Code of Conduct
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 31 to 53 of 53
  1. #31

    Default Re: Review: Auram Tonkin 4768-6/D

    At the beginning of 2019, Christine received about 20 Auram bases. But they are not in her store. There is some reason why she does not want to sell them.

  2. #32

    Default Re: Review: Auram Tonkin 4768-6/D

    or perhaps that there is a difficulty?

    I did not ask that exact question but did ask, as the site shows that Auram bases samples are not available for free, were samples or larger amounts available for purchase and I cannot remember the exact answer but believe it involved difficulty of some sort having arisen, rather than a choice to not sell.

  3. #33

    Default Re: Review: Auram Tonkin 4768-6/D

    "Auram Bases NOT AVAILABLE FOR SAMPLING" - this remains from the time when Auram bases were sold in a store (2 years ago). This is not related to the latest bases supply.

  4. #34
    Ingredients Supplier

    PerfumerSupplyHouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    534

    Default Re: Review: Auram Tonkin 4768-6/D

    Hi All,
    Christine here.
    I kind of hit a dead end when I went to purchase larger quantities of these in 2017 but couldn't manage the minimum order requirement. If you can let me know which bases are of interest I can certainly try again.
    Christine Daley
    Perfumer Supply House - Fragrance Ingredient Boutique
    Find me on Facebook

    Text or What's App +1-203-917-0867

    JOIN MY MAILING LIST AND DON'T MISS ANOTHER SALE!

  5. #35

    Default Re: Review: Auram Tonkin 4768-6/D

    Bat signal to Jamie!!!!!

    If the requirements have not changed (I don't know) it is something like $6000 minimum order, $1500 per item?

    Could we get together a list of perhaps the top 4 must-have Auram bases?

    I know you have spoken of a Tonkin and a Jasmine Abs in the highest terms.

    I suppose a "top 4" would have to combine irreplaceability compared with anything else together with wide applicability.

    (In a sense maybe a jasmine is not there, because we can certainly do it with naturals, though in larger quantities, not as economically.)

    ???

  6. #36
    Ingredients Supplier

    PerfumerSupplyHouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    534

    Default Re: Review: Auram Tonkin 4768-6/D

    That's about right, yes.
    A top four would be wonderful. I know I would buy the Bois d'Oudh as I had a customer for that. Let me know and I will go after it!
    Thanks,
    Christine
    Christine Daley
    Perfumer Supply House - Fragrance Ingredient Boutique
    Find me on Facebook

    Text or What's App +1-203-917-0867

    JOIN MY MAILING LIST AND DON'T MISS ANOTHER SALE!

  7. #37
    Basenotes Plus
    pkiler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    8,547

    Default Re: Review: Auram Tonkin 4768-6/D

    Quote Originally Posted by teambuktu View Post
    "Auram Bases NOT AVAILABLE FOR SAMPLING" - this remains from the time when Auram bases were sold in a store (2 years ago). This is not related to the latest bases supply.
    This "store" never sold the bases. Just a simple website... It was simply hubris from an arrogant troll.
    Arcadi never gave permission to sell his bases in that manner.

    Christine is the only person selling these bases, properly, if she can obtain them. Seems like Arcadi's company is in a state of flux presently.

    Personally, I wouldn't get my hopes too high.
    Paul Kiler
    PK Perfumes
    http://www.PKPERFUMES.com
    In addition to Our own PK line, we make Custom Bespoke Perfumes, perfumes for Entrepreneurs needing scents for perfumes or products, Custom Wedding Perfumes, and even Special Event Perfumes.

  8. #38

    Default Re: Review: Auram Tonkin 4768-6/D

    Quote Originally Posted by pkiler View Post
    This "store" never sold the bases. Just a simple website...
    This is just about PerfumerSupplyHouse.

  9. #39

    Default Re: Review: Auram Tonkin 4768-6/D

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Roberts View Post
    Bat signal to Jamie!!!!!

    If the requirements have not changed (I don't know) it is something like $6000 minimum order, $1500 per item?

    Could we get together a list of perhaps the top 4 must-have Auram bases?

    I know you have spoken of a Tonkin and a Jasmine Abs in the highest terms.

