What We Do Is Secret has reissued Monoscent G in a coffret with the new Monoscent E:
A molecular masterpiece and a molecular legend are paired for the first time: Monoscent G, featuring the airy, almost laundry-like transparent aroma of Galoxolide Super,1 and Monoscent E, featuring the velvety futuristic woody scent of Timbersilk,2 two state-of-the-art aromachemicals directly from IFF.
What We Do Is Secret Monoscent G and E are $90 for the two 60 ml bottles, and can be found in the US at Luckyscent or Twisted Lily.
(quote via luckyscent)
1. About 29% of those tested are anosmic to Galaxolide.
2. The IFF description: "Smooth and spacious natural woody note with refined cedar and amber facets. Timbersilk™ is an excellent foundation for producing strength, volume and tenacity for the majority of end use applications."
5 gm of Timbersilk is $5.00. Hmmm.
Yeah. That is how it works with Escentric Molecules too.
Maybe this Monoscent E contains a refined version of Timbersilk, just as the Iso E Super used for the Escentric Molecules scent is a racemate, i. e. a more purified Iso E Super solution containing a higher concentration of the Gamma isomeres.
This Gamma Iso E Super isomer gives a smell due to its special three dimensional molecular construction. The non-Gamma isomer doesn’t smell at all.
In the usual Iso E Super mix you’ll find the Gamma isomer as well as the non smelling type, which makes the whole of it smell less strong.
Obviously, the isomer separating process is complicated and thus quite costly.
But taking into account the price explosion for perfumes which has taken place during the last few years, every scent on sale might be highly overpriced.
Timbersilk is already more or less like a refined version of Iso E Super. Iso E Super is a group of the isomers of the same molecule: alpha, beta and gamma. What is used in Escentric Molecules is a version richer or pure (i’m not sure) in the Gamma isomer. It’s not because it’s expensive that you cannot reproduce it, it’s because it remains a captive, which means that only if you work with IFF you have acess with it. Timbersilk is more or less like an intermediate of Iso E Super and Iso Gamma Super, having more of the gamma isomer than Iso E but not the same as the Gamma version.
Also, the fact that when you purchase a fragrance, if 20% of what you are paying is the formula itself it’s already something rare nowadays. So you are paying for a lot of other things, even when you are purchasing a scent (supposedly) made of one synthetic. I say supposedly because Juliette Has a Gun This is Not a perfume, for instance, was advertised as a pure ambroxan creation and in the technical analysis showed to be a full composition made of several things. So, until someone analysis it, we have a concept of a solimolecule which might or not be made of a single aromachemical.
What they do is getting to be less and less of a secret!
I feel sorry for the generations for whom this sort of thing will is now/will represent fine perfumery.
Laundry musk and spiky woods is what they’ll think of like we think of Shalimar, Mitsouko, Joy, No 5….
LOL — good point on the secret 🙂
Just like our modern world 🙂 We give at a lot of moment datas and clues of what we like, what we are and how we behave. Secret is not exactly a modern characteristic (which can be scary if you start to think about it).
This sounds so Star Trek! Honestly, don’t you think that Spock would wear a tiny discreet splash of Monoscent E?
But seriously though- this is just so strange and nonsensical to me. The components have no context, unlike essential oils from flowers, seeds and plants, so it really does not seem to make that much sense to me? Plus, about 1/3 of the people won’t be able to smell G, if I remember correctly.
It’s nonsensical to me too, but they’re not the only brand doing it. In addition to Escentric Molecules, Juliette Has A Gun also released something, can’t remember what now — ambrox? It’s like paying to NOT have perfumers do the work for you.
Yeah, it was called Not a Perfume, and I believe it was just ambroxan.
Robin, see my comment bellow. Not a Perfume was supposedly only made of ambroxan, but in fact was a full composition. I would be very surprised if they had made a scent of only ambroxan since it’s quite an expensive material (1 kg is around 1000 dollars).
Thanks!
I have the JHAG sample set, and the “scent” in question is called Not A Perfume. The specific aromachem is Cetalox, which is described as a synthetic ambergris.
Thanks.
Heh.. beat me to it.. which I would have realized if I had read the rest of the thread before responding. lol
No worries, Sweetgrass.
Cetalox is also a type of ambroxan, sweetgrass. It’s called a synthetic reproduction of ambergris since the natural ambergris do have the ambroxide molecule as a important part of this aroma. They tried to reproduce as close as possible this molecule in laboratory and called it Ambrox. I tried to find who is the responsible for the ambroxan name, but i don’t know. What i know is that the research and development of different versions of Ambrox is a Firmenich work. It’s not responsible 100% for how ambergris smell but plays an important role. You have three different qualities of ambrox: ambrox, ambrox dl and cetalox.
This is not something new, just becoming more trendy now. Helmut Lang has made this with his 2001 limited launch called Velvione. I believe that this is becoming more recurrent now because it seems to be very adequate for the generation that i’m part of (and don’t necessarely identify myself with): the Millenials. This kind of fragrance doesn’t require too much thinking or commitment. You either like it or not. In a world loaded with information from all the sides, probably the average person doesn’t want to think too much or commit too deeply for a fragrance. And even niche brands are not more focused on the perfumista public, which doesn’t behave like the public who make those brands profitable.