"No Chemicals" equals "No Smell"

I heard it again the other day, from a woman who should have known better. She was selling a bar of fancy soap and she "explained" to her customer that this soap was made "without chemicals." I bit my tongue but didn't say a word. After all, she was a friend.

"No chemicals" means no smell. You can't have an aroma without chemicals. The nose can only smell chemicals. And you can't make soap (or perfume!) without chemicals. In fact, you can't make ANYTHING without chemicals. (Even your DREAMS require chemicals!) Chemicals are the building blocks of our physical universe.

Pressed, the soap maker might argue, "I use only NATURAL materials (chemicals). There are no SYNTHETIC chemicals in my soap and certainly no petrochemicals." Now the claim could very well be true, but it's interesting to look at its implications.

No perfumer is likely to question the proposition that natural aroma materials can impart a beauty to a perfume which no synthetic or combination of synthetic aroma materials can match. The reason for this, as every perfumer knows, is that natural aroma materials -- essential oils, for example -- are spectacular arrays of dozens or perhaps one hundred or more CHEMICALS, some of which can easily be identified; some of which can barely be detected as they make their appearance only in trace amounts.

Thus while we can name five or six of the major chemicals that give a rose, for example, its characteristic odor, the natural rose also has, within its aroma, chemicals we can barely detect, even with the most sophisticated equipment. And, as any supplier of essential oils well knows, the chemistry -- and thus the aroma -- of any particular essential oil can vary widely depending on soil conditions (moisture, nutrients, drainage, etc.), temperature, sunlight, wind and weather, rain or draught, altitude, growing and harvesting techniques, and, of course, processing techniques and technology.

Thus while we can name the major chemicals found in the aroma of a rose, it is entirely possibly or even likely that the chemistry of a rose grown on one side of a hill will differ somewhat from a rose grown on the other side of the same hill. This variability gives natural materials their charm but it creates challenges for the perfumer striving for CONSISTENCY in his or her formula.

While the praise of natural aroma materials makes perfect sense, the disparagement of synthetic aroma materials makes no sense at all. Historically, the development of synthetic aroma chemicals (which began in the mid-19th century) gave the perfumer a greatly expanded palette. As early as 1850 forward thinking perfumers were beginning to appreciate the contributions that might soon be made to their art by modern chemistry. By 1900 this revolution was well under way. By the last quarter of the 20th century, commercial perfumery was already "going green" ... years ahead of today's movement to "save the planet." Toxic aroma chemicals ("naturals" for the most part) that were formerly in widespread use were weeded out; synthetic materials replaced "naturals" gathered from endangered species, both botanical and animal. Older perfumers mourned the loss of some of their most beautiful and reliable aroma materials but they adjusted by learning to work with new, synthetic, substitutes.

Why then is "all natural" such a selling point? Wherein lies the prejudice against the work of wonderfully creative chemists and perfumers? While the best and truest users of "all natural" materials in fragrance creation are the first to acknowledge the technical LIMITATIONS of their products, a less ethical group of "all natural" promoters would like to suggest to the scientifically innocent that the fruits of laboratory chemistry are harmful, dangerous and (!!!) morally evil. Sadly, in a society uneducated in science (and chemistry in particular!) and willing to equate "technology" with "evil" (except when making use of it themselves), anti-scientific warnings of the dangers of synthetic aroma chemicals -- "petro" chemicals -- can elicit mind blinding fear.

Now let me be clear on one point. We ALL can have chemical sensitivities but these sensitivities have nothing to do with the ORIGIN of the chemical, of whether they are "natural" or synthetic. I have personally been overwhelmed by a very natural aroma material (lime oil) which I once spilled on my desk. Likewise, during the winter months when I work with my windows closed (mostly), the combined effect of the aroma materials I'm working with CAN get to me ... and I open the window! Most of us, after having a bowel movement, strive to fumigate the bathroom before the next visitor arrives, with fresh air or air freshener -- and feces is certainly a "natural" odorant.

The real SAFETY issue isn't whether an odor is objectionable. Rather, it is whether the chemical producing that odor is HARMFUL when used in the AMOUNT in which it is being used.

Yes, some guys overdo it with cologne. That bums out my nose too.

But when we talk about "harmful," we have to boil it down to a source material. To just say "I'm allergic to fragrance" or "I'm allergic to synthetic perfumes" seems a bit silly to me as the argument is too generic. Which fragrances? Which chemicals? Does the person really have a clue? Do they really care? Are they aware that some of the chemicals they are condemning might easily be found in any flower garden? Are they allergic to flowers? Or to ALL beautiful aromas? Can they really tell -- by their nose -- whether they are smelling a "natural" or a synthetic aroma material?

One of the great beauties of the nose is that, when working properly, it can be a warning device, to warn us of danger such as fire by detecting the aroma of smoke (to use a very obvious example.) But the nose can also expose us to great beauty, hence the world of perfume.

