Code of Conduct
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 62
  1. #31
    Basenotes Member filipeleira's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    S„o Paulo
    Posts
    45

    Default Re: Sharpness in mainstream Perfumes

    Quote Originally Posted by pkiler View Post
    My Scent, the 2019 Art and Olfaction award winner, Maderas de Oriente Oscuro, does indeed have Karanal, Amber Ketal, Ambrocenide, and some of these monster amber woodies, but the dosage is far less than what is being discussed here.
    I was very surprised when I found out that Sauvage Parfum has 10% Ambrocenide (10% in DPG) and 8% Ambroxan.. and many reviewers say they don't feel any Ambroxan, maybe because it's not listed in the pyramid notes as in the EDT version...

    I think this large amount of woody ambers completely obfuscates other materials and definitely tires our noses faster, in addition to the headaches...
    Filipe L.
    Accords, bases and perfume formulas: https://creative-formulas.com/

  2. #32

    Default Re: Sharpness in mainstream Perfumes

    Thank you everyone ! Very good and helpful answers! Great

  3. #33

    Default Re: Sharpness in mainstream Perfumes

    Quote Originally Posted by filipeleira View Post
    I think this large amount of woody ambers completely obfuscates other materials and definitely tires our noses faster, in addition to the headaches...
    people walk around staring at their phones, neither engaging with the world around them nor with what lies deep within them; itís the appropriate scent of our times, just a dull ache of the numb

  4. #34
    Basenotes Plus
    Devil's Son In Law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Washington DC
    Posts
    493

    Default Re: Sharpness in mainstream Perfumes

    Quote Originally Posted by filipeleira View Post
    I was very surprised when I found out that Sauvage Parfum has 10% Ambrocenide (10% in DPG) and 8% Ambroxan.. and many reviewers say they don't feel any Ambroxan, maybe because it's not listed in the pyramid notes as in the EDT version...

    I think this large amount of woody ambers completely obfuscates other materials and definitely tires our noses faster, in addition to the headaches...
    I knew about the 8% Ambroxan, but 10% Ambrocenide? Madness! Johnny Depp will not live very long if he keeps wearing this...

    I'm already over this trend. On to the next one. I miss Prague were women still like musk and it isn't all sugar and woody ambers.... yet.
    Andrew Hugg, Lieutenant Colonel, USAF (retired)

  5. #35

    Default Re: Sharpness in mainstream Perfumes

    I think with enough marketing money and the right celebrity's name to launch it, the smell of rotten garbage could be made the next trend.

    Apparently many can be programmed to want anything.

  6. #36

    Default Re: Sharpness in mainstream Perfumes

    Rotten garbage used to be a trend. Remember the scented nail polishes that smelled like that on purpose?!

  7. #37

    Default Re: Sharpness in mainstream Perfumes

    (sigh....)

    You're right.

  8. #38

    Default Re: Sharpness in mainstream Perfumes

    Quote Originally Posted by RSG View Post
    Rotten garbage used to be a trend. Remember the scented nail polishes that smelled like that on purpose?!
    I guess we can try to start a trend of full-strength pyrazines in fragrances and see how it goes!

  9. #39
    Basenotes Plus
    Devil's Son In Law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Washington DC
    Posts
    493

    Default Re: Sharpness in mainstream Perfumes

    Quote Originally Posted by bsouthers View Post
    I guess we can try to start a trend of full-strength pyrazines in fragrances and see how it goes!
    I just made this, inspired by your new trend idea for pryazine I don't think it's going to work I usually keep pryazine below 0.02% but... So we had aldehydes in the 20s, dihydro mercynol in the 70s-80s, calone in the 90s, Ambroxan, Oud. Next I predict "Umami"?

    SAUVAGE: NUTMEG IN HELL EDITION

    15% Hedione
    8 linalool
    5 lianyl acetate
    2 lavender high alt. EO
    12 bergamot EO (desensitized)
    8 dihydro mercynol
    2 Amber Extreme
    12 ISO-E Super
    10 Ambroxan
    1 dimethyl pryazine
    17 Galaxolide
    2 black pepper
    5 vanillin
    1 star anise
    Andrew Hugg, Lieutenant Colonel, USAF (retired)

  10. #40
    Super Member Casper_grassy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    Queens
    Posts
    166

    Default Re: Sharpness in mainstream Perfumes

    Avant-garde-bage

  11. #41
    Basenotes Plus

    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    84

    Default Re: Sharpness in mainstream Perfumes

    Eau de Derelicte!