    I suppose a "top 4" would have to combine irreplaceability compared with anything else together with wide applicability.

    (In a sense maybe a jasmine is not there, because we can certainly do it with naturals, though in larger quantities, not as economically.)

    ???
    I bought bulk of the Jasmine Absolute 10617-2/D which is the French grandiflorum reconstruction and it's my go-to artificial jasmine abs. I'd also recommend his Gardenias (Storm or White) and any of his animalic reconstructions.

    Beyond that the bases of his I use are mostly vintage - Ambreine Samuelson, Opoponax Doux, etc.

  10. #40

    Default Re: Review: Auram Tonkin 4768-6/D

    Not the cheapest book on the block but nice to have

    http://www.lulu.com/shop/arcadi-boix...-23371842.html
    *** The Man in the Bow Tie ***

    Edmond Roudnitska: "A Life of Perfume" - Newly Published -
    http://www.lulu.com/shop/edmond-roudnitska/a-life-of-perfume/paperback/product-23790632.html


    Complete Steffen Arctander Volumes in Perfumers Library
    www.SteffenArctander.com

    Nose Tales (Récits de Nez) - 16 Video Interviews with Working Noses
    www.recitsdenez.fr

  11. #41

    Default Re: Review: Auram Tonkin 4768-6/D

    Quote Originally Posted by leonardpayne View Post
    Not the cheapest book on the block but nice to have

    http://www.lulu.com/shop/arcadi-boix...-23371842.html
    This is the most used perfumery book I own. It is a must have for exploring interesting lesser-known chemicals and combinations,

  12. #42

    Default Re: Review: Auram Tonkin 4768-6/D

    Thank you, Jamie!

    For myself, what I would want is right now not too important to what might be done, as I can't make too substantial a purchase. But if it comes to fruition in some time, maybe so.

    To me the irreplaceable must-haves would be the Tonkin musk and an agarwood, I don't know which, as the high quality natural material is just so ferociously expensive.

    And perhaps there are other things with captives that could be must-haves.

    I can certainly see why accurate vintage bases can also be must-haves, but that could be a a lot more specialized, in terms of Christine having many buyers.

  13. #43

    Default Re: Review: Auram Tonkin 4768-6/D

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Roberts View Post
    Thank you, Jamie!

    For myself, what I would want is right now not too important to what might be done, as I can't make too substantial a purchase. But if it comes to fruition in some time, maybe so.

    To me the irreplaceable must-haves would be the Tonkin musk and an agarwood, I don't know which, as the high quality natural material is just so ferociously expensive.

    And perhaps there are other things with captives that could be must-haves.

    I can certainly see why accurate vintage bases can also be must-haves, but that could be a a lot more specialized, in terms of Christine having many buyers.
    Yeah the problem with vintage bases is that they are typically non-IFRA compliant. Arcadi could have quite a lucrative side-business making IFRA/EU compatible versions of the famed historic bases. They would never be as amazing, but they would still be interesting to use in a modern context.

  14. #44

    Default Re: Review: Auram Tonkin 4768-6/D

    Quote Originally Posted by jfrater View Post
    They would never be as amazing
    I must chime in because I admit I cannot understand this sentiment. For sure they will be different. But why less amazing? I find iso Eugenol really no different than methyl diantilis; not in terms of smell of course, but in terms of potential. The same is true of oakmoss/evernyl, lilial and hivernal neo, etc etc. I absolutely love lilial; it’s one of my favorite smells. But she is gone by the waste side for somewhat legitimate reasons. I continue to use it; fine. But it doesn’t mean it’s more amazing than others. Same is true of bases. Nothing is more special about the original ones. Anything can be reproduced, and usually made IFRA with a big enough money investment. Not always. But usually. Money is more often the problem. And even then, when money fails, why does it make something less amazing?