Not all perfume is "nice" perfume. Some perfumes stink. But others can be incredibly beautiful. A lot depends on personal taste but a lot more depends on the skill of the perfumer. Do you love or hate a particular perfume? Try closing your eyes and smelling it on a test blotter (or you skin). Wait twenty minutes and smell again. Wait an hour and smell again. What has happened over that period? Has the beauty of the fragrance faded? Or has it evolved into a new beauty?

Test without reference to HOW the perfume was manufactured or what ingredients the promoter claims. Let your nose be the judge. Develop your appreciation of the fragrance itself, not what people say about it. Graphic designers make bottles and packaging, advertising people make swell sounding claims. But perfumers make perfume and perfume itself can be appreciated, not by words but by the nose alone.

How Many Ingredients Go Into A Perfume?

I was reading an article about perfume the other day and came across the statement that "a perfume is composed of over 1,000 ingredients." The article was a "warning" about the hidden dangers of perfumes and this was an interesting piece of misinformation as it would be tough to find any perfume that has been composed with anything close to 1,000 ingredients (chemicals) -- with the possible exception of an "all natural" perfume using a very wide variety of essential oils and absolutes which, if all their chemicals (many of which would be found only in very, very small amounts) could be detected and added up, the "1,000" mark might be in sight.

But in the real world perfumes are NOT composed of 1,000 or more ingredients. The writer clearly mistook the number of ingredients AVAILABLE to a perfumer (which today might be more in the range of from three to five thousand) for the number of ingredients a perfumer might actually use in a composition. The number USED is more likely to be in the range of from about twenty to one hundred but, even of these, perhaps six or eight define the fragrance and the others -- some used in very, very small amounts, would simply balance, blend and decorate the fragrance.

For the small, independent, perfumer working without access to expensive technical balances (scales) or an extensive "library" or aroma materials, the actual number of ingredients used in a perfume may even be LESS than twenty due to these technical limitations.

The great perfumer, François Coty -- whose perfumes and business acumen set the perfume world back on it's heels in the first decades of the 20th Century, used VERY simple formulas (by today's standards) because Coty lacked the years of training that are required to be a "real" perfumer. Yet Coty's fragrances went head to head with the marketing giants of his day -- L.T. Piver, Bourjois, Guerlain, and above all, Houbigant. It wasn't the number of ingredients he used, it was the way in which he used a handful of ingredients.

So ask the painter, "How many colors does it take to make a painting?" Ask the composer, "How many different notes does it take to make a symphony?" To make a perfume, the perfumer uses materials he or she needs to achieve the exact effect that is desired -- not one more, not one less. To err in either direction is to weaken the effect of the fragrance. The art of the perfumer lies in knowing what to put in and what to leave out. The best perfumers -- the great artists of perfumery -- are the most demanding judges of what belongs and what does not. I doubt that any great perfumer, living or dead, would have much interest in composing a perfume using "1,000 or more" ingredients -- unless perhaps they were gunning for a contract with some weird reality show.

Non-Traditional Fragrances For Men

(Fragrances for men who don't really need a fragrance.)

I use fragrance for pleasure. No other reason. I give my wife fragrances for her pleasure, and the pleasure it gives me when she wears them. Does a man need to wear fragrance? Look how it's sold. If the man buys it for himself, it is because other guys have told him it's a great panty dropper. But more likely he wears it because a girlfriend or wife (hopefully not his mother!) tells him it smells nice on him. So he uses it. But he didn't select it. He didn't even know he would be "improved" by the use of her favorite men's fragrance.

Suppose you were free to make all the decisions. Suppose you could decide -- YOURSELF -- to use or not to use fragrance. Suppose there were no ads, no wives or girlfriends (or mothers!), no guy pressures. Would you wear fragrance?

I love fragrance for the way it smells. The aroma. My nose feasts on the beauty of (certain!) fragrances the way my ears feast on (certain!) music and my eyes feast on (certain!) art (and other things.) I love fragrance for the pleasure it gives my nose -- not because it helps me pick up girls, not because it goes well with my new suit, not because it will show others I have sophisticated tastes. I just want to feast on the aroma.

I've written a good deal about the history of perfume. I've used 4711 and Farina's Kolnisch Wasser, Fougere Royale, and Jicky. And Drakkar Noir, Cool Water, and CKFree. When I sit down to create a men's fragrance, I know most emphatically what I do not want it to be.

A first encounter with Toxic is likely to leave a person shocked. The thought is, "that's not how a man's fragrance should smell ... what was he thinking!!!" It's like a culturally sheltered person's first encounter with modern art. It takes a bit of mental adjustment. Then you begin to understand what's going on and appreciate it -- or you rush back to paintings of hunting dogs and ducks.

For me, I see an opportunity to create for men in a way that would make no economic sense for a commercial perfumery bent on making its numbers. For me, creating a fragrance I WANT TO USE MYSELF involves discovering themes in unusual places -- non-traditional places where classic perfumers would not dare to go -- and then using my mental impressions from these themes to build new aromas. Non-traditional aromas.

My way of looking at the world may seem strange to some but I believe in letting the fragrance speak for itself.