Some fragrances smell expensive. Why is that? Conversely, some perfume simply smells cheap. What’s that about? My expertise is in buying perfume — not making it — so I don’t have a professional’s response to these questions. I asked a few friends about what they thought expensive versus cheap perfume smelled like, and I got a few answers.
One friend said that cheap perfume smells synthetic. Although this friend probably assumed that cheap perfume contains a lot of synthetic materials, I don’t believe that necessarily to be true. But I can certainly see how a perfume that smells like a chemical concoction might smell cheap, no matter what it’s made of or how much it costs.1
Another friend correlated headaches with cheap perfume. Smell it, get a headache, it's cheap. It’s hard to argue with her reasoning, but for me it’s more complex.
To me, an expensive perfume has shape, development, and a sense of space in it. You almost feel like you can stand inside the fragrance and look around. Layers of notes appear and change and morph. A fragrance with moving parts plays like a jewelry box, not a foghorn. On the other hand, a beautifully blended, more linear fragrance, feels seamless, not impenetrable. It’s the difference between Two Buck Chuck and a thoughtful wine.2 Try them side by side, and you can’t miss the difference.
Which brings me to Tokyo Milk's fragrances. I love their packaging. The Dark line plays to the “I’m dangerous, I’m counterculture” crowd with names including Bulletproof and Arsenic and emblems like revolvers on the bottles. The new Light line wafts clean musk and references “soul” and “light” and “transformation.” And they’re so affordable. The Dark line retails for $42 for a clever bottle in a gorgeous, textured paper box.
But to me they smell cheap. I haven’t spent time with all the line, I admit that, and I want to sample more, including one temptingly named Gin & Rosewater. (Jessica reviewed Tokyo Milk Waltz, and it sounds terrific.) But those I’ve smelled leave me both understanding why the line is so popular and vowing never to wear them again.
Two I’ve sampled are Excess and Tainted Love. Excess’s notes include amber resin, oak bark, blood orange and patchouli. Really, though, what I get is ambered patchouli, and that’s about it. The fragrance wears all day, but it’s a linear smear of sweet patchouli that sits on my skin like a polyester sleeve.
I like patchouli, but I like it drier and more herbal than Excess (see Hiram Green Arbolé Arbolé, for example). Still, I can see someone who has only an idea of patchouli — not a lot of firsthand experience — trying Excess and discovering patchouli’s skin-like, sensual aspects, without really knowing that, basically, he smells like patchouli. That person might fall in love with Excess.
Tainted Love’s notes include dark vanilla bean, orchid, white tea and sandalwood. To me, Tainted Love’s sweet, vanillic fruit and sandalwood flatten to a pipe tobacco-like scent. But it’s not as lively and multi-dimensional as, say, Serge Lutens Fumerie Turque or Tom Ford Tobacco Vanille.
On skin, Tainted Love whines thickly for hours. It’s the Smucker’s jelly of sweet sandalwood, a wall of impenetrable vanilla-fruit-wood. And yet, it’s a popular perfume, and I understand why. It hits a basic taste bud for scent with its wood and dried fruit. The thing is, once you’ve satisfied that taste bud, you’re ready to move on to something more artfully crafted, more subtle and engaging. Now Tainted Love smells flat, boorish, and cheap.
So, what to you makes a fragrance smell expensive or cheap? I’d love to know what you think. Do you dare name particular perfumes?
Tokyo Milk Excess and Tainted Love are $42 for 50 ml Eau de Parfum. For information on where to buy Tokyo Milk products, see Tokyo Milk under Perfume Houses.
1. Yes, I do know that some fragrances are ironically chemical smelling, and they’d call it art, not cheapness. Comme des Garçons had a whole line dedicated to them.
2. I can’t resist another footnote. Remember when Charles Shaw wine first surfaced at Trader Joe’s? The talk was that it was wine surplused by the airlines when they weren’t allowed to use corkscrews after 9/11, so we were getting a great deal on great wine. That never squared with me. I mean, since when were airlines known for top shelf wine?
Mona d’Orio smells chic. And expensive. It’s as if being in a palace or a garden different spaces different spheres passing by. Also the oldies of Guerlain. Actually I find Tobacco Vanille cheap smelling. Nauseating… Most of Tom Fords scents, though very nice, are a tad vulgar in my opinion. They lack a certain subtleness. Again, not the oldies. Nu by YSL is beautiful!
So, it sounds like for you the difference between cheap and chic has to do with its style–vulgar versus tasteful. I didn’t even think of that, but it makes sense!
