Code of Conduct
Results 1 to 17 of 17
  1. #1

    Default Fragrance introduced in 2006 considered "vintage" ?

    I'm curious about the criteria for someone to use the label "vintage" on a fragrance.

    Seems odd that a frag introduced in 2006 would be on the Vintage SOTD list.

    Maybe we all have our own ideas about what it means..

  2. #2

    Default Re: Fragrance introduced in 2006 considered "vintage" ?

    To me vintage is always used in reference to a reformulation and thus the original take as the nose intended is the vintage once its been meddled with due to regulations or cost.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Fragrance introduced in 2006 considered "vintage" ?

    firstborn

  4. #4
    People of Zee Wurl, Relax
    IsoESuperman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    3,554

    Default Re: Fragrance introduced in 2006 considered "vintage" ?

    Quote Originally Posted by masonjarjar View Post
    Maybe we all have our own ideas about what it means..
    I'd say we do. I don't even have a hard & fast definition for it. Sometimes it's 15 years old, sometimes it's almost 15 years (15 is totally arbitrary btw), sometimes it's the original 'iteration' of something reformulated, but usually not if it came out in the past 10 years. Again, totally arbitrary.

    For vintage sandal or oud oil, I'd say it is based on the date distilled, not age of the wood. Some might say the other way around.

    I do a deep eye roll when I see "vintage Fahrenheit Parfum" on eBay for $475. It came out in 2014 ffs, but you'll go blind rolling your eyes at every ridiculous perfume listing on eBay.
    Currently wearing: Russian Tea by Masque

  5. #5
    hednic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Reside in McLean, Va., Manhattan NYC, Manuel Antonio Costa Rica & Búzios Brasil
    Posts
    242,537

    Default Re: Fragrance introduced in 2006 considered "vintage" ?

    Quote Originally Posted by masonjarjar View Post
    Maybe we all have our own ideas about what it means..
    I think so.
    Remember that while it is perfectly acceptable to criticize the content of a post - criticizing the poster is not.
    Mean spirited, nasty, snide, sarcastic, hateful, and rude individuals on Basenotes don't warrant or deserve my or other Basenoters' acknowledgement or respect.

  6. #6
    Always be smelling

    epapsiou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Oud Forest
    Posts
    4,993

    Default Re: Fragrance introduced in 2006 considered "vintage" ?

    Quote Originally Posted by IsoESuperman View Post
    It came out in 2014 ffs, but you'll go blind rolling your eyes at every ridiculous perfume listing on eBay.
    Or broke
    Beauty needs no morality or righteousness.
    It, like nature, does not give a shit

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    19,965

    Default Re: Fragrance introduced in 2006 considered "vintage" ?

    I agree with Palmolive here. If there has been a major reformulation, then even a few years can be called vintage. I don't know if I can think of anything specific. Amouage may have watered down something, for instance.

    cacio

  8. #8
    Missing Oakmoss

    Bonnette's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,940

    Default Re: Fragrance introduced in 2006 considered "vintage" ?

    Since perfume houses usually deny that they've made any reformulations at all, the only clear way to know you've got the original is to go by the date of manufacture. Most of us can't check the batch code until post-purchase, so the second best way is to search for bottles advertised as being from the year of introduction. If a fragrance was introduced in 2006, that's as vintage as it's possible for it to be in 2018. Everything's relative.

  9. #9

    Default Re: Fragrance introduced in 2006 considered "vintage" ?

    IMHO the term has been co-opted from its original meaning in some of these cases, just to make your acquisitions sound more impressive than they actually are.

  10. #10
    Dependent cytherian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    On a cliff overlooking Manhattan
    Posts
    3,336

    Default Re: Fragrance introduced in 2006 considered "vintage" ?

    Quote Originally Posted by cacio View Post
    I agree with Palmolive here. If there has been a major reformulation, then even a few years can be called vintage. I don't know if I can think of anything specific. Amouage may have watered down something, for instance.

    cacio
    Right. The meaning of "vintage" will vary by subject matter. Take wine for instance, which is always talked about by its vintage... which can be recent or old. Where perfumes are concerned, it's generally taken that when a fragrance has been changed, referring to the earlier release can be called "vintage." Because it's older and it's discontinued. The amount of time involved doesn't have to be weighed in.
    Currently wearing: Bel Ami by Hermès

  11. #11
    The Devil in the Details
    Zealot Crusader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Seattle/Bellevue
    Posts
    1,511
    Blog Entries
    11

    Default Re: Fragrance introduced in 2006 considered "vintage" ?