  15. #45

    Default Re: Review: Auram Tonkin 4768-6/D

    Quote Originally Posted by George Tedder View Post
    I must chime in because I admit I cannot understand this sentiment. For sure they will be different. But why less amazing? I find iso Eugenol really no different than methyl diantilis; not in terms of smell of course, but in terms of potential. The same is true of oakmoss/evernyl, lilial and hivernal neo, etc etc. I absolutely love lilial; it’s one of my favorite smells. But she is gone by the waste side for somewhat legitimate reasons. I continue to use it; fine. But it doesn’t mean it’s more amazing than others. Same is true of bases. Nothing is more special about the original ones. Anything can be reproduced, and usually made IFRA with a big enough money investment. Not always. But usually. Money is more often the problem. And even then, when money fails, why does it make something less amazing?
    Here's a clear example: Brut (original) vs Brut (today). The first is amazing. The second is not due to the removal of over 10% musk Ambrette which was key to the beauty of the original Brut.

    I don't deny that it may be possible for an attempted re-construction to be more beautiful than the original work upon which it is founded, but for the most part when a base has been constructed around a particular ingredient by one of the greatest perfumers in human history, I find it hard to believe any attempts to make a new version without the particular ingredient will equal the original.

    As for anything can be reproduced: musk ambrette. Lyral. Those are but two very significant ingredients that are not able to be replicated in their fullness. Perfumery has lost a lot due to bureaucratic bans.

    Here's a non-perfume example: imagine that the piano was banned. Mozart's piano concerti would need to be remastered for a replacement (digital keyboard most likely). Which is amazing?

    And another: ban paint based on lead pigment (as of yet this has - surprisingly - not been done thank God). Lead based white paint has a magical quality that cannot be truly replicated with other white pigments (true also of ivory black a now banned shade of black). You can certainly use replacement whites and blacks but if you re-paint a masterpiece that used both of those colors you won't get the same thing.

    I understand "amazing" is subjective (on its own) but I believe there is an argument for considering some original things more amazing than replicas built with a limited palette.

    It is not often you find a fragrance that has been reformulated where critics commend the reformulation as better than the original. What will happen to Aventus now that the lyral must be stripped from it? You can already see the devastation in Dior exclusives since they started reformulating the entire range to remove lyral.

  16. #46
    Basenotes Plus
    pkiler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    8,547

    Default Re: Review: Auram Tonkin 4768-6/D

    Quote Originally Posted by jfrater View Post
    to remove lyral.
    I'd really love to figure out a Lyral replacement...
    Paul Kiler
    PK Perfumes
    http://www.PKPERFUMES.com
    In addition to Our own PK line, we make Custom Bespoke Perfumes, perfumes for Entrepreneurs needing scents for perfumes or products, Custom Wedding Perfumes, and even Special Event Perfumes.

  17. #47

    Default Re: Review: Auram Tonkin 4768-6/D

    Quote Originally Posted by jfrater View Post
    Auram international is the company of Arcadi Boix Camps who is often mentioned here. I won’t go into too much detail about the company or the man (though everyone needs to own his book Perfumery, Techniques in Evolution) except to say that he produces some of the most extraordinary bases available on the market to perfumers today
    I read some segments out of one of his books. The man is a genius, really knows his stuff, and he seems to have quite a nose for the job.
    I'd have no doubt he'd be able to put formulas together in ways other perfumers wouldn't be able to figure out.

  18. #48
    Basenotes Member
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    88

    Default Re: Review: Auram Tonkin 4768-6/D

    Quote Originally Posted by pkiler View Post
    I'd really love to figure out a Lyral replacement...
    Wouldn't that be something! Especially since Mahonial isn't quite there according to Arcadi (I'm sure you already know this): .... in fact Mahonial is seco Lyral. They have cut one carbon in cyclohexene ring making it C-12 instead of C13 in lyral as in the case of Pomarose also increasing two more carbons for hydroxy citronellal. But although good molecules, neither Mahonial will replace Lyral nor Nymphéal will replace Lilial. Both will give very nice new notes but different of the notes imparted by Lilial and Lyral.

  19. #49

    Default Re: Review: Auram Tonkin 4768-6/D

    Quote Originally Posted by jfrater View Post
    Here's a clear example: Brut (original) vs Brut (today). The first is amazing. The second is not due to the removal of over 10% musk Ambrette which was key to the beauty of the original Brut.

