Perfume Talks

Read the Annual Reports

2011-08-11T17:54:00.000-07:00

Every fragrance launch by a big company is a "major event." If a celebrity is involved -- and most new fragrances involves a celebrity -- the press release will note now involved the celebrity was in creating "their" fragrance. Sales in the first weeks of the launch are, commonly, impressive. But once the buzz fades, do we really know what's happening with the new brand?

In an unusual but perhaps necessary (due to government reporting requirements) announcement, Parlux recently reported a slippage in the sales of Rihanna's "Reb'l Fleur" perfume. This announcement came along with the news that Parlux was actually putting more money into their advertising and promotion than they had the previous year. This Rihanna announcement, reported in the August 8, 2011 issue of CosmeticDesign.com, came little more than six months after the U.S. launch of "Reb'l Fleur."

No doubt "Reb'l Fleur" will continue to sell, and Parlux will make sure that it gets out to the stores. They, like Rihanna, are professionals and know what they are doing.

But what about you? Do you really know what's going on with all these new perfumes? Did you ever wish you could get behind the celebrity press releases and get some solid information -- NUMBERS -- on the successes and failures?

There is a way to do it. It's called ANNUAL REPORTS (and K-10 SEC filings). While information on a celebrity's earnings is a private matter, most of the fragrances out there are marketed by publicly owned companies. Thus they are required to file financial and other information with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). These reports are available to you -- Free -- almost always directly from the companies themselves, from their own websites, usually under a heading such as "Investor Relations."

Now while a celebrity without a perfume is no celebrity at all, and it is true that the market seems to be saturated with dozens upon dozens of these fragrances, the truth is that almost all of these celebrity fragrances are marketed by just five companies: Coty, Elizabeth Arden, Estee Lauder, Interparfums, and Parlux. While Coty is perhaps the largest player in this game, it is privately owned and thus, no annual report. Each of the others has a website on which their financials are available, to you, in Adobe pdf format so you can save them to your hard drive and even print them out if you don't mind using up a lot of paper and ink.

If you really want to know what's going on in the perfume business, try downloading and READING just one annual report from any one of these companies. You will learn a lot about the businesses. My recommendations for your first readings would be either Parlux (fascinating!) or Elizabeth Arden (also fascinating). Enjoy!

Hats and Perfume

2011-04-25T07:21:00.000-07:00

1907. Gabrielle Chanel is making hats. Ernest Beaux is making perfume. Alice B. Toklas arrives in Paris and is introduced to Fernande Picasso by Gertrude Stein. What are the topics of interest to Mrs. Picasso? Hats and perfume.

Today we don't think so much about hats. But up into the early 1950's at least, hats were a topic of interest to women ... and men.

Today we don't talk so much about perfume. There are too many; they are too common. But this wasn't always so.

In Gertrude Stein's "autobiographical" dialogue for Toklas, "[Fernande Picasso] had a true French feeling about a hat, if a hat did not provoke some witticism from a man on the street the hat was not a success."

When Chanel and Beaux began their famous collaboration on perfumes, it is said they would sit in a cafe and spray a bit of an experimental fragrance into the air as others passed. If the fragrance failed to provoke a reaction, they considered it a failure.

How times have changed.

Perfume - A Man's Armor

2011-03-14T14:35:00.000-07:00

Once in conversation a friend expressed the opinion that, in the business world, a man's suit was his armor. With his suit on a man takes on the world, just as the knights of old wore armor to do battle. I had never seen men's suits in this light (my father bought and sold men's suits for a living) but I was fascinated by my friend's thought. The idea that we do things in the morning before we leave the house to brace ourselves for the tricky tides and currents we may confront during the day.

This thought about girding ourselves in armor before heading to the office came back to me the other day but it wasn't men's suits I was thinking of, it was a men's fragrance called Toxic.

I created Toxic for sensory stimulation alone, not for seduction or office appropriate. Once the initial exposure has been absorbed, women tolerate it; men say grows on them. But perhaps because I've never warmed to the big brands of men's colognes, I find Toxic quite pleasant and, as I said, it provides sensory stimulation.