  12. #42

    Default Re: Sharpness in mainstream Perfumes

    Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Son In Law View Post
    I just made this, inspired by your new trend idea for pryazine I don't think it's going to work I usually keep pryazine below 0.02% but... So we had aldehydes in the 20s, dihydro mercynol in the 70s-80s, calone in the 90s, Ambroxan, Oud. Next I predict "Umami"?

    SAUVAGE: NUTMEG IN HELL EDITION

    15% Hedione
    8 linalool
    5 lianyl acetate
    2 lavender high alt. EO
    12 bergamot EO (desensitized)
    8 dihydro mercynol
    2 Amber Extreme
    12 ISO-E Super
    10 Ambroxan
    1 dimethyl pryazine
    17 Galaxolide
    2 black pepper
    5 vanillin
    1 star anise
    Ha! How would you describe it?

  13. #43
    Basenotes Plus
    Devil's Son In Law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Washington DC
    Posts
    493

    Default Re: Sharpness in mainstream Perfumes

    Quote Originally Posted by bsouthers View Post
    Ha! How would you describe it?
    Imagine if you turned all of the water in the world to liquid pryazine and all of the land into powdered Amber Extreme. And then you detonated all of the nukes at once. The pryazine in this was "only" 1% but it is 100 times too much. It is not sharp, but it is like being shaken by a giant squirrel looking for nutmeg for winter. Just wanted to see what 1% was like Glad that's over...

    The rest of it is fine. Either lower the pryazine by 100 or more (down to 0.03% would be fine or dilute it), or replace with about 0.3% nutmeg EO maybe? And yes, BKkorn... lower the Amber Extreme to 0.5% also
    Andrew Hugg, Lieutenant Colonel, USAF (retired)

  14. #44

    Default Re: Sharpness in mainstream Perfumes

    Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Son In Law View Post
    Imagine if you turned all of the water in the world to liquid pryazine and all of the land into powdered Amber Extreme. And then you detonated all of the nukes at once. The pryazine in this was "only" 1% but it is 100 times too much. It is not sharp, but it is like being shaken by a giant squirrel looking for nutmeg for winter. Just wanted to see what 1% was like Glad that's over...

    The rest of it is fine. Either lower the pryazine by 100 or more (down to 0.03% would be fine or dilute it), or replace with about 0.3% nutmeg EO maybe? And yes, BKkorn... lower the Amber Extreme to 0.5% also
    I definitely appreciate your enthusiasm for trying that! Perhaps we should mix it with my batch of what was a nice, woody, coffee fragrance until I inadvertently overdosed it with coffee difuran. That stuff is amazingly strong as well - and I used it at 0.01%!

  15. #45
    Basenotes Plus
    Devil's Son In Law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Washington DC
    Posts
    493

    Default Re: Sharpness in mainstream Perfumes

    Quote Originally Posted by bsouthers View Post
    I definitely appreciate your enthusiasm for trying that! Perhaps we should mix it with my batch of what was a nice, woody, coffee fragrance until I inadvertently overdosed it with coffee difuran. That stuff is amazingly strong as well - and I used it at 0.01%!
    Really? Wow I’ve never tried that. I only have used a bad espresso extract from Creating Perfume and a coffee tincture I made from New Orleans coffee ground with chickory. That is very mild so no problem dosing.
    Andrew Hugg, Lieutenant Colonel, USAF (retired)

  16. #46
    New Member Noobsinth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    North-West
    Posts
    13

    Cool Re: Sharpness in mainstream Perfumes

    Here are my thoughts.

