Code of Conduct
Results 1 to 15 of 15
o
  1. #1
    Basenotes Member Finelikeanoyster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    In a imaginative idyllic place
    Posts
    39

    Default An formula from 1963

    Hi
    I find this formula in an old journal, september 12 1963
    1963-set-12.JPG

    Comes from here, page 561
    https://books.google.com.br/books?id...page&q&f=false

    That formula appears to be more old than 1963 i think, and the total of amounts is equal 999 (need more 1)

    Had anyone see this before ? possibly wich perfume thats is or imitates ? can be out ?

    What do you think about ?
    'Freshness' is the word, nothing more --- be cool
    Currently wearing: Tai Winds by Avon

  2. #2

    Default Re: An formula from 1963

    It's interesting to see how much less advanced technology was, even as late as 1963.
    There's only a handful of synthetic chemicals in there. (Although admittingly I don't know what's in all those bases)

    I do wonder though whether they really needed aldehydes C9 through C12. They're not really that different from each other, there's just a gradual shift as the numbers increase (in this range). Couldn't they have just stuck in C10 and called it a day?

  3. #3

    Default Re: An formula from 1963

    I see a nice bouquet floral :
    - 10% Jasmine
    - 5% Ylang-Ylang
    - 6% Rose
    - 7% floral-Violet materials (ionones)
    - 7% Muguet materials
    * boosted by a cocktail of aldehydes (0.5%)
    * powered by a high dose of nitromusks (9%)
    * softened with a relatively high dose of vanillin (1%)
    * along with a nice dose of orris (0.5%)
    * and a touch of patchouli and vetiver...

    I'd bet my bottom dollar for a Chanel N°5 type formula (floral aldehydic)!

  4. #4
    Super Member
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    135

    Default Re: An formula from 1963

    Quote Originally Posted by parker25mv View Post

    I do wonder though whether they really needed aldehydes C9 through C12. Couldn't they have just stuck in C10 and called it a day?
    I think C-12 MNA is vastly different from C-12 Lauric and both are different from C-10. But in any event, without an overdose of various aldehydes -- whether by design or by accident -- obviously there would be no Chanel #5. Looks like the above formula (date unknown; real formula or just an example?) is certainly following in the Chanel aldehydic vein that appeared in perfumes well into the 60's.

  5. #5
    Basenotes Plus
    Dallas.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    524

    Default Re: An formula from 1963

    This is the second formula that I see calling for Dianthus, any idea of were can I find this? was looking for it on the previous formula

  6. #6

    Default Re: An formula from 1963

    Quote Originally Posted by Jardin du Luxembourg View Post
    I'd bet my bottom dollar for a Chanel N°5 type formula (floral aldehydic)!
    I'd bet my bottom dollar you are right. Differing proportions, but all the essential elements are there.

  7. #7

    Default Re: An formula from 1963

    Quote Originally Posted by Dallas.com View Post
    This is the second formula that I see calling for Dianthus, any idea of were can I find this? was looking for it on the previous formula
    This is an old base. Any real good carnation base will do. Difficult to do with today's IFRA, but still possible. Look for some carnation formulas.

  8. #8

    Default Re: An formula from 1963

    Quote Originally Posted by George Tedder View Post
    This is an old base. Any real good carnation base will do. Difficult to do with today's IFRA, but still possible. Look for some carnation formulas.
    Have a look here: http://www.thegoodscentscompany.com/...dm1001821.html

  9. #9
    Basenotes Plus
    pkiler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    8,816

    Default Re: An formula from 1963

    Dianthus is Carnation, already mentioned..
    Dianthine is a base. I purchased some 30 year old Firmenich Dianthine base, loved it, had it gc'd, has 40% Eugenol. Many vintage bases have loads of eugenol, btw.
    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.

  10. #10

    Default Re: An formula from 1963

    You can just smell this can't you... like all the little vintage "french Paris" sample bottles. All so similar, riffing off of Chanel 5. Aldehydes so ubiquitous then, ... as Dihydromyrcenol, Iso E Super and Hedione have been in the last couple decades.
    We are so blessed these days to have such a massive palette to choose from. Unthinkable back in 1963. What magic could those amazing noses have created with 1/10 of the material we have at our casual internet disposal?