But I was noticing that on days when I really want a boost I find myself reaching for Toxic in the morning, long before my first cup of coffee. Toxic seems to set me up for the day and I think I'm using it in the same way my friend saw men using suits -- as armor, protection, a psychological tool in physical form, a preparation to do battle.

The funny thing about the composition of Toxic is that, with the exception of one essential oil (which gives it it's unique quality), the rest of the ingredients would more likely be found in a woman's perfume than in a man's cologne. Perhaps that's why it agrees with me. I do love perfume on women. Once your nose sorts out the smell a bit, Topic is richer and more complex than what so many men slap on in the morning to please their women (and bomb out their co-workers!) But I can picture Toxic on Wall Street, just as I can picture it on a ragged poet. Of course there are a lot of in between situations where a whiff of Toxic would stir many feathers.

What do we mean by "good" perfume?

2011-02-14T10:10:00.000-08:00

My wife and I were at a wine tasting in California and our hostess gave this definition of "good" wine. "Good wine is wine you like."

Yes, it's as simple as that. Good perfume is perfume you like.

But why then would Edmond Roudnitska spend all those years creating but a handful of perfumes? Why would he write about perfume so passionately?

The answer, obvious to thoughtful people, is that there are levels of taste and what defines "good" for the person at one level can be quite different that what defines "good" for the person at another.

We tend to think of these levels having a hierarchy. The more we know about the subject, the more sophisticated we become, the "higher" we regard our level of taste. People who see themselves at the "higher" level tend to dictate the rules of aesthetics. It's our human vanity.

I have on my desk an 8-1/2 inch high metal fabrication. I am convinced that some would regard it as an artwork and strive to discover its meaning. Indeed, it sits on my desk because I personally take inspiration from it through a sort of zen contemplation. I've even adopted the view that it's creator really is an artist and I hope to acquire additional pieces from him when they are available.

Yet I know the origin of this piece. I know that it was "created" not through purpose or design but rather through three days of arc welding lessons graciously given to a neophyte who just wanted to learn to weld. Perhaps its a little like "art" produced by an elephant with a paint brush. The result might be beautiful and through provoking but that doesn't make the elephant an artist.

I came across a blog entry recently posted by Angela stating "Good perfume, like good wine, isn't easy to love." I had made some similar comments in my Perfume Maker's Club Newsletter ( #71, January 31, 2011.) What we were both writing about was the training that defines "good." Angela's point, in which I am in agreement, is that the "good" is recognized because the nose (actually the brain) has been trained to recognize and celebrate the qualities that, to experts, represent the good.

But I've also taken (lightly perhaps) the point of view that this training is (at least for some so-called perfumistas) is simply Pavlovian. They have been trained to bark when they detect certain qualities -- the very qualities they've been trained to detect. The judgment of "good" is not their independent judgment. It's simply a response to their training.

Good perfume is perfume you like. End of story.

But look now, if you accept to some degree my Pavlovian analogy, what happens to a new and UNIQUE perfume by some unknown perfumer that falls outside the parameters of what perfume appreciation training has identified as "good"?

This new and unique perfume would have as much chance of being called "good" as would Van Gogh's paintings by the Academie. I once showed a sample of Toxic to an IFF veteran and he gave me a very strange look.

Like any art form, it's hard to approach perfume with a truly open mind. We rely heavily on our education. But, only by trying to approach perfume with an open mine and, perhaps, thinking less about what is good and what is not good and instead asking our minds -- our brains -- whether the scent is INTERESTING ... whether it can PROVOKE ... whether it can STIMULATE the mind and the imagination of the person wearing it ... whether it can do all this AND be beautiful ... only then can we begin a really deep discussion about the virtues of perfume.

Why should anyone want perfume?

2010-12-15T14:03:00.000-08:00

Perfume gives pleasure. It's as simple as that.

It gives pleasure to the woman who wears it. It gives pleasure to those who pass her by -- or stop.

Sometimes we make too much of perfume. We demand excellence in the graphics and packaging. The bottle's shape must be pleasing (even though it's just paper and glass and has no scent itself!) The brand and associations, the company or the personality, the advertising and "perfume reviews." It all gets into our head and we THINK. But perfume wasn't made for thinking. In thinking we lose the pleasure.