    1) it is still unclear to me what does "sharp" mean. I think, It is so overloaded with meanings as well as "animalic", "musky" and my favourite one - "sweet"... When I was completely new to perfumery I smelled the very precious "Olibanum SFE" (Somali) extract by Firmenich and thought to myself: "Omg it is so peppery and sharp! Why everyone keeps saying it is sweet and creamy and divine? Smells like black pepper..." Now I regret how stupidly I wasted such a treasure... 😢 And then I discovered "Karanal" by Givaudan ( I quess?) and I thought: "Omg, it is so divine! I would like every perfume consisted of 100% of this stuff". So, terminology is a bit falling behind the trends all right because we have more ACs than simple words to describe them. 👓

    To me "sharpness" is associated with terpenic smells such as Pinene, Terpinene and such. I could describe Alpha-Terpineol as "sharp" as well, because it reminds me of chlorine and detergents. I could also say that Eucalyptol is "sharp". So, there is a lot of sharp things but they are associated with so-called "top notes" to me. There are a lot of popular fragrances that use "Bergamot" + "Pink pepper" combo. Woody-ambery molecules are heavy and usually layered over by more volatile molecules and softened by ketones and lactones. Besides many people are anosmic to some extent to heavy molecules. I doubt that a person who loves fragrances but doesn't bother with technology behind can smell woody-ambery moluceles rigth from the first sniff in a complex mixture... So to me It is not obvious when people describe something as "sharp". To me "sharp" means "terpenic" which is correlate to what most people can smell right away. I don't mean you personaly, mikacologne, just sharing my thoughts about people around me who are far from being called "fragheads".

    2) I am on the same page with Bkkorn and some other DIY-perfumers here about woody-ambery ACs because of trigeminal effect they give. To me woody-ambery ACs smell like fine glass shards or hot sand. It is difficult to ignore this wow-effect and create "commonly appreciated" perfumes instead [sniffs "AmberXtreme 10%" quickly]. It is also important to understand an olfactory experience that formes a person's taste. I discovered perfumery last year and I am 32 years old. People of my age just don't bother with vintages (2000s and early) and enjoy what department stores have on their shelves as well as online-stores. You should dig really deep to get a fine bottle of great old days of greener grass. In other words, to us (30+) woody-ambery AC is a starting point. You can't undo your olfactory birth. 🧐 It is possible to acquire expertise and skills in blending other molecules but today I enjoy woody-ambery ACs and perfectly understand others who does or does not.

    3) there is a big problem with "commoners terminology". Here we understand each other (more or less) because we experiment with the same molecules and ACs but there are thousands of people who don't care how perfumery works - they just wear perfumery as an accessoir and not as an advanced communication method or a piece of art. For example, infamous "Baccarat Rouge 540 Eau de parfum" is perceived just as a strawberry jam which is almost identical to the "Extrait" version by the most of people (which is not true! &#128162. "Dior Sauvage" EDT or EDP is said to be just an "ambroxan bomb" which is also not true as we know it is a well-balanced complex composition. For many frag lovers it is very hard to describe difficult abstract aromas nowadays let alone distinct notes. Some people say "musk is sweet and suffocating and animalic, I can't stand it" which baffles me every time because to my nose musk is a scent of purity... So, to each their own.

    4) as for overdoses I think the very notion of "overdose" is also abused hard recentry. Overdose to me is something standing out unbalanced which happens quite rarely. Some people are sensitive to particular ACs and for them everything with that ACs is an "overdose".

    To cut a long story short, if you are not overly sensitive to particular aroma chemicals you should have a good or at least trained nose to detect woody-ambery molecules to call the whole perfume that contains it "sharp". Once again I dont mean anyone personally, just sharing my observation.
    Cheers! 🙂

  17. #47

    Default Re: Sharpness in mainstream Perfumes

    Quote Originally Posted by Noobsinth View Post
    Here are my thoughts.


    3) there is a big problem with "commoners terminology". Here we understand each other (more or less) because we experiment with the same molecules and ACs but there are thousands of people who don't care how perfumery works -

    ... Some people say "musk is sweet and suffocating and animalic, I can't stand it" which baffles me every time because to my nose musk is a scent of purity... So, to each their own.

    4) as for overdoses I think the very notion of "overdose" is also abused hard recentry. Overdose to me is something standing out unbalanced which happens quite rarely. Some people are sensitive to particular ACs and for them everything with that ACs is an "overdose".
    Yes, terminology is a problem.