I didn’t take to tobacco vanille either. but the Tom Ford orchids line: black, velvet and soleil, are three of my absolute favourites! To me they smell expensive, indulgent and extravagant, and have just enough dirt in them so they don’t get too close to the vulgar borderline but are still interesting
but I don’t think Tom Ford was aiming for subtle anyway lol 
However, I would like to see a ‘subtle’ fragrance from Tom Ford to see what he would do with it. and I think some of the signature line smells more expensive and better done than some of his private collection.
I recently bought a near empty bottle of Aqua Oriens by Van Cleef and Arpels on eBay (purely for the bottle) which had a small amount left and that smells cheap and screechy to me. I bought original Oriens and Feerie (again, purely for the bottles). I like Oriens more than Feerie but they both left me wanting more, so I don’t think they smell particularly expensive especially considering their price tag in stores.
It’s so interesting to me what “expensive” and “cheap” smell like. I feel all wishy-washy about it, almost like that judge’s definition of pornography, that he knows it when he sees it. Your description of cheap and screechy certainly sounds cheap to me, though.
expensive, indulgent and extravagant: that’s TF all right!
But somehow it smells so… American. Young, vigorous, one swell sweep… Like Gatsby would make them scents…
That’s sort of how I feel about his fashion, too. There’s a straightforward glamour that’s appealing in one way, but that lacks mystery. That said, I love M7 and Nu!
So, glad to hear I am not the only one who thinks Tom Ford’s fashion is overrated.
When I think “cheap perfume,” the adjectives I reach for are thin or screechy, or I find myself making comparisons to household cleaning products–dryer sheets, pine sol, and the like.
OTOH, most of the Amouage line smells expensive and like “quality” to me–and I think you’ve nailed it, Angela–they smell complex and open, with hints and surprises around each corner. There is something oppulant about the changing, swirling notes of a complex perfume.
Oh, and I forgot to be brave. I wouldn’t say that the Jo Malone line smells cheap, but I definitely want MORE from them for the money.
I know exactly what you mean! Jo Malone smells good, but it doesn’t smell like art. I want more for my money, too.
I agree. However, I feel that there are some in the Intense collection that offer more than the typical JM.
It’s nice that they did the intense line.
Yes, thin and screechy smell cheap, no matter how expensive the bottle is! I know what you mean about the Amouage line, too. How much is materials and how much is craftsmanship?
I did find Bracken Man smelled cheap to me – that foghorn opening. But I find Green Irish Tweed a foghorn too. Obviously neither is cheap…
Foghorn–a wall of impenetrable smell–sounds cheap to me, no matter how much it costs.
Second the household cleaning products!
It’s a great observation!
What a loaded question Angela! I don’t dare go there. But I can think of a fewer new releases, Nirvana Bourbon/Rose and Stash that can compete with niche house offerings.
An inexpensive perfume doesn’t have to smell cheap, that’s for sure. (And I still haven’t smelled Stash. Must. Sniff.)
I wasn’t crazy about Stash, and thought it smelled a lot like By Kilian Straight to Heaven. Which is interesting, since it seemed like people turned their noses up at the Kilian for being overpriced, that scent in particular. Which leads me to think there’s an acceptable range of cheap-smelling? Or a new, moderately priced-smelling category unto itself? (This is Angi, by the way. I got locked out of my old Miss Kitty V. account.
)
Hi Angi! Yes, maybe something that’s inexpensive but doesn’t smell as cheap as you’d think it might gets extra “expensive” points. On the other hand, a cheap-smelling fragrance that costs an arm and a leg simply makes a person mad.
I have a few of the Tokyo Milk perfumes but I’m not crazy about them. There is something same-y in the drydown that gets old way before they’re done. For me it’s more than a smell, it’s a sensation in the back of my throat that feels like yuk after a while. Some Maurice Roucel perfumes have that cloying sensation in my throat as well.
That’s so interesting to me that you experience it in the back of your throat! Yet, I completely get it. Maybe it’s like the “trick” injury that aches when it’s going to rain.
What a great post! And this:
“a linear smear of sweet patchouli that sits on my skin like a polyester sleeve”
What a great line!
The big problem for me is that having practiced aromatherapy for so long, I *know* what real jasmine, rose, bergamot, etc. are supposed to smell like and the aroma-chemicals, no matter how good they are, just don’t smell like nor develop like the real thing. Real vetiver is so complex that it can be a perfume all on it’s own.
