The Lack of Evidence in Fragrance Discussion

What makes fragrance different from most other industries and hobbies is that there's no way to measure or quantify them. Sound can be measured (EQ, volume, dynamics). Sight can be measured (light, color). Taste (there is a ton of public information about what we eat). But scent, no.

There isn't any publicly available information on all of the ingredients and aromachemicals used in a particular fragrance (or the ratios).

So we have no way to objectively knowing:

• How 'natural' a fragrance is
• How expensive its ingredients are
• How complex it is (the fragrance you think is simple could have 100 aromachemicals)

Worst of all is when people talk about "quality". All quality means is that you personally like something, and you want to use a term that establishes it as objectively good.

The only material we have is marketing material, which is a company's account on their own product. There aren't any independent third party companies or organizations doing this.

And with marketing, there are ways to cleverly or ambiguously word things to where its legal, despite being misleading (via error of omission).

In general, most of us don't know a ton about perfuming. We know how to consume content, but not what goes into making it. Just like most people who enjoy video games don't really know how to program or in detail of what goes into making one.

You raise a number of fair points. I think this is why it's best to talk about what we know, although it's inevitable discussions will sometimes veer away from that from time to time. Speculation can be useful. One of the big problems with amateur reviewing or discussing is pretension and the various ways in which understanding can be feigned. The use of jargon (e.g. referring to aromachemicals instead of notes or smells) gives an impression of not just objective analysis but an understanding of the chemistry of perfume as well. One such case has launched a successful perfume brand off the back of doing precisely this on youtube - it's truly incredible to see people fall for it but we are experiencing civilisational decline, so credulity (and even admiration) for tricksters and hustlers is to be expected. More generally, it is a bit like the blind leading the blind. Think of all the Creed reviews - written and vlogged - from 10-15 years ago that would use the brand's "history" as part of the preamble. Reviews or discussions that foment this kind of misinformation are worth less than graffiti scrawled on the toilet door. The main problem is online discussions trying to do more than what they're good at: which is the participants writing about what the actually know.


More and related...

On how to approach quality: https://basenotes.com/community/threads/quality-whats-in-a-word.485082/

On whether the fragcomm is a net positive or negative for understanding, consuming, or appreciating perfume: https://basenotes.com/community/thr...been-a-net-positive-or-a-net-negative.523802/

Some of what you said maybe true, but still one cant make generalizations…
If you said all above in say 1990 regarding general public’s awareness of perfumery… yes, agree.
Nowadays, it is an entirely different conversation due to divergence and a dichotomy here. Few things that made this happen.

• Internet per se
• Access to databases, perfume houses, etc
• Ability to buy anything related to perfume
• GCMS readily available
• Much more information available from perfumers
• Perfume journalism is a reality.

So on one side, people whether related to perfumery or not, who know how perfumes are sourced, and made by observational or studied knowledge, first hand research, direct contacts, travel to raw material source sites, etc… and then, there is the vast diaspora “who think they know” because of-course after reading 4 articles on google, they “know it all”. And to wit: a lot of people even here, or ‘reviewing-videos’ on youtube.

That said, there is a great equalizer in perfumery… doesn’t matter how much you know or don’t know, doesn’t matter who you are, “your nose” decides what you like and what you don’t… and nothing M Ropion, M. Kerleo or Dr Turin, or for that matter Jeremy can twirl about… “your nose will lead the way”. Your scent impression matters as each one of us, is distinct in our smell likes or dislikes. It is innate in human olfactory neuro-psyche to process smells as:

• Does it smell pleasant or not: is it good, is it bad… or I don’t care. (followed by…)
• Do I like it or not?

Study after study showed the same pattern, and thus, there is a hedonic scale for smells.

And in a way its both good and bad, that despite perfumery industry’s best efforts, public has infiltrated their screen of smoke and mirrors. Though, how far are the non-perfumery-related group inside is anyone’s guess.

For perfume impressions, or reviews, or news, or hyperbolic introductions… one has to sort wheat from chaff… what are true facts and what is pretentious repetition of jargon heard, but repeated without validation.
Eg, when you say you smell narcissus, have you sampled narcissus absolute?? Or are you just repeating that blurb on perfume house site or fragrantica’s visual smell-note screen. The scent of narcissus has nothing to do with its absolute.
Lilac or LOVT or plum, are all constructed accords. When you say it smells like lilacs, you’re paying a huge compliment to that perfumer.
How many people have been to an orange blossom distillery or spend time with the materials… neroli, petitgrain, orange blossom absolute… same tree, all different. Takes time to study and understand the nuances of each and even then, a trained perfumer can be thrown for a loop by some minor change introduced in the distillation process, or a crop from a different terroir, etc.

But, I will say it again, a complete novice’s impression still matters if provided with an honest comparison from their own repository of scent-learning rather than saying it says so, so it is so.
Thats disingenuous.
Here is an opportunity for discussion based on one’s knowledge, however adequate or inadequate it maybe, and to learn.