    As a guess it probably is not so much a problem when trained in the industry. One would gather with time how others are using words are when one's own predilictions aren't fitting in with how others speak, and would adjust for clear communication.

    Nothing like all of this ever reaches the Web or print, I expect

    For us, very good advice (I think) that has often been given is to first get your own impressions of smells, taking a lot of time and preferably repeated focused efforts, and your own words. Don't leap immediately to what others say.

    But then (not given as advice as much I think) go find as many descriptions as you can. Sometimes you will agree, on things you hadn't picked up on but now that it's mentioned, sure, there it is. An analogy might be someone pointing out that the refrigerator is quite audible in their home, but you hadn't noticed it till mentioned. Other times, some of what they say will be puzzlements. You just don't detect that.

    Sometimes, over the course of time, with repeated examples of you not detecting a given term but discovering a pattern where for all these things, that term is used, and oh yes there is that similarity. Then a light bulb comes on, and THAT is what they mean by that term!

    With regard to usage in writings by perfumistas and perfume writers, fragrance pyramids etc these should be ignored and discarded entirely. Not reliable whatsoever with regard to perfuming usage. Very commonly such will completely misunderstand materials and even basic categories such as musk.

    On that subtopic, among us here any of these properly and commonly get called musk smells:

    Aromamaterials which only contain musk molecules.

    Aromamaterials sold as musks which contain non-musk materials. These non-musk materials contribute smell which the person may attribute to what musks smell like. For example a barnyard sort of smell, which no musk molecule smells like so far as I know.

    Natural musk, which contains more than just musk molecules.

    "Animalic" is a problematic term IMO, particularly when people make it synonymous with "barnyard." In the industry I understand musks such as Exaltolide are characterized as having animalic quality, but there is zero barnyard, so I would disagree it is useful to make animalic synonymous with barnyard or even necessarily to include it But that's me, you will find disagreement here on that.

  18. #48

    Default Re: Sharpness in mainstream Perfumes

    Noobsinth,
    Well thought and well communicated.
    I disagree; the commercial scents of today all smell the same to me after thirty seconds and they all give me a headache.
    Nonetheless, well thought and well communicated.

  19. #49
    Super Member Casper_grassy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    Queens
    Posts
    166

    Default Re: Sharpness in mainstream Perfumes

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Roberts View Post
    Yes, terminology is a problem.

    As a guess it probably is not so much a problem when trained in the industry. One would gather with time how others are using words are when one's own predilictions aren't fitting in with how others speak, and would adjust for clear communication.

    Nothing like all of this ever reaches the Web or print, I expect

    For us, very good advice (I think) that has often been given is to first get your own impressions of smells, taking a lot of time and preferably repeated focused efforts, and your own words. Don't leap immediately to what others say.

    But then (not given as advice as much I think) go find as many descriptions as you can. Sometimes you will agree, on things you hadn't picked up on but now that it's mentioned, sure, there it is. An analogy might be someone pointing out that the refrigerator is quite audible in their home, but you hadn't noticed it till mentioned. Other times, some of what they say will be puzzlements. You just don't detect that.

    Sometimes, over the course of time, with repeated examples of you not detecting a given term but discovering a pattern where for all these things, that term is used, and oh yes there is that similarity. Then a light bulb comes on, and THAT is what they mean by that term!

    With regard to usage in writings by perfumistas and perfume writers, fragrance pyramids etc these should be ignored and discarded entirely. Not reliable whatsoever with regard to perfuming usage. Very commonly such will completely misunderstand materials and even basic categories such as musk.

    On that subtopic, among us here any of these properly and commonly get called musk smells:

    Aromamaterials which only contain musk molecules.

    Aromamaterials sold as musks which contain non-musk materials. These non-musk materials contribute smell which the person may attribute to what musks smell like. For example a barnyard sort of smell, which no musk molecule smells like so far as I know.

    Natural musk, which contains more than just musk molecules.

