
Clearly a literal representation of a rose is a rose soliflor. No question there.
But do the non-literal ones count? Going back to Une Rose: I think I can see this as a soliflore that represents not just the rose, but the rose is still the focus. Flechier has zoomed out a bit and is showing us the earth and the air around that rose. It has notes that are not in any rose. Does this one count? Purists would say no - maybe 30Roses among them. And I can certainly see their point. One could argue that this "roots and all" stuff is a bunch of baloney. It's just a dirt and rose perfume - no soliflore.
What about Nahema? It doesn't smell like a rose at all for a while. It smells like a big, loud juicy synthetic green thing. It seems like all of the pieces of a rose scent are in there, because it eventual smells like one. But JPG has arranged those pieces in such a way that they first create this jarring un-rose thing - the fiery rebellious princess. Then her heart is revealed when the rose appears in the heart. It's all rose, but chopped up and the pieces re-purposed to serve as a metaphor for a girl. Is that a soliflore?
I think it's a very creative one. Maybe it's even a piece of art, although I don't enjoy it very much on a gut level.
But what if you don't know the back story? If you smell this thing unawares, you might think "This is a big synthetic green floral …. oh, wait - there's some rose coming out now. Nice." Does the perfumer's intent matter?
Maybe not, and maybe this isn't a very meaningful question to most people.
I've been enjoying trying to understand what the perfumer's approach was in each of these. Let's face it - rose has been done to death. I love the thought that perfumers would invest so much creativity and artistry in these unusual, non-traditional approaches to making a perfume that is all about a rose.
Then again, maybe I'm just gullible and falling for the marketing.
- - - Updated - - -
- - - Updated - - -
I think I need to try Red Roses, though. It sounds right up my alley, rose-wise.