I guess what I am emphasizing is academic honesty in a public discourse, but then… (a tad laughable) about something as ephemeral as a perfume’s scent.
Here and gone.
(and you will say…)
But how beautiful and glorious is that moment of transient “here”—be it Mitsouko, Vol de Nuit, Femme, Djedi, Nuit de Noel, Crepe de chine, Dioressence, Tea Rose or plain old English Lavender.

PS: more to say but already too long. Obliged for not quoting, kindly use @username function.

lair77 said:

All quality means is that you personally like something, and you want to use a term that establishes it as objectively good.

Click to expand...

No that's wrong, there's no objectivity there.

“And what is good, Phaedrus, and what is not good—need we ask anyone to tell us these things?”

Quality is a subjective experience, nothing more.

WarmJewel said:

Quality is a subjective experience, nothing more.

Click to expand...

I (mostly) agree with this as it relates to aesthetics, which includes the experience of fragrances. Certainly, in the sense that one person thinks jasmine smells good while another thinks it smells bad, we are purely in the realm of the subjective. The point of perfume is aesthetic, so that's the part that matters, and no one needs expertise to decide what they like or dislike. That said, perfumes are also constructed by craftspeople (if not artists) who usually have a working knowledge of chemistry, and it's possible for the technical aspects to be done well or poorly by objective measures.

Now, am I qualified to do that measuring? Not so qualified as someone with a better understanding of the chemistry, but qualified to whatever degree I can perceive the technique. I mean, I can't tell you how to build an airplane, but if the doors come off a Boeing 747 mid-flight, I'm qualified to tell you the construction was subpar. Someone with a better understanding of airplane construction in general and that failure in particular can tell you if it was a design flaw, a manufacturing flaw, or a bit of both. The same can be applied to fragrance in terms of performance issues and, to some degree, experiential ones.

The hardest part is separating subjective aesthetics from quantifiable technique. There are well-made perfumes I dislike, and workmanlike at best ones that I enjoy. I try to take that into account in my reviews. Ultimately, though, I'm just saying what I like and why I think I like it, with the hope that some people will find it useful even if they perceive things differently.

Who really cares.

Note to self: Leave disclaimers on all my future reviews, posts, and videos that I am not a trained perfumer, chemist, liberal arts major, business major, or doctor in the biosciences; therefore, I cannot (more like will not) empirically prove anything I say regarding perfume.

TL;DR: Like, it's just my opinion, man.

I had a whole long diatribe about how much I dislike the character traits of the stereotypical fragrance person, their imaginary discernment, their lengthy yet opaque reviews, having all the obnoxious qualities of someone who is too into fashion without having the clothes to show for it, but I realized it's not really the topic here. Also half of it applies to me.

So I'd just ask, what quantitative or perceptually comparative metrics would you suggest to help describe fragrances in a way that allows people to understand what they're spending their money on?

I think notes are a terrible way of describing fragrances and are a result of fragrance marketing, and we're not developed as a way to describe how things actually smell. @Varanis Ridari you're a historian, when did the note pyramid thing standardize? I think it sucks.

Some things could be measured. Strength can be assessed as detection thresholds over time. I've seen test chambers used by candle companies.

Of course the sprayers would need to be calibrated. We normally see a figure of .1ml per spray but my rasasi Shuhrah feels like twice that and my aramis feels like less.

Mr. Spritz said:

I think notes are a terrible way of describing fragrances and are a result of fragrance marketing, and were not developed as a way to describe how things actually smell.

Click to expand...

Oh, I suspect they were developed as a way to describe how things smell, and (d)evolved from there into an Emperor's New Clothes of marketing. I find note pyramids useful in assessing a perfumer's intent, honesty, and/or alignment with my perceptions. It does sometimes seem as if the PR people and perfumers have never communicated.

PStoller said:

Oh, I suspect they were developed as a way to describe how things smell, and (d)evolved from there into an Emperor's New Clothes of marketing. I find note pyramids useful in assessing a perfumer's intent, honesty, and/or alignment with my perceptions. It does sometimes seem as if the PR people and perfumers have never communicated.

Click to expand...

I just read them and disqualify fragrances having things I don't like, or seek out fragrances with notes I do like...but the notes generally aren't there. Like it's just a mishmash, it's a new thing. Decomposing a fragrance into notes is like decomposing a painting into colors.

I like orange does that mean I like Cezanne? I like turquoise and gray, does that mean I'll like El Greco? It's just not useful.

Mr. Spritz said:

I just read them and disqualify fragrances having things I don't like, or seek out fragrances with notes I do like...but the notes generally aren't there. Like it's just a mishmash, it's a new thing. Decomposing a fragrance into notes is like decomposing a painting into colors.

I like orange does that mean I like Cezanne? I like turquoise and gray, does that mean I'll like El Greco? It's just not useful.

Click to expand...

It's useful to some people, but it's fine if not to you. Here's the thing about your analogy: you might not like Cézanne or El Greco based purely on the colors they use, but your favorite Cézanne or El Greco (if you like them at all) is likely to be influenced by your color preferences. Not defined, because there's much going on beyond color, but still influenced.