    "Animalic" is a problematic term IMO, particularly when people make it synonymous with "barnyard." In the industry I understand musks such as Exaltolide are characterized as having animalic quality, but there is zero barnyard, so I would disagree it is useful to make animalic synonymous with barnyard or even necessarily to include it But that's me, you will find disagreement here on that.
    I would go so far to say that MOST civet related materials are all that smell animalic. I own shangralide which I’ve shown to people who have no knowledge in regards to perfumery all have said “it smells like a deer”. So there is something to be said how our brains convert a scent to an image. I’ve been hunting twice in my life, after a deer was “put down”, it smelled NOTHING like shangralide. Obviously deer are animals, but there’s nothing animalic about it IMO. I also got a castoreum tincture And it doesn’t smell animalic either to me. Nothing about it screams animal. I did however purchase a civettone sample and, ok, that’s animalic. Even upon buying any material the I read the description only for an idea and hold nothing said as verbatim, mostly because my expectations are usually let down. I have never smelled real ambergris so I can’t speak on that, though my ambergris aroma chems also do not smell animalic, indoles as well.
    I guess one can surmise it’s up to the smeller and what they imagine it is. I’ve read multiple times Maltol apparently smells like cotton candy, I got none of that

  20. #50

    Default Re: Sharpness in mainstream Perfumes

    My thought is one can gather with time how, within a field, others use a word.

    For example, someone just getting into playing guitar or being a recording engineer might have no idea what a "chunky" guitar tone is, or fat, crunchy, flabby, muddy, scooped, Fender-y, British etc.

    With time though one would correlate what one hears with what people are saying and get them figured out, even without anyone explaining.

    With the musks, we can see from TGSC that -- "despite" having no urine, fecal, or sweat notes and as you say not literally smelling at all like a deer or at least not a deer in its entirety -- civettone, Exaltenone, Cosmone, Exaltolide, Globanone, muscenone, Exaltone, isomuscone, Zenolide, muscone, dihydroambrettolide, Oxalide-T, Habanolide, and Musk R1 all get the "animal" or "animalic" descriptor.

    (Myself I don't believe I would say it for Zenolide, but that's me I suppose.)

    So, if having a handle on what the other descriptors are, whatever is in common among all these that isn't one of those other things, almost must be the "animal" as the professionals mean it in the context of musks!

    It is, to me, a kind of "life," as if ready to move, and also reminiscent of a cat's belly and also of a parrot's belly, but not inclusive of as much of the latter. It is a distinct quality that commonly exists in musks but not in other things in the same way.

    (In the context of some other olfactory categories, the "animal" term broadens out to other things that don't exist within musk molecules so far as I know.)

  21. #51

    Default Re: Sharpness in mainstream Perfumes

    Interesting points on this thread for sure. As long as we don’t move to terminology such as labeling materials with “blue”, “purple”, etc., I think I can live with the variety of animalic materials all lumped together. I’m ok with green since I know it denotes leafy, grassy odors.

  22. #52
    Super Member Casper_grassy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    Queens
    Posts
    166

    Default Re: Sharpness in mainstream Perfumes

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Roberts View Post
    My thought is one can gather with time how, within a field, others use a word.

    For example, someone just getting into playing guitar or being a recording engineer might have no idea what a "chunky" guitar tone is, or fat, crunchy, flabby, muddy, scooped, Fender-y, British etc.

    With time though one would correlate what one hears with what people are saying and get them figured out, even without anyone explaining.

    With the musks, we can see from TGSC that -- "despite" having no urine, fecal, or sweat notes and as you say not literally smelling at all like a deer or at least not a deer in its entirety -- civettone, Exaltenone, Cosmone, Exaltolide, Globanone, muscenone, Exaltone, isomuscone, Zenolide, muscone, dihydroambrettolide, Oxalide-T, Habanolide, and Musk R1 all get the "animal" or "animalic" descriptor.

    (Myself I don't believe I would say it for Zenolide, but that's me I suppose.)

    So, if having a handle on what the other descriptors are, whatever is in common among all these that isn't one of those other things, almost must be the "animal" as the professionals mean it in the context of musks!

    It is, to me, a kind of "life," as if ready to move, and also reminiscent of a cat's belly and also of a parrot's belly, but not inclusive of as much of the latter. It is a distinct quality that commonly exists in musks but not in other things in the same way.