    I put the generic "vintage" term at 20 years, but will use a "specific vintage" to describe a newer fragrance if asked.
    oh look, I have a signature
    Currently wearing: I'mperfect by Avon

  12. #12
    Missing Oakmoss

    Bonnette's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,940

    Default Re: Fragrance introduced in 2006 considered "vintage" ?

    Perfumery has changed so much since the era that gave rise to the complex of ideas we're used to associating with the term "vintage." In one sense, "vintage" can refer to any formula that includes oakmoss, certain musks and animal products; in an aesthetic sense, the term can refer to classical compositions of notes, or to persons intended to wear fine perfumes - sophisticated ladies or adventurous vixens, debonair gentlemen or roués. As we move deeper into the 21st Century, the generations who remember that era will vanish, and other categories will evolve organically. In a transitional period, date of manufacture is probably as good a metric as any to stand in the gap.

  13. #13
    Dependent Darjeeling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Japan
    Posts
    9,991

    Default Re: Fragrance introduced in 2006 considered "vintage" ?

    As a general observation, here most people use it to refer to scents before they were significantly/noticeably reformulated.
    1. No, never blind buy (I do, but do as I say, not as I do. I'm taking no responsibility for your fragrance gambling).
    2. Get them both. You're a Basenoter and you know you're going to end up purchasing them both eventually.
    3. Yes, it has been reformulated.
    4. Looking for a signature scent? You've come to the wrong place.
    Currently wearing: Sel Marin by Heeley

  14. #14
    Freed from BN Institution

    N.CAL Fragrance Reviewer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    26,916

    Default Re: Fragrance introduced in 2006 considered "vintage" ?

    It's subjective. My interpretation is either an original or an obsolete formulation. Selecting a date to define 'vintage' is largely abstract.
    Follow Upcoming Sync Fridays HERE:http://www.basenotes.net/threads/446...d-Fridays-2018

    Fragrance Reviews:http://www.basenotes.net/fragrancereviews/13373062

    Interested in Learning about Discontinued/Vaulted Creeds? Join Basenotes' Creed Group: http://www.basenotes.net/group.php?groupid=35

  15. #15
    Basenotes Institution
    sjg3839's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    37,790

    Default Re: Fragrance introduced in 2006 considered "vintage" ?

    This
    Quote Originally Posted by Palmolive View Post
    To me vintage is always used in reference to a reformulation and thus the original take as the nose intended is the vintage once its been meddled with due to regulations or cost.
    <div class="bnsotd"><b>Currently wearing:</b> <a href="ID26148387.html"><img src="http://www.basenotes.net/photos/products/33/26148387-7393.jpg"> Carven L'Eau Intense by Carven</a></div>

  16. #16
    Dependent MegaMav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    3,613

    Default Re: Fragrance introduced in 2006 considered "vintage" ?

    I consider vintage to be pre-2000, before everything went sideways.
    YouTube reviews with integrity: My "FragReviews" Channel
    Favorite House: Maitre Parfumeur et Gantier
    Fragrance Sales: eBay Store

  17. #17

    Shycat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Nashville, Tennessee
    Posts
    3,249
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Fragrance introduced in 2006 considered "vintage" ?

    Uh, well...maybe this helps me then. I don't know when things went sideways....But 2000 is a metric I can use.
    I have loved the stars too truly to be fearful of the night.
    Currently wearing: Fracas by Robert Piguet

Similar Threads

  1. Should Creed be now considered as a "Designer" Fragrance?
    By tspencer in forum Male Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 20th October 2016, 03:16 PM
  2. Replies: 25
    Last Post: 28th November 2014, 12:22 AM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 7th March 2012, 05:35 AM
  4. The "oriental" fragrance re-considered.
    By Bigsly in forum Male Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 9th February 2010, 09:44 PM
  5. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2nd February 2009, 09:39 PM

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