My collection has more fragrances focused on leather notes than on melon, but that doesn't mean I love every leather fragrance or despise every melon one. It matters which perfumer is using the note, how they achieve and blend it, and to what ends. I'll take a Roudnitska melon over a Tom Ford leather any day. So, note pyramids—potentially useful, but in context rather than in isolation.

Personally, I don’t see how knowing fragrance chemistry or composition would make you any better (or worse) at enjoying perfumes. It’s like saying you have to know how to play the tenor sax to enjoy John Coltrane. Listening to A Love Supreme tells me otherwise. When I read the opinions of folks on this site, or elsewhere, I’m not looking for data or objectivity. I don’t feel let down by the lack of test results. It’s perfume after all, not a flatscreen TV. What I find most valuable is simply of a description of how it smells to the person sharing their thoughts. If they convey that through flowery associations or metaphors, I’m fine with that because the scent conjured something in their mind—moved them in some way. I get that some people take a simpler approach, thumbs up/thumbs down type of feedback has its place too. If anything, I would like to see folks feel more free to express their thoughts and feelings about what they smell. You don’t have to be an expert to share how something smells to you or makes you feel while you wear it.

The biggest problem with forming an opinion on fragrances is that generally we spray it on ourselves and then decide. Last time I checked the human nose is only an inch or so long, so there is absolutely no way one can properly form an opinion. You really need to experience it in the open air.

UESNYC said:

The biggest problem with forming an opinion on fragrances is that generally we spray it on ourselves and then decide. Last time I checked the human nose is only an inch or so long, so there is absolutely no way one can properly form an opinion. You really need to experience it in the open air.

Click to expand...

I have long arms and I extend them when I test

monacelli1 said:

Personally, I don’t see how knowing fragrance chemistry or composition would make you any better (or worse) at enjoying perfumes. It’s like saying you have to know how to play the tenor sax to enjoy John Coltrane.

Click to expand...

It doesn’t make you better or worse at enjoying perfumes, but it makes you enjoy them differently, perhaps either less or more. The same applies to music: while anyone can appreciate Coltrane’s genius, they’ll have a different appreciation if they play tenor. (Likewise, knowing how to play soprano can ruin Kenny G for you.)

But that’s just a sidebar. Perfumers don’t make perfume for perfumers, and musicians don’t (usually) make music for musicians. Some people take pleasure in approaching these things analytically, others don’t. Either way is equally valid. The main distinction is that the analytical person will have a better shot at writing something informative. Beyond that—whatever floats yer boat.

UESNYC said:

The biggest problem with forming an opinion on fragrances is that generally we spray it on ourselves and then decide. Last time I checked the human nose is only an inch or so long, so there is absolutely no way one can properly form an opinion. You really need to experience it in the open air.

Click to expand...

Some of our noses are bigger than others, you know, because of the lying and all

PStoller said:

It doesn’t make you better or worse at enjoying perfumes, but it makes you enjoy them differently, perhaps either less or more. The same applies to music: while anyone can appreciate Coltrane’s genius, they’ll have a different appreciation if they play tenor. (Likewise, knowing how to play soprano can ruin Kenny G for you.)

But that’s just a sidebar. Perfumers don’t make perfume for perfumers, and musicians don’t (usually) make music for musicians. Some people take pleasure in approaching these things analytically, others don’t. Either way is equally valid. The main distinction is that the analytical person will have a better shot at writing something informative. Beyond that—whatever floats yer boat.

Click to expand...

Writers and filmmakers often talk about those wonderful, innocent days spent reading or film-watching back before they became practitioners of those same arts, themselves. As a fiction writer, I can say that writing short stories and novels enlarged my appreciation for the skill and talent and hard work required in the creation of good literature, while also lessening (somewhat) its seeming magic and enchantment.

Some writers do write primarily for other writers (since those are the folks handing out the big awards and prizes), so those who have considerable experience in the perfume-making field, from a technical and/or scientific standpoint, should probably have a more informed point of view as to the "quality" of specific scents.

*This still doesn't make me like Miyako though.

lair77 said:

So we have no way to objectively knowing:

• How 'natural' a fragrance is
• How expensive its ingredients are
• How complex it is (the fragrance you think is simple could have 100 aromachemicals)

Click to expand...

I think objectively we can know how expensive a formula is by how quickly a company discontinues or reformulates it

Melbourne2024 said:

Who really cares.

Click to expand...

Exactly!

Starblind said:

Writers and filmmakers often talk about those wonderful, innocent days spent reading or film-watching back before they became practitioners of those same arts, themselves. As a fiction writer, I can say that writing short stories and novels enlarged my appreciation for the skill and talent and hard work required in the creation of good literature, while also lessening (somewhat) its seeming magic and enchantment.

Click to expand...

I've mentioned before that I experience this as a songwriter/musician. The very best things get me out of my analytical mind in the moment, and enlighten me upon reflection and careful study. The rest, it's harder for me to appreciate than it is for someone who's just taking in the effect. So, a double-edged sword.