    (Totally off topic...I love the ads in the back of this book. Page 528, British Railways Employment, Qualified Metallurgist, Annual salary up to £1,425)

    Creative Contribution of Natural Substances in Present Day Perfumery
    By Paul Johnson, P. Robertel,
    Grasse, France
    Attached Files Attached Files

  11. #11

    Default Re: An formula from 1963

    Quote Originally Posted by George Tedder View Post
    This is an old base. Any real good carnation base will do. Difficult to do with today's IFRA, but still possible. Look for some carnation formulas.
    Sort of off-topic but I have a carnation formula somewhere in my notes. Salicylate, Rhodinol 70, clove oil (or dilute eugenol), a trace of elemol, and possibly a hint of methyl laitone to round it off, from what I can remember. Some Flower Water accord (cyclamen aldehyde, bourgeonal, lysmeral) can help too. Some others like cyclogeraniol may be helpful. Guaethol Allyl ether might be replacer for eugenol. This is all off the top my head.

  12. #12

    Default Re: An formula from 1963

    Quote Originally Posted by julian35 View Post
    We are so blessed these days to have such a massive palette to choose from. Unthinkable back in 1963. What magic could those amazing noses have created with 1/10 of the material we have at our casual internet
    To be a little bit pedantic; this is a bit of a misrepresentation of the size of the pallet back then. Smaller than the modern one, but not nearly by that much. And today’s pallet is really just shrinking because of regulation and safety requirements when it comes to registering new materials (synthetic or natural).

  13. #13

    Default Re: An formula from 1963

    Quote Originally Posted by George Tedder View Post
    To be a little bit pedantic; this is a bit of a misrepresentation of the size of the pallet back then. Smaller than the modern one, but not nearly by that much. And today’s pallet is really just shrinking because of regulation and safety requirements when it comes to registering new materials (synthetic or natural).
    You say tomato and I say tomato
    You are pedantic, and I am effusive.


    Quite right George... I stand corrected, it wasn't meant to be a mathematical proof just a wild-ass statement.

  14. #14
    Basenotes Member Finelikeanoyster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    In a imaginative idyllic place
    Posts
    39

    Default Re: An formula from 1963

    Yes I had thought that's a common floral aldehydic at chanel vibe, the article cites below the auctor the Yardley...

    Also i thought the formula is very more old than 1963, because the few synthetics and use of musk tincture. If this are cheap i don't know, but more than chanel 5 certainly (publicité, le monde élégant ... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯)

    I had perceived these old bases are long time target of interest by many here.

    Hey parker25, i think each aldehyde have a specific function, not only by 'mode'
    'Freshness' is the word, nothing more --- be cool
    Currently wearing: Tai Winds by Avon

  15. #15
    Basenotes Member Finelikeanoyster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    In a imaginative idyllic place
    Posts
    39

    Default Re: An formula from 1963

    Quote Originally Posted by George Tedder View Post
    To be a little bit pedantic; this is a bit of a misrepresentation of the size of the pallet back then. Smaller than the modern one, but not nearly by that much. And today’s pallet is really just shrinking because of regulation and safety requirements when it comes to registering new materials (synthetic or natural).
    Yes, nothing natural or out patent ! when a side is maked up with the face of other
    'Freshness' is the word, nothing more --- be cool
    Currently wearing: Tai Winds by Avon




Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 31st January 2019, 07:30 PM
  2. Sharing my Shalimar formula based on Louis Appell's formula-type
    By Jardin du Luxembourg in forum Fragrance DIY
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 9th August 2018, 03:02 PM
  3. How to search for 1963??
    By Mic in forum Ancient Stuff
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 3rd December 2003, 03:41 AM
  4. RIP Wesley Willis, Chicago musician, 1963-2003.
    By DJBadger in forum Ancient Stuff
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 27th August 2003, 12:29 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