Try it. Make a Zen exercise out of it. Study the perfume alone.

Use it. On a smelling strip perhaps. And then forget it. Until the scent makes itself know, after you had forgotten it was there.

Then you're smelling the perfume. The perfume alone, and it gives pleasure.

Is it pineapple?

2010-09-20T12:26:00.000-07:00

I'm working on a fragrance for men. It has passed the first test; several people liked it. So now my job is to refine it so that lots of people like it and many people love it, love it enough to buy it. But that's not my story today.

My story today is about how we smell and what we recognize, or fail to recognize, in an odor. In my new fragrance for men I wanted to add a “fruit” note. This would be an experiment for me. The idea had been suggested by a friend. But I wasn't making a bubble gum perfume for little kids. I wanted a note that would work with adult males and find favor with their wives or lovers.

Going through my inventory of “fruity” aroma materials I found myself rejecting one after another. This was too obvious. That didn't smell quite right. Finally I found one that had promise, an aroma material I had not worked with before.

So what does this note smell like? My own instant reaction was “pineapple.” But when I shared this view with a few others who had smelled my trials they were puzzled by this description. Apparently it didn't say “pineapple” to them.

This gave me pause. Was I smelling pineapple or did the aroma somehow trigger a memory that suggested pineapple? I wasn't sure. So I tried to imagine what a pineapple should smell like. We only buy pineapples a few times a year and working backwards, from the thought of pineapple to the aroma of pineapple didn't work at for me at all. It seems that “pineapple” -- the concept of a pineapple -- didn't trigger any intellectual scent recollections.

Ultimately my curiosity got the better of me and I went to several fragrance house catalogs to see how they described this aroma material. I was startled by what I found. One after another they all described it's odor as “pineapple.”

Now this response I had tells me something of the nature of perfume. Perfume -- aroma -- scent -- can penetrate the brain lightening fast ... faster than the brain can reason. Scientists explain that how scent is one of our most immediate reactions. My “pineapple” note was proof of that to me.

And this reaction -- this way the brain has of seizing on a scent and responding to it without thinking ... flashing “P I N E A P P L E” in big letters for me instantly in a way that I couldn't explain -- shows the power of perfume ... the power to get inside someone's head with scent. The reaction is immediate and unreasoning.

The perfumer's challenge is to find the notes to unlock memories -- memories so strong, so immediate, that before the person can think, the scent says “You want me! You must have me. Buy me now!” It's all that simple.

What should a men's fragrance smell like?

2010-05-29T04:47:00.000-07:00

If you were a perfumer working for a large fragrance house, you would know exactly what a men's fragrance should smell like. It should smell like something that women -- and men -- expect it to smell like. It should have a familiar smell that says, "men's cologne," to both women and men. How do we know what smell says "men's cologne" to both women and men? We simply look, for reference, to the hundreds of men's colognes that have already -- over the past 200 years -- been put on the market. Today they define what a men's cologne -- and all men's fragrances -- should smell like.

It wasn't always that simple. There was a time when a perfumer could create what he thought was a men's fragrance only to discover that it sold very poorly to men but was fast becoming a favorite with women. I'm thinking of Aime Guerlain's Jicky (1889).

On the other hand, Coty's Chypre (1917) was a woman's fragrance. Yet from it arose a modern, highly popular style, of colognes for men.

Today it is unlikely that any new, mass market intended fragrance for men will take us in a radical direction. Yet where is it written in stone that men must smell of citrus (bergamot), lavender, or oakmoss? It's simply what we have come to accept; what we are used to.

But suppo9se a perfumer tries something different and creates a Blackberry or a Toxic? How would Michael Edwards categorize these? will it take men 40 years to adjust their smell prejudices before these become a new, accepted, men's fragrance styles?

A Tale of Two Women

As I was slapping some Toxic on the other morning, my wife "admitted" that originally she had not cared much for Toxic but her feelings toward it were changing. "It grows on you," was her comment. I've long felt the same way. The more I encounter it, the more I enjoy it. As I've said before, it's like a work of modern art that starts out as a scandal but, with time, become mainstream, perhaps even classic.

