- Apr 1, 2019
- 6,619
- 5,325
'Quality' is a word I think we all see used from time to time.
I have my own understanding of what the term means and how it may be appropriate to use, albeit sparingly, when judging or assessing a fragrance. Basically, I would break it down in 3 categories:
1. "Smell": in short, does it smell good/bad, cheap, natural, pleasant and all the rest of it. By and large I think this is a fairly self-explanatory: we all have notions of whether something smells 'real' or not - e.g. does the lavender note smell like real lavender. Of course, this is always going to be a subjective assessment but I would certainly include the way something smells as being integral to ideas of quality - particularly when it comes to calling something poor quality, i.e. there being ingredients that smell off putting, or a heavy use of alcoholic aromas or aromachemicals that simply smell weird. For me, javanol is a perfect example of something smelling 'poor quality' while attempting to recreate the aroma of something lovely: sandalwood. It doesn't smell real; it doesn't smell good. Therefore I'm happy to call fragrances that overuse it deficient in a qualitative sense.
2. Performance: this is a far more definitive category and by and large refers to how long something lasts on skin and how much you have to spray to get the benefit of the fragrance. While it's by no means the most important factor, the quality of being long lasting or wide reaching is certainly something that can be used to relate to the idea of something inherently qualitative - if something lasts 8 hours, as opposed to 4, that's hard to argue with as being, generally speaking, 'better'.
3. Cost: rather than being the cost of the final perfume, instead this refers to the cost of materials and, perhaps, the craftmasnship i.e. the 'quaity' of an ingredient, such as natural or real ingredients as opposed to just something that smells natural. There is a market for real or rare materials, such as sandalwood for instance, that is both scarce and desirable, as well as expensive. This 'quality' is linked to ideas of worth and value; both in market terms, where natural and rare ingredients will be deemed special, but also because we attribute value to their aromas, or in the case of oud, for sacred reasons. The other aspect, though far harder to judge with any empiricism, would be the craftmanship and the nose behind the fragrance, as this could be contestable for any number of reasons i.e. Office for Men being 'made' by Alberto Morillas, rather than whoever works for him. Unlike the other 2 categories, the 'quality' of materials in particular may well produce an inferior-smelling and inferior-performing fragrance in comparison to something of lesser 'quality' ingredients.
That final point sums up, for me, the inherent contradiction of trying to make any harmonious claim about 'quality'. These three ideas are all relevant to quality, and indeed many of them are quite hard to truly judge: for instance, what smells natural might not be natural; or, when a fragrance says it contains a rare ingredient, it may be in such small quantities that it is practically imperceptible.
This is why I believe it's an idea, and a 'value judgement', that is best avoided when talking about fragrance. Only when it seems obvious to one of the 3 categories, or when absolutely necessary to relay something of the fragrance to people who have not tried it, does it make much sense to declare anything about the supposed quality of a fragrance.
However...I see this notion of there being some kind of definitive, linear 'quality' used in ways to support prejudice, bias, and just simple subjective like or dislike of a fragrance: often these opinions are built on nothing more than good old signifiers like price (Veblen), scarcity, and marketing. When it comes to criticising the apparent 'quality' of fragrance it even seems the case that popularity can influence one's interpretation, which is laughable. Yet, a portion of the 'fragcomm' seems to think that by evoking something far firmer and purportedly objective - the idea of there being not only a fixed and definitive idea of 'quality', but also one that is linear and universal that ought to be declared to justify said opinion - that it can change an individual's opinion in to something greater, something that goes beyond just opinion and in to...well, I suppose something scientific. This seems to me to be utterly delusional at best and frankly pathetic, too; it's a continuation of the undercurrent of snobbery than evidently runs a course through fashion and those enthusiastic about fragrance. The very idea of there being 'niche quality', a phrase I'm sure many have heard, goes hand in hand with this snobbery - so far, based on what I have sampled, the variability in quality leads me to push back against any such notion that niche fragrances are better quality than designers, or that less popular fragrances are of better quality than popular ones: in fact I would be more open to arguing the opposite, though ultimately I feel there is no strict pattern or consistency when it comes to 'quality'.
So, what do you think. Are you the kind of person who uses 'quality' without much thought? Are you tried of people claiming 'quality' without the requiste authority to do so? Have you been fooled by reviewers or youtubers overhyping fragrances based on the unit price, rather than the ingredient cost, only to be bitterly disappointed by the end result? Or, do you perhaps have different or additional ideas of what 'quality' can mean?