So I know I’m a much harsher critic than most, and like others have already said, cheap is loud, harsh, screechy, and synthetic (not in a decent imitation of nature but in an overly fake way). I would also include most linear fragrances.
A note to your friend who defined cheap by headache inducing – the Amouages give me an instant splitting headache! The only line to do so. My wallet rejoiced!
You indeed do save money with the Amouage issue!
Smelling things side by side is always a good way to know both fragrances better, and I bet smelling jasmine absolute next to something phony is a real eye-opener.
I guess I think “cheap smelling” when something smells harsh, thin, flat, unnuanced, but it’s really hard to be totally objective when I know what I’m smelling and who makes it. I guess there are cheap synthetics and better synthetics.
Maybe because it’s not my favorite note, but certain types of vanilla often makes things smell cheap to me, like cheap candle or room spray.
I really want to like Tokyo Milk more than I do and always think when I smell them, that if she had a higher budge they’d be great, because I like her unusual note pairings. I do own Bittersweet, which is one of my favorite straight up cocoa perfumes, and actually doesn’t smell that cheap to me-compared to, say, Montale Chocolate Greedy which smells cheaper IMO.
I haven’t smelled Bittersweet, but a chocolate perfume sounds good, especially if it’s not sticky chocolate.
And it’s so true that marketing affects our perceptions. I believe it!
Interesting points. Plus the Tokyo Milk aesthetic is so lovely and well done (if you appreciate the style).I like vanilla in fragrances, but it is a tricky note – Mona di Orio’s is good. I wore TM Honey and the Moon for a while, but almost killed myself and others with its choking density. Fell in love with the bee on the bottle, oops. Will look out for Bittersweet to try!
I like their branding, too. And, of course, I love the lower price. But, so far, none of the fragrances has grabbed me.
The Mona di Orio vanilla is one of my favorites, too! I think I have a higher tolerance for vanilla than a lot of people do, though.
Mohur smells posh and expensive – complicated, round, wholesome, its rose is almost visible, I mean, I can see its colour in my mind as aI write. Chanel 31 Rue Cambon, the vintage Armani frag and my new love, Régime des Fleurs Falling Trees, all smell very expensive to me, too, and I think it’s because there is a certain austerity to them. I think vanilla perfumes, on the other hand, smell cheap, though enjoyable. For example, AG Vanille Exquise or Lutens Un Bois Vanille, lovely as they are, do not smell as chic, imo, as most of these lines (older) offerings.
As I write, sorry.
I make plenty of typos myself!
You’re the second person to point out that the style of a perfume influences whether or not it smells cheap–or chic. (And now I’m craving some Mohur, by the way.)
I think for me the difference between “cheap smelling” and “expensive smelling” is all about dimension and duration. Joy being an example: for me the parfum lasts all day, and goes through a multitude of changes in that time. The base, heart, and top notes are each a perfume unto themselves. Whereas, say, dimestore Jovan Musk (which I always have a bottle of, btw) smells like one thing, and one thing only, and I could reapply twenty times a day. There are some rich-smelling scents (by “rich” I mean both expensive and having a lot of depth) that are ephemeral, but still have complexity and character.
I agree. For me it’s not about longevity, necessarily, but what the fragrance does on skin while it’s there. (And I love me some Jovan Musk, too!)
The perfumes that smell cheapest to me have a whiff of window cleaner about them. The latest Diorissimo is a classic example — compared with any Diorissimo in the houndstooth or even the mainly pink box, it seems to me to be obviously all those things most people are mentioning: thin, harsh, screechy.
There’s also a less offensive kind of cheapness that I find hard to describe… maybe “gauzy” does it. Something only sketched out, like broken netting in the air instead of a marquee or a palace or the inside of a garden shed or anything at all of substance. This applies to so many perfumes, from cheap to expensive, that I’m almost grateful for the instant “nope, not for me” effect;)
Oh, and there’s an expensive equivalent to the cheap Windolene. Much of what I’ve smelled by Creed and Xerjoff seems to me to be marred by a piercing solvent smell similar to acetone, and many other expensive perfumes seem to have it too (especially oud ones). (Now there’s a useful aversion!)
“To me, an expensive perfume has shape, development, and a sense of space in it. You almost feel like you can stand inside the fragrance and look around.”
That’s a perfect description!!
Cleaning products comes up again!
I’m continuing to enjoy hearing people’s descriptive, un-pat ideas of what makes a perfume smell cheap.
And you’re breaking my heart about Diorissimo!