Yesterday I learned that my wife wasn't the only women who has found that both Toxic and Blackberry can grow on you. I received an email from a customer I had recently met face-to-face at our 2010 5-Day Perfumery Workshop with Steve Dowthwaite. This customer had used both Toxic and Blackberry and, when we met face to face, made some funny passing mention of them. But then, in our email conversation after the workshop, he told me that he did use them and that his wife was finding that "they grew on her."

Two women don't make up a mass movement. I'm not holding my breath waiting for Coty, Estee Lauder, or Elizabeth Arden to come begging me to let them market my men's fragrances. But I do believe there is a future for men's fragrances that lies outside the parameters of what is currently accepted.

After all, shouldn't a men's fragrance be interesting? Shouldn't it stimulate the imagination? Shouldn't we strive for more than just "meat and potatoes" fragrances, even for men?

What if, in striving and creating, our creations for men are a little out of sync with our times? So we make a little less money. It's vanity perhaps but I like to think of Toxic and Blackberry as being ahead of out times ... but not so far ahead that some bold men will not take the trouble to enjoy them.

Perfume as Art :: Perfume as Commerce

2010-04-20T08:32:00.000-07:00

I am sometimes torn trying to pull myself away from developing perfumes of my own and concentrate on BUSINESS, looking over my (many) resources and focusing on putting them to work to MAKE MONEY.

The great majority of people in the fragrance industry are focused on MAKING MONEY. This is a JOB for them and they go to work to bring home the bacon.

But perfume creation itself is, or can be, an ART. And those who are artists with smells follow their inner muse regardless. WHAT they create is of more importance to them than what they GAIN through their creations. Some, most likely, have never made enough money in the SALES of their perfumes to pay the cost of the raw materials that went into developing these fragrances. They hardly notice.

In both worlds there are the extreme personalities -- those who are so focused on commerce -- or on art -- that they can't appreciate or relate to those on the other side of the fence. But when you take a closer look at MOST of the people on either side -- art or commerce -- you'll find that they aren't so enclosed in their own worlds as you might think. The "artist" perfumers, for the most part, understand the need for money. Without it they can't pursue their love of perfume making. And the "nicest" money for many would be money from the sale of their own fragrances. This money is (or would be) more than just utilitarian. This money is the public's vote of appreciation for their fragrance creations.

On the commerce side, most of the successful men and women in the business are successful because of their love for fragrance. They are people with taste who know the difference between the great and the mundane.

But the crossed relationships go farther. The commercial side DEVELOPS cool new aroma chemicals, aroma chemicals that open doors for creating beautiful new fragrances, fragrances unlike anything the world has seen (smelled!) before.

On the commercial side these aroma chemicals get USED, they get out in the world and thus they INSPIRE the artist-perfumer to think in new directions and, where possible, acquire some of these new materials to make use of them in his or her own ARTISTIC fragrances.

Likewise the artist perfumer is often inspired by the MARKETING ideas developed by the commercial people. Some of these ideas can be morphed into marketing tools for the smaller companies and individuals. Artists are not stupid people.

And of course we see the reverse. People in the commercial world feed off ideas developed in the artist world. After all, ultimately we are all presenting our products to the same great public.

Buy by the box

2010-04-02T09:31:00.000-07:00

What are we buying when we buy perfume? An image, a vision of what it will do for us. A box, the attractive packaging that surrounds it. A scent, the fragrance itself. What are our priorities?

There was a time, when markets were smaller and a company's own name meant something, that one bottle design might be used for one scent after another. The bottle, by its shape and design, helped identify the source -- the company behind the fragrance -- and brought credibility to the fragrance itself.

I was reading a designer interview in a fashion magazine the other day. I won't mention the designer's name as a friend works for that person. But the designer, late in the game, had launched a fragrance for the house and spoke of it with great pride. Its creation was, of course, shepherded by the designer.