    (In the context of some other olfactory categories, the "animal" term broadens out to other things that don't exist within musk molecules so far as I know.)
    Thank you, I like that a lot, if taking what into account what is professionally said, use that for others. I totally agree with you on zenolide, I need to get that again, it's a really a nice musk.
    Gotta get an orange amp for british

  23. #53
    Basenotes Plus

    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    84

    Default Re: Sharpness in mainstream Perfumes

    So far I've found anything described as animalic to be more attributable to the smell of an animal's rear end. My cat's head and belly smell delicious (like a bag of sweaty sweet potatoes!), so I can see the association between animalic and musk - but the rear end is another matter!

    Civet smells to me like a kid's sandbox where you forgot to put the cover on overnight and a neighbourhood cat paid a visit. A mixture of number 1s and 2s.

    Castoreum smells to me like a herd of muddy dairy cows making their way across the road from one paddock to the next as their matted tails swat the flies away.

    These are images that immediately pop into my head (I suppose the closest association my mind can draw from my limited experience in the world). If I was never told that they were animalic, I'd still jump to the same association.

  24. #54

    Default Re: Sharpness in mainstream Perfumes

    Well said, James H!

    We have people over-using the word “animalic” in cases where the accurate descriptor lead words should be “urinous” or “fecal” or “vague nongendered nether-region expulsatory.” Or even “gendered nether-region.”


    I wish we would save “animalic” for furry, epidermal musky scents.

  25. #55

    Default Re: Sharpness in mainstream Perfumes

    ^^^^^^^^

    This.

    Communication is always clearest when a narrower word that fits exactly is chosen over something broader.

    We do have to recognize that people, including professionals, may not always follow such a principle: it's always necessary to interpret what people say according to what they meant when saying or writing it. So we will find statements by professionals where a purely urinous or purely scatological material gets called "animalic." It has to be understood.

    But for clearest personal use, there are already precise words for urinous or fecal, or for the combination of both together, typically with some effect of being there for some time, with some perhaps-undefinable associated sorts of scent there is "barnyard," yet this brilliant (best description I've seen) of "furry, epidermal musky scents" description, a little lengthy to use routinely, has no one word for it except "animal" or "animalic," so far as I know anyway. But it's a very important quality and deserves a word. Without making something up, that's what we have for it.

    It is how Exaltolide, which some consider a reference musk, is animalic. So it is how I use the word, but certainly not everyone must do the same, or does.

  26. #56

    Default Re: Sharpness in mainstream Perfumes

    Thank you for the respect, Bill.
    Back at ya.


    It is so easy these days to chase down better adjectives/synonyms. We can do better in this area; after all, we’re all eddukated.

  27. #57
    New Member Noobsinth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    North-West
    Posts
    13

    Default Re: Sharpness in mainstream Perfumes

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Roberts View Post
    Yes, terminology is a problem.
    For us, very good advice (I think) that has often been given is to first get your own impressions of smells, taking a lot of time and preferably repeated focused efforts, and your own words. Don't leap immediately to what others say.

    But then (not given as advice as much I think) go find as many descriptions as you can. Sometimes you will agree, on things you hadn't picked up on but now that it's mentioned, sure, there it is. An analogy might be someone pointing out that the refrigerator is quite audible in their home, but you hadn't noticed it till mentioned. Other times, some of what they say will be puzzlements. You just don't detect that.

    Sometimes, over the course of time, with repeated examples of you not detecting a given term but discovering a pattern where for all these things, that term is used, and oh yes there is that similarity. Then a light bulb comes on, and THAT is what they mean by that term!
    Yes, I agree. It is what experienced perfumers teach us.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Roberts View Post
    "Animalic" is a problematic term IMO, particularly when people make it synonymous with "barnyard." In the industry I understand musks such as Exaltolide are characterized as having animalic quality, but there is zero barnyard, so I would disagree it is useful to make animalic synonymous with barnyard or even necessarily to include it But that's me, you will find disagreement here on that.
    I think that "musk" is often confused with "woody-ambery" by many people. Popular "oud replacers" (Nagarmotha, Norlimbanol, Ambermax etc) also contirubute to this confusion a lot, in my oppinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Roberts View Post
    My thought is one can gather with time how, within a field, others use a word.
    So, if having a handle on what the other descriptors are, whatever is in common among all these that isn't one of those other things, almost must be the "animal" as the professionals mean it in the context of musks!
    Mr. Luca Turin, who is the famous biochemist that contributed a lot in understanding of olfactory, doesn't understand why musks are "animalic" either.
    But I see your point and I agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by -db- View Post
    Noobsinth,
    Well thought and well communicated.
    I disagree; the commercial scents of today all smell the same to me after thirty seconds and they all give me a headache.
    Nonetheless, well thought and well communicated.
    Thank you, -db-! 😎 Think I need to raid a department store or two pretty soon to update my olfactory database. 😉