    I don't deny that it may be possible for an attempted re-construction to be more beautiful than the original work upon which it is founded, but for the most part when a base has been constructed around a particular ingredient by one of the greatest perfumers in human history, I find it hard to believe any attempts to make a new version without the particular ingredient will equal the original.

    As for anything can be reproduced: musk ambrette. Lyral. Those are but two very significant ingredients that are not able to be replicated in their fullness. Perfumery has lost a lot due to bureaucratic bans.

    Here's a non-perfume example: imagine that the piano was banned. Mozart's piano concerti would need to be remastered for a replacement (digital keyboard most likely). Which is amazing?

    And another: ban paint based on lead pigment (as of yet this has - surprisingly - not been done thank God). Lead based white paint has a magical quality that cannot be truly replicated with other white pigments (true also of ivory black a now banned shade of black). You can certainly use replacement whites and blacks but if you re-paint a masterpiece that used both of those colors you won't get the same thing.

    I understand "amazing" is subjective (on its own) but I believe there is an argument for considering some original things more amazing than replicas built with a limited palette.

    It is not often you find a fragrance that has been reformulated where critics commend the reformulation You as better than the original. What will happen to Aventus now that the lyral must be stripped from it? You can already see the devastation in Dior exclusives since they started reformulating the entire range to remove lyral.
    We really have differing intuitions, I suppose. I am certainly not prepared to say that a digital keyboard could not do as well as a grand piano. Putting aside the somewhat unfair 1:1 equation of a perfume material and an instrument, I think, really, the problem would be way more simple than many imagine. The size, shape, power, etc of a grandpiano is what produces its sound. One can mimic that with a computer easily. The timing is easy for a program to master, and then one needs to add a human factor (delay, pauses, variation in strength in tapping the keyboard, etc). I think the whole thing could be done without a person rather easily if the physics were understood sufficiently. And with proper design, certainly an electric keyboard could be constructed to mimic a grand piano. I am not prepared to say one is more amazing than the other, in terms of sound.

    You mention Brut. I quite like the modern one. I wear it. I haven't smelled the original, though I have smelled a rather convincing schema (something like 17 materials only, actually) which I find to be quite masterful and gorgeous. I wear that as well. It contains no musk ambrette. It is possible I would prefer the original, but I am not sure for this to be the case. In either event, I find this version more beautiful than the modern one available (mainly due to the very high natural content). I have smelled the original Shalimar. It's quite phenomenal, of course. But there is a perfume from just last year by A Lab on Fire (Hallucinogenic Pearl) which I love equally. Not entirely the same odor vein, though they both share iris in the base; but equally beautiful. I don't prefer one direction to the other. And I could say this for perfumes which are more similar. The original Number 5 v.s. First and finally v.s. White Linen. I quite love them all. Different Floral aldehydic styles more or less similar. I don't know one deserves the title of most amazing.

    I quite like the idea of using bases in perfumes; especially for DIY people as it adds complexity in one material. And some of the older bases -- like I recently smelled a 80s sample of Ambre083 (probably with Xylene removed if I had to guess) -- are quite lovely. But more lovely than the reconstitution that Christine sells? I don't see it. They are simply different.

  20. #50
    Basenotes Member
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    88

    Default Re: Review: Auram Tonkin 4768-6/D

    Quote Originally Posted by jfrater View Post
    What will happen to Aventus now that the lyral must be stripped from it?
    It will be launched with a new name: Unaventful.

  21. #51

    Default Re: Review: Auram Tonkin 4768-6/D

    Quote Originally Posted by George Tedder View Post
    We really have differing intuitions, I suppose. I am certainly not prepared to say that a digital keyboard could not do as well as a grand piano. Putting aside the somewhat unfair 1:1 equation of a perfume material and an instrument, I think, really, the problem would be way more simple than many imagine. The size, shape, power, etc of a grandpiano is what produces its sound. One can mimic that with a computer easily. The timing is easy for a program to master, and then one needs to add a human factor (delay, pauses, variation in strength in tapping the keyboard, etc). I think the whole thing could be done without a person rather easily if the physics were understood sufficiently. And with proper design, certainly an electric keyboard could be constructed to mimic a grand piano. I am not prepared to say one is more amazing than the other, in terms of sound.