But also of course the fragrance itself was created for the designer by a well known (in the fragrance industry) perfumer working for one of the top five international fragrance giants. This is how designers get "their" fragrances. While they can create the graphics for the box and suggest the graphics for the bottle (although this is usually done by bottle designers), there is nothing they can do to "design" the fragrance except attempt to describe, in words, what they think they want and then to say "yes," "no," or "maybe" to the samples that are presented to them and perhaps, in words again, suggest modifications. "Designing" a fragrance is a matter of aroma chemistry, of mixing molecules, of sniffing and balancing one chemical ingredient against another. It is not a graphic or visual process.

Now look at the buying decision again. Clearly the first step is to be attracted by the star power of the designer. If you've never heard the name, the fragrance becomes just one more out of dozens of new fragrances competing with a hundred plus older fragrances. So being attracted by the name is point number one.

Next, before sampling the fragrance, you see the box. The more interesting the packaging, the more favorably disposed you are toward this new fragrance before you've had a chance to smell it.

Now smelling the fragrance would be the logical next step, IF you are already attracted by the designer's name and the fragrance's packaging. And at this point we hit a stumbling point. Is a sampler bottle available? If it is, is it clearly marked so that you can be sure that what you are spraying is in fact your designer's perfume? I've noticed at perfume counters that bottles are often unmarked and not at all in the shapes of the standard bottles for the fragrances they represent -- probably to prevent theft.

Finally we look to see if there is a test blotter we can spray in case both our wrists have already been sprayed with a competitors' offerings. Here, quite frequently, if we do find a test blotter, it will be labeled for a competitor's perfume.

Now that we have gotten all this out of the way we try the scent -- the perfume itself. But can the scent -- will the scent -- drive us to open our wallets and withdraw the all important credit card and make the purchase ... while the sales person, if she hasn't yet rushed off already, is still be trying to sway us toward another perfume that she has been encouraged to promote.

Do you see by now that it's not the scent that is making the sale? The scent merely tips us to pay or not to pay but the tipping point has been reached by other means.

Every so often a perfume does hit the market that is so compelling that we have to sample it and are likely to buy, by the reputation of the fragrance itself. It happens perhaps once in five years. Or maybe once in twenty.

Aromatherapy, Aroma, and Perfume

2010-03-13T07:34:00.000-08:00

While "Aromatherapy" is a modern term, there have been efforts to back trace its roots to traditional Chinese medicine and perhaps even aboriginal healing arts. Today's Aromatherapists generally maintain that Aromatherapy is about using essential oils for therapeutic effect and sometimes cross the line into naturopathy by suggesting that the healing power is in the oil itself (or the interaction of oil and human body) rather than in the aroma of the oil.

Laying aside the technical disagreements among Aromatherapists as to which practices are "genuine" and which step outside the bounds of "true" Aromatherapy, I think it is pretty obvious that AROMA can have a mood changing, therapeutic effect but if this effect is due to the power of the aroma, it makes no sense to me to think that therapeutic effects can only be achieved through the use of essential oils or so-called "all natural" materials.

I often find myself spraying or dipping a test blotter with a perfume I have created, sometimes even a commercial perfume I have purchased, and placing it in a holder in front of me on my desk. Why? For harmony and tranquility. To make me feel better while I am working. To "elevate" my mood. And this is clearly a therapeutic effect -- aroma plus therapy. From perfume.

Perhaps my love of perfume is based on the same principles as those of the Aromatherapist, although clearly we accomplish our goals through differing methods. I tend to go for "whatever works" rather than "this is how we must do it."

Funny thing. I think my approach to aroma therapy (separate words) is closer to that of the ancient healers of China. I suspect that the BEST of them were not so rigid about following rules and formulas but instead made great use of their insight into the full range of methods and materials in the world around them to heal -- and, for the best of them, this personal knowledge of materials and methods probably died with them leaving only the rules and formulas to future generations.

Aroma is a powerful communications tool that can bring our spirits into harmony or set them in disarray. Aroma can draw others to us, or repel. But the power is in the aroma itself, no matter how it has been achieved.

"No Chemicals" equals "No Smell"

2009-12-19T12:08:00.001-08:00

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?

2009-11-29T14:16:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-18T11:46:00.000-08:00

(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.