But there are few mountains of flowers waiting to be processed these days, and no one talks about the price of jasmine or rose petals anymore. Today it's the price of guaiacol, ionone and the other chemicals used in the production of perfume that is discussed over lunch. Changing tastes and the development of modern chemistry laid the foundations of perfumery as we know it today. Alchemy gave way to chemistry and new fragrances were created.
— Columnist Phyllis Macchioni of the Cleveland Plain Dealer goes to Grasse, France, and finds out things ain't like they used to be.
And lots of perfume in The New York Times today:
Inside the industry they speak of Insolence grimly, as of a suicide. Why did LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton buy this gem of a house if the gem is to be mounted in tin? Equally baffling: Insolence was made by an extremely talented perfumer, Maurice Roucel.
— Chandler Burr calls Guerlain's Insolence a 1 star perfume ("offensive"), and gives 3 stars to Guerlain L'Instant ("breathtaking"). Read the rest in Descendants. In the same paper, he talks about how few real flowers are used in perfumery in Ghost Flowers.
The Harrods perfumer Roja Dove and the professional stargazer Shelley von Strunckel hold monthly sold-out dinners at Plateau that diagnose star-crossed fragrance needs. During dinner, von Strunckel sketches the flaws and strengths of each sign, while Dove matches signs with compatible smells — for example, rose, the scent for Taurus, and jasmine, the one for Leo, are a perfect match.
— Columnist Mark Ellwood attends a "Gastrology" dinner.
Hi Robin,
So Burr gives Insolence 1 star and calls in the smell of a mall, and Luca Turin's duftnote gave it high praise and compared it to a sportscar. They were opposite on L'Instant too. This makes me think the star rating is not very useful for the reader. Usually movie critics are off by a degree or 2, not all over the map.
Being as scent is sooo subjective, I do not put much merit on what the “experts” say. You either likey or you don't. But then again, the whole fashion industry is based on something altogether different than the wearing of clothes. I guess perfumes are taking the same route, if in fact they haven't been like this all along.
But imagine if there were only 2 movie critics: they'd just about *have* to take opposite positions or everyone would think the one was parroting the other. And we've only got 2 perfume critics in the mainstream press, assuming you'll call NZZ Folio mainstream press, which is stretching it.
Anyway, on this issue, I'm with Luca. L'Instant is the crowd pleaser of the 2, but I'd rather wear Insolence any day.
But will add — I don't think the star system is useful either.
True enough, you like it or you don't. Still, I like reading other opinions, especially since there is no longer time to smell everything on the market. And obviously, I like blathering on about my own opinons
I find the recurrent anxiety over synthetics very interesting. (It makes at least an appearance in all three articles.) From the chemist's point of view, “natural oils” are simply complex (sometimes extremely complex) chemical compounds. When we spray, burn, vaporize or mix them they break down and turn into other chemicals, sometimes dangerous ones. Yet the romance of real flowers and an underlying fear of chemicals we don't understand seems to trump any knowledge of this kind. I'm currently working on an article on this subject so I'd very much appreciate feedback from others: do you worry about synthetics in perfumes? Do you feel natural perfumery is inherently superior? (If so, why?) Or are you simply annoyed when your aromatherapy friends chastise you for wearing too many chemicals? (Um, not that you can tell where my bias lies at the moment…*sheepish grin*.)
I don't much care personally about the naturals vs. synthetics debate, in fact, I don't even see it as a debate. There is room for all kinds, and I'm glad those who prefer to stick with naturals now have so many choices. Chandler Burr has written several times on this issue, but I find it kind of besides the point. I mean, nobody who is paying attention is surprised that perfumes are largely synthetic these days.
BUT, I very much mind that old fragrances are being reformulated because the natural materials are prohibited. Oakmoss may be an allergen, but nobody has ever died from using a perfume with oakmoss so far as I know, and I think it is a travesty that the classic old perfumes are being reformulated to replace it with synthetic ingredients (and oakmoss is just one example) because of IFRA regulations.
And will also say that “the romance of real flowers and an underlying fear of chemicals we don't understand seems to trump any knowledge of this kind” is, I think, unfair to those who have valid concerns over synthetics, not just random, unsubstantiated worries. There are plenty of scientifically documented reasons to avoid synthetics — the widely reported effects of synthetic musks on marine life being just one example. I choose not to worry about synthetics in my fragrance, but if I had to guess which was better for my health in the long run, real oakmoss or a recently developed synthetic substitute, I'd take my chances with the oakmoss.
Sorry for the very long response!!!
RE “Ghost Flowers”…again, surprised that no one at the New York Times knows that there are MANY camellias that are beautifully scented. Perhaps Coco Chanel loved a scented variety of her favorite flower….
Quite true, K, I missed that.
Exactly! You have nailed it! They have to say different things to further the “independent” thinking image. (although Guerlain bashing is irightfully au courant still, isn't it? I don't know why they don't extend this logic to other houses as well….hmmmm….)
I find Insolence smelling old-fashioned and a little like an older Guerlain, that's a good thing.
Again agree with you on the points referenced.
With all the natural ingredients under restriction (some with no synthetic substitute yet) the future of perfumery looks very very grim. Have blogged about it quite a bit.
BTW, it had been revealed to an industry insider in the summer, prior to the coloumn being steady, that Burr had an agenda regarding synthetics vs. naturals and was going to bash naturals every chance he got. Reputable source I might add, but cannot reveal I'm afraid.
Well, I can understand why Guerlain ends up taking much of the heat: more is expected of them, and rightly so. Most of the other venerable old houses have already disappeared or their output is now watered down mass market. I can't think of any other house other than Chanel, possibly Caron, for which I'd automatically have such high standards.
Thanks very much for the reply (length welcome)! I didn't mean to imply there weren't real things to worry about with synthetics–there are a *lot* of things to worry about. I'm just in the midst of reading about how lavender oil breaks down into, among other things, formaldehyde, when diffused, so I've grown suspicious of the claim that “natural” (unless its actually the flowers, rather than an oil) is better–and its a claim I run into a lot. Interesting that you don't consider it a debate–perhaps its more of a perfume vs. no perfume thing.
If so, it only helps the natural perfumers by giving them more publicity.
Oh — and I'm reading up on your great summary of the debate over at Perfume Shrine, helg, — thanks!
Quite so, it is crazy to assume natural is always safe or better. But I also think it is crazy to assume that synthetics are safe, or that these regulatory agencies will do an adequate job of keeping unsafe chemicals off the market. More likely, they'll restrict the use of oakmoss and something else assumed to be safe will later be found not to be — like the nitro musks.
I must send mr. Burr a few bucks so he can buy a clue: giving Mitsouko three stars seems noteworthy, until one snaps back to 21st century reality and realizes that it is a pale imitation of its former self. I can't believe he's pushing the pale, modern juice, but since he doesn't mention the anorexiation of the scent, I have to believe he is.
Kevin, he missed mentioning at least a dozen great florals that are in the perfumer's palette: carnation, magnolia, chamomiles, etc., etc.
And, as you noted, he was not aware of scented camellias, so where are the fact checkers? This has happened before, and…I must add…. what's the big woo about him excited over fantasy floral perfumes? It's been done since forever.
Um.. if anorexiation is a word. I made it up.
I like it, so no matter! But true enough, he doesn't mention that part.
Ahh! I love the smell of gamma-undecalactone in the morning.
Heh, but seriously! Who would review perfumes like that? (experts, obviously, but that ain't me.)
LOL — it is rather disconcerting to read the chemical names. I'd rather not know