    You mention Brut. I quite like the modern one. I wear it. I haven't smelled the original, though I have smelled a rather convincing schema (something like 17 materials only, actually) which I find to be quite masterful and gorgeous. I wear that as well. It contains no musk ambrette. It is possible I would prefer the original, but I am not sure for this to be the case. In either event, I find this version more beautiful than the modern one available (mainly due to the very high natural content). I have smelled the original Shalimar. It's quite phenomenal, of course. But there is a perfume from just last year by A Lab on Fire (Hallucinogenic Pearl) which I love equally. Not entirely the same odor vein, though they both share iris in the base; but equally beautiful. I don't prefer one direction to the other. And I could say this for perfumes which are more similar. The original Number 5 v.s. First and finally v.s. White Linen. I quite love them all. Different Floral aldehydic styles more or less similar. I don't know one deserves the title of most amazing.

    I quite like the idea of using bases in perfumes; especially for DIY people as it adds complexity in one material. And some of the older bases -- like I recently smelled a 80s sample of Ambre083 (probably with Xylene removed if I had to guess) -- are quite lovely. But more lovely than the reconstitution that Christine sells? I don't see it. They are simply different.
    You are comparing unrelated perfumes (No 5 and First) - I am comparing Brut with and Brut without musk ambrette. I believe the original is superior in many ways to the new (not just the musk ambrette but also the other natural ingredients) and that it was amazing compared to the synthetic replacer they now sell. Most (if not all) the ingredients in the modernised form existed when Brut was first created - why did they go for 12 or 13% Musk Ambrette instead of whatever they use now (probably galaxolide)?

    Anyway - this is a very subjective topic which can't have a logical conclusion so I guess we can end this off-topic thread understanding that we won't agree (thank God - the world would be very dull if we all agreed all the time). Food for thought though isn't it?

  22. #52

    Default Re: Review: Auram Tonkin 4768-6/D

    Quote Originally Posted by jfrater View Post
    You are comparing unrelated perfumes (No 5 and First) - I am comparing Brut with and Brut without musk ambrette. I believe the original is superior in many ways to the new (not just the musk ambrette but also the other natural ingredients) and that it was amazing compared to the synthetic replacer they now sell. Most (if not all) the ingredients in the modernised form existed when Brut was first created - why did they go for 12 or 13% Musk Ambrette instead of whatever they use now (probably galaxolide)?

    Anyway - this is a very subjective topic which can't have a logical conclusion so I guess we can end this off-topic thread understanding that we won't agree (thank God - the world would be very dull if we all agreed all the time). Food for thought though isn't it?
    They are not unrelated at all. Indeed they are quite similar for two distinct perfumes. This is precisely what I am saying about Brut. V1, and V2 are to be considered related but DIFFERENT perfumes.

  23. #53

    Default Re: Review: Auram Tonkin 4768-6/D

    "Is X a convincing imitation of Y?" and "Can X be used to create anything worthwhile?" are two different questions. The answer to the first question is probably "No, not to an expert of sensitive palette," but that doesn't logically imply anything about the second question. Pears are not a very convincing imitation of apples, but that does not mean pear tart is innately inferior to apple pie.

    That said, if someone requests cocoa and you serve them coffee, they will be shocked even if they normally enjoy coffee. The lack of "truth in advertising" is the problem, not the quality of the coffee. I think reformulations are often like that: not bad on their own merits, but not similar enough to satisfy expectations created by the original.

    I sometimes wonder what Beaux, Cellier, Roudnitska etc. would have created if they had access to the contemporary palette instead of the historical one.




Similar Threads

  1. Parfum d'empire - Musc tonkin
    By Mon-Petit in forum Male Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 23rd March 2015, 03:09 PM
  2. Musk Tonkin, and few other samples.
    By Stevolution73 in forum Male Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 25th October 2014, 04:31 PM
  3. Musc Tonkin
    By genieg in forum General Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 7th April 2013, 08:40 PM
  4. Musc Tonkin- Parfum d'Empire
    By Rev320 in forum Male Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 17th November 2012, 09:39 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
  •  



Loving perfume on the Internet since 2000