I’m in agreement with other posters who have mentioned that a cheap-smelling perfume is harsh, thin, flat, or smells like a functional product. To me, it is kind of the scent equivalent of nails on a chalkboard, or a poke in the sinuses with a sharp stick.
I agree. But I’ve also smelled smooth fragrances that smell cheap, too, because they’re so dense and lifeless. That’s where these two Tokyo Milk scents ring in with me.
… did I really say “offensive”? Sorry, bit silly of me. Other things in this world are offensive, not cheap-smelling perfume.
I understand! Cheap smelling perfume is annoying, I guess.
A store owner called me out when I whispered to a friend how cheap I thought the Tokyo Milk line was. Guess I wasn’t being so discreet. Anyway, your post made me feel slightly better about my side comment. But man that stuff smelled cheap. I think an expensive perfume can use synthetic but should be balanced with luxurious absolutes. If your perfume just uses the aroma chemical Hedione it might cause a headache and it will smell cheap. But if you layer a little Hedione with Jasmine absolute…then it becomes deeper, more sensual.
I’ve only smelled a handful of fragrances from the line, and I understand why they appeal, especially to someone who hasn’t spent time with a lot of perfume. But to me they smell second-rate. Like I said, though, I haven’t smelled them all.
To me, linear is not a hallmark of cheap. Thin and synthetic scream CHEAP, just like The Fragrance Kitchen line at Bergdorf ($225 or $320 for a 100 mL bottle)…you can’t pay me to wear it. House of Sillage – CHEAP! Christian Loubutin – CHEAP! Malin + Goetz – CHEAP!
You shouldn’t bottle up your feelings like that. How do you REALLY feel?
Ha ha ha! It’s important to get those feelings out.
Heh, let it all out. Ohmmmm
I know what you mean, but some thick fragrances smell cheap to me, too! They’re a slab of ambered fruity something that can’t breathe.
Thick and synthetic is one rung above the thin ones. Black Opium anyone?
I couldn’t bear that one, either.
Black Opium smells like what, I would imagine, a $5 hooker would wear. It is so tacky, trashy, and cheap. It also reminds me, of Starbucks coffee…. burnt and overpriced garbage.
I can’t stand an over-roasted coffee, either! Why go to all the trouble to talk about the bean’s origin when the heck is roasted out of it and all it taste like is acidic charcoal? (Whew. Thanks for letting me get that off my chest.)
A category of ‘cheap’ in my head covers cheap reformulations of certain old classics. I’m thinking of how I perceive Revlon Fire & Ice, and Ciara, and some of the Charlies. They start out smelling okay but hit a blockage in the development very quickly where they smell harsh and synthetic. It’s a bit like opening a window, admiring the tree outside the window but then realising that behind it there is just the musty brick wall of the building opposite. Coriandre too, to a certain extent.
It’s made me very mistrustful of purchases of this sort, however much they might seem like a great deal. I’m wary of anything under $20 these days. Of course something can smell cheap at $200, as others have already pointed out!
Graceful development definitely smells expensive, but when a fragrance hits a sour note or poops out into flat vanilla or musky amber, it feels cheap to me, too. (Love your window and brick wall analogy, by the way.)
Gucci Rush smells synthetic and cheap, but some of us know it was intentionally designed that way.
And Victoria from Bois de Jasmine and Tania Sanchez from Perfume: The Guide both rate it very highly!!
Oh yes, as I say in the footnote, sometimes blatantly synthetic is obvious–tongue in cheek, or a trashy chic–and when it’s handled right, it doesn’t smell cheap. It’s sort of like wearing a careful ensemble then pulling a fat Bonne Bell lip smacker from your purse.
This is such an interesting question. I guess for me, I could agree that perfume smells cheap when you can very obviously smell the synthetic ingredients of poor quality. I have nothing against synthetics, as they make possible for most of my favourite fragrances, but obviously cheap synthetics smell differently, plasticky, thin, bland, harsh to nose… I’d say most Comptoir sud Pacifique scents smell cheap to me, many Shay&Blue too, Sunshine by Amouage smells incredibly cheap too.
Another thing, for me, a perfume doesn’t have to be infinitely complex to smell expensive, for example Kilian’s Rose Oud reads pretty much as a rose soliflore on me, and yet it smells (and is) very much expensive.
One would think that it should be easy to define cheap/expensive in perfumery and yet it’s so hard! Hard to define, but I know one when I see one!
I know what you mean about it being hard to put into words the difference between cheap and expensive smelling perfume! I wish I had more perfume expertise so that I could put a finger on it.