I have my own understanding of what the term means and how it may be appropriate to use, albeit sparingly, when judging or assessing a fragrance. Basically, I would break it down in 3 categories:
1. "Smell": in short, does it smell good/bad, cheap, natural, pleasant and all the rest of it. By and large I think this is a fairly self-explanatory: we all have notions of whether something smells 'real' or not - e.g. does the lavender note smell like real lavender. Of course, this is always going to be a subjective assessment but I would certainly include the way something smells as being integral to ideas of quality - particularly when it comes to calling something poor quality, i.e. there being ingredients that smell off putting, or a heavy use of alcoholic aromas or aromachemicals that simply smell weird. For me, javanol is a perfect example of something smelling 'poor quality' while attempting to recreate the aroma of something lovely: sandalwood. It doesn't smell real; it doesn't smell good. Therefore I'm happy to call fragrances that overuse it deficient in a qualitative sense.
2. Performance: this is a far more definitive category and by and large refers to how long something lasts on skin and how much you have to spray to get the benefit of the fragrance. While it's by no means the most important factor, the quality of being long lasting or wide reaching is certainly something that can be used to relate to the idea of something inherently qualitative - if something lasts 8 hours, as opposed to 4, that's hard to argue with as being, generally speaking, 'better'.
3. Cost: rather than being the cost of the final perfume, instead this refers to the cost of materials and, perhaps, the craftmasnship i.e. the 'quaity' of an ingredient, such as natural or real ingredients as opposed to just something that smells natural. There is a market for real or rare materials, such as sandalwood for instance, that is both scarce and desirable, as well as expensive. This 'quality' is linked to ideas of worth and value; both in market terms, where natural and rare ingredients will be deemed special, but also because we attribute value to their aromas, or in the case of oud, for sacred reasons. The other aspect, though far harder to judge with any empiricism, would be the craftmanship and the nose behind the fragrance, as this could be contestable for any number of reasons i.e. Office for Men being 'made' by Alberto Morillas, rather than whoever works for him. Unlike the other 2 categories, the 'quality' of materials in particular may well produce an inferior-smelling and inferior-performing fragrance in comparison to something of lesser 'quality' ingredients.
That final point sums up, for me, the inherent contradiction of trying to make any harmonious claim about 'quality'. These three ideas are all relevant to quality, and indeed many of them are quite hard to truly judge: for instance, what smells natural might not be natural; or, when a fragrance says it contains a rare ingredient, it may be in such small quantities that it is practically imperceptible.
This is why I believe it's an idea, and a 'value judgement', that is best avoided when talking about fragrance. Only when it seems obvious to one of the 3 categories, or when absolutely necessary to relay something of the fragrance to people who have not tried it, does it make much sense to declare anything about the supposed quality of a fragrance.
However...I see this notion of there being some kind of definitive, linear 'quality' used in ways to support prejudice, bias, and just simple subjective like or dislike of a fragrance: often these opinions are built on nothing more than good old signifiers like price (Veblen), scarcity, and marketing. When it comes to criticising the apparent 'quality' of fragrance it even seems the case that popularity can influence one's interpretation, which is laughable. Yet, a portion of the 'fragcomm' seems to think that by evoking something far firmer and purportedly objective - the idea of there being not only a fixed and definitive idea of 'quality', but also one that is linear and universal that ought to be declared to justify said opinion - that it can change an individual's opinion in to something greater, something that goes beyond just opinion and in to...well, I suppose something scientific. This seems to me to be utterly delusional at best and frankly pathetic, too; it's a continuation of the undercurrent of snobbery than evidently runs a course through fashion and those enthusiastic about fragrance. The very idea of there being 'niche quality', a phrase I'm sure many have heard, goes hand in hand with this snobbery - so far, based on what I have sampled, the variability in quality leads me to push back against any such notion that niche fragrances are better quality than designers, or that less popular fragrances are of better quality than popular ones: in fact I would be more open to arguing the opposite, though ultimately I feel there is no strict pattern or consistency when it comes to 'quality'.
So, what do you think. Are you the kind of person who uses 'quality' without much thought? Are you tried of people claiming 'quality' without the requiste authority to do so? Have you been fooled by reviewers or youtubers overhyping fragrances based on the unit price, rather than the ingredient cost, only to be bitterly disappointed by the end result? Or, do you perhaps have different or additional ideas of what 'quality' can mean?
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/PistachioBaklava-GettyImages-183422455-5997abb09abed50010b57402.jpg)