  28. #58

    Default Re: Sharpness in mainstream Perfumes

    Agreed on all points.

    I find the confusion between amber and musk strange. I can see it where a person might feel "musk" means "animal-y", and since ambergris is "animal-y," decide that ambergris or ambrinol are "musky" though their odor is not remotely similar to the qualities of what one might call reference musk molecules.

    But how for example Z11 could be proposed as a musk replacement -- absolutely not picking on anyone, simply an excellent and real illustration -- I can't see why, but people do make these amber/musk crossovers in terminology. Finding lists of musks in this forum, it's not unusual to see a non-musk amber included.. I'm sure at lease one other of the sharp dry high-impact ambers recently was also. Maybe even Ambrox.

    (Is it possible though for a musk molecule to have an ambery minor note to it? I suppose, it's claimed for Celestolide for example.)

  29. #59
    Super Member Casper_grassy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    Queens
    Posts
    166

    Default Re: Sharpness in mainstream Perfumes

    Perfume semantics aside, I figured I would bring this up just cause the original topic.
    I bought a few samples from scentsevent and literally just received them. I wanted some different things that I can wear (regardless of this mask nonsense) and also to see if there is anything of interest. I picked up:
    The uncomprimising sohan from penhaligon
    Overture man from amouage
    Diaghilev from roja dove
    Layton exclusif from parfums de marly
    Oajan from parfums de marly
    A few others I already I owned just wanted more of because I like them and didn’t want to purchase a full bottle
    Strangely enough specifically because of this post I went in expecting sharpness and I couldn’t have been more wrong.
    Absolutely nothing was sharp, in fact on the contrary, they were all delicate and nice smelling. Even “diaghilev” which was the most masculine, smokey and incense-y was very soft and delicate. The Uncomprimising Sohan was apparently, based on comments on fragrantica was a strong oud, yeah oud, where? It smelled lovely, but nothing sharp or intense. Actually out of the five I wrote down, not one of them was out of this world or sharp at all. I do own a sample of 1985 kouros, as much of a monster that is, it still isn’t sharp. Not even the slightest. After I smelled my new samples I went to smell most of my full bottled perfumes (which I felt would be “sharp”) and realized that the sharpest perfume I own is cool water. I was actually in agreement with most of this thread in terms of the dry woody ambery molecules used, however to my surprise nothing is actually sharp at all. It could be that over time my nose is just getting better at smelling molecules used in fragrances, however no sharpness.
    So I am not confused but rather left wondering why the thought that there is a sharpness in modern perfumes. I don’t think it’s there. I have made some shit before that’s like slap in the face sharp, but no perfumes of recent time could make me think otherwise. If anyone has any examples of what or where this sharpness ideology is coming from, I am more than happy to explore

  30. #60

    Default Re: Sharpness in mainstream Perfumes

    CG,
    None of those are in Ulta.
    None of those are in Sephora.
    Not what this is about.
    Consider yourself lucky that you donít know what this is about.
    You should into Sephora and ask ďWhereís the _________?Ē (Anything from your list).
    Film it on your phone, please; we definitely want to see the look on their/his/her face when you ask.




Similar Threads

  1. Your favourite mainstream/designer perfumes released within the last 5 (or so) years?
    By freewheelingvagabond in forum Female Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 30th March 2019, 07:25 PM
  2. Sharpness
    By TripleOne in forum Male Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 28th January 2017, 04:23 PM
  3. Authentic Mainstream Rose Perfumes
    By david in forum Male Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 27th July 2015, 06:32 PM
  4. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 23rd February 2011, 07:26 PM
  5. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 17th March 2008, 12:45 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