I can’t think of anything that hasn’t already been said, the article and comments are entertaining reading
One observation about Tokyo Milk is that it’s attempting “dark” which to me means complex or comforting or brooding (a personal favorite) and falls short whereas the perfumes that smell thin and screechy to me are often florals. Aroma M Geisha Noir in oil is a similar price point to TM and there’s such a contrast in quality. Nest is another affordable line with beautiful bottles that just irritates me with it’s cheapness.
I have had the same thoughts about Nest and also Tocca. Love their bottles but the juice…
The Nest home diffusers have great throw. I wish they had a more interesting selection of scents.
What gets me in all of this is that the price of the actual fragrance–the juice–is so often just a tiny portion of the price of the whole shebang, including marketing, sales, and all that. It would be so nice to see the money tip toward materials and skilled perfumers and a bias toward making the fragrance more interesting and complex than maybe not every consumer will pick up on right away.
Last year I was on the lookout for honey perfumes. Tokyo Milk’s Honey and the Moon actually got high marks from some people I trusted. And it was very cheap. Yes, the bottle is “cute.” It smells horrible. Smells like cheap hairspray.
I’m not one to buy perfumes just because they’re expensive (and there are certain brands that have just about that as the only thing going for them). But it really isn’t worth it to amass a large number of cheap perfumes because, yes, more often than not, they smell cheap.
I’d rather have one good bottle that thrills me to wear than ten bottles that are okay.
Exactly!
Curious – what other honey reccs did you get, if I may ask?
Botrytus is one of the better ones I’ve smelled that you can still find. Sadly, it doesn’t last long enough on me to be worth a FB, but it’s pretty while it’s there.
They weren’t personal recommendations. More from reviews I’ve read online: Miel de Bois (still the best honey scent I’ve come across, even with the reformulation), Botrytis, Absolue pour le Soir, Honey Aoud, Demeter Honey and Beeswax (yes, cheapies, but not bad), Wildflower Honey (I couldn’t smell a thing — it may be my nose), The Oud Affair, Amun Re — The Tears of Ra, Speziali Fiorentini Profumo Te Nero. That’s all I can remember at the moment.
Schiaparelli Shocking–both the old and new versions–has a nice honey note, too.
Thanks!!
I’ve asked myself this question repeatedly but haven’t been able to come up with an intelligent answer. It’s definitely more than “like” vs. “dislike,” yet I can’t quite pinpoint the characteristics the define cheap. Many of the comments here are helpful — loud, synthetic, reeking of household products. However, an example from real life shows there’s more to it than that: I smell Encre Noire and it screams cheap to me, and not just because I’m in a minority and it repels me. There are lots of fragrances I don’t like that I wouldn’t describe as cheap. I smell Guerlain Vetiver, OTOH, and it seems rich and luxurious by comparison. I’m left to conclude that it’s a very subjective matter, reminding me of the pornography reference above. (Then there’s 4711, which IS cheap but doesn’t smell it, at least to me.)
“Smelling cheap” and “disliking” are different, as you say. Maybe there’s no quantitative measure of cheap perfume.
And long live 4711!
I’ve been pondering this since yesterday. I have Tokyo Milk’s Bulletproof, and I find it very similar to L’A’s Noir Exquis. I do think that Bulletproof smells ‘cheaper,’ specifically the wood note. For me, many cheap (or cheap-smelling) frags use more chemical-ish cedar and/or sandalwood notes. Cheap floral/citrus notes stand out less to my nose, I think.
I tried Bulletproof once and thought it was all right, although the wood note sweetened too much for my taste as it dried down. I can see the resemblance to Noir Exquis.
I bought Tokyo Milk Waltz so long ago that I can’t remember where I learned about it or purchased it. I”m on my second bottle, which I bring forth every summer. It smells like nothing else I own, yet it reminds me of a child’s soap I had when I was little. And yet with all my memories and fondness, it smells cheap.
Jessica’s review made it sound pretty good, and I’d certainly try it if I stumbled over a tester. Sometimes cheap is okay!
What a great question, Angela!
I can only speak for myself, but cheap perfumes are the ones that have no depth. Though, for some reason, every fresh/citrusy scent smells cheap to me. Having tried the Tokyo Milk Dark line, I can concur that it is CHEAP. Even the $42 msrp seemed overpriced. Tocca, Nest, and Jo Malone are all brands that just smell cheap. Jo Malone fragrances only work as home scents.
I’m not alone in finding them cheap smelling, then–whatever that is!