One of the first plants to greet visitors by the front walk is a rare 15-foot-tall Chinese perfume tree. “It has the tiniest flowers you have ever seen,” Ms. McCoy said, “about the size of a match head.” Gathering these yellow blooms, by her account, sounds like it’s about as much fun as picking cat hair off an angora sweater. But the bouquet is peerless: a little “like whole warm uncut lemon,” she said.
— The New York Times talks to Anya McCoy of Anya's Garden (and several other natural perfumers) about distilling their own raw materials in In the Garden: Making Flowers Into Perfume.
Funny, Robin, I had just sent you a link to this, came back to the page and found you had beat me to it. Nice article, lovely photos. I take issue with those given to dissing more mainstream types of perfumery. It’s like practitioners of alternative medicine, not content with simply practicing their craft, who are scornful and contemptuous of actual medicine and those who use it. But still. I’m interested. This is something a girl could do in her backyard garden. And a girl just might…!
Oh, but thank you for sending it anyway…I do miss things, all the time, so appreciate it so much when people send me links!
Agree, should be no need to diss the other side of the aisle. In their defense, the other side does the same thing.
I agree with your comments. Really interesting article (I wish I had all those flowers at my house) but I am an equal opportunity perfume lover also.
And I like perfumes that last 12 hours with tons of sillage.
Same here. I might pay a ridiculous amount for some of my perfumes, but I only do so if they can stand up to staying around for at least several hours. Not that I won’t wear anything under the natural perfume umbrella. I just wear what smells good to me and what I feel is worth the price.
I was thinking the exact same thing. And also, that I hate it when it’s set up as an either/or like that –trad perfume has naturals in it, too, and I personally find it a gateway to thinking about smell in the natural world. But, hey ho, opposition makes better copy, apparently…
I agree about the either/or tone of the article. I might add that, contrary to the writer’s perceptions, EVERYTHING is made of chemicals. This is one of my pet peeves, and it irritates me to see something advertised or described as “chemical-free”. The only thing that is chemical-free is a perfect vacuum, which does not exist except in theory (I am a chemist, so I should know).
I don’t like taking sides on a lot of things either. I don’t currently own any natural perfumes, but I would certainly be willing to buy some if it smelled good to me. I am concerned about longevity–very few scents last 12 hours on me; I am lucky to get more than 3 or 4. My concern is that an all-natural scent might only give me an hour at best. It is not merely a question of cost either–I just don’t want to have to reapply every hour. I have experimented a good deal with aromatherapy and have tried my hand at blending my own perfumes, and generally they do not last well on me.
BTW, the either/or attitude is pervasive in our society. I LOVE roses (as you might guess from my screen name), and the same attitude is found among rosarians. I have both modern and antique varieties in my garden, and I feel strongly that there is room for both, but many people do not see it that way.
I have been exploring a lot of all-natural perfumes recently, and some of them have excellent longevity. The all-botanical ones usually don’t though, because animalic fixatives contribute so much to the lasting power of a perfume. There are exceptions, of course. I find that non-natural scents like light florals and citrus scents are just as ephemeral as naturals, and often far less pleasing.
P.S. I also grow lots of roses, both modern and antique, and I would find it very hard to choose between them!