The Lack of Evidence in Fragrance Discussion

Mr. Spritz said:

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?

Click to expand...

The reality is such that it's nigh on impossible to actually improve the quality of reviews or discussions as it stands. Trying to manage social media/messageboards means you're going to alienate a plurality of the potential or actual users - this isn't hypothetical e.g. this regularly happens with threads about compliments or seductive appeal - or you're going to have to live with at least some of the various issues and less rigorous commitment to veracity that come with an open public forum. Improving the debate can't be done without violating several of our apparent or stated principles - such as "everyone's opinion is equal" - so it's best not to worry too much about it. Again, just stick to what you know, tell the truth, try to be useful and interesting to others with what you post and so on. Noticing nonsense from time to time is a good idea as well hahaha.

It's far from ideal but by at least participating there's still a chance for the cream to rise to the top/to be able to sort the wheat from the chaff. It should be said that most people provide at least moderately helpful info - it's only a minority (unfortunately significant and growing) who are ideologically dedicated to e.g. declaring all fragrance genderless and your question fundamentally illegitimate if you happen to ask how suitable something is for men. I'm still amazed that anyone could fall for a certain youtuber who reviews the aromachemicals in a fragrance but maybe playing along is all part of the fun? I don't know...

Either way, the best approach is to just say what you smell. In your own words. Simple as that.

One of the issues I think is relevant, which was probably less applicable when basenotes first started, is the actual power of virtual communities in shaping beliefs and habits. You can ignore some of the more ridiculous, attention-grabbing nonsense that takes place in other parts of the fragcomm; this is low tier distraction for people who would otherwise happily spend hours at a slot machine or a strip club whatever. It's just dull. Far more important is the way that users combine to create a consensus, which in turn becomes the collectively shared beliefs and habits of that group. These shared beliefs are as good as facts to the users - again, using the example of Creed, many of these beliefs are often stated as if they were factual.

This dynamic of collectively-arranged attitudes can be a problem. In fact, I would say it's a guarantee that it becomes a problem in a relatively short period of time. I can't think of a single major online social platform that hasn't become at least somewhat deranged (adopting/hosting fantastical or extreme in-group beliefs of one form or another, specifically via the mechanism of consensus on the virtual site itself) since the late 2000/early 2010s. The issue with consensus-seeking is that, when beliefs and attitudes are determined by collective credulity and/or group compliance, it opens up the recording of knowledge (facts or beliefs) to all sorts of corruptive social behaviours. This can be attention-seeking, status-seeking, financial incentive (is this starting to sound familiar to the "influencer" model yet?), purity-spiralling, or simply the rhetorical and/or bullying skills of the most persuasive and socially adept users. The collective can also be manipulated by those who control the flow of information, where literal 'likes' or anonymous votes (reddit) can boost or ban certain attitudes/beliefs/facts.

Needless to say, this is a very human set of behaviours, crudely applied to a new technology where the results are less than ideal. Mitigating these issues is proving difficult as well (and also highly topical): do you allow a free for all, do you regulate with an iron and/or arbitrary fist, or do allow individuals and owners to decide things for themselves? There's no obvious answer, for either outcome or principles and process.

All of this may be fine when talking about a small group, who are content with the echo chamber they've created for themselves. It's not great for outsiders or newcomers, however, and this is something I'm constantly frustrated with when it comes to dealing with any virtual group. Maybe it is a 'me problem' haha. It's completely understandable that any group is going to serve itself and its members - where would be more appropriate to have a 100+ page thread on a real oud brand than basenotes? - but it can lead to the aforementioned extremism in either attitude or belief (I would say this is the case on basenotes, where large collections are normalised). Again, in and of itself, this isn't a problem. But the point of normal is moved away from something understandable and accessible to the outsider, to something inaccessible and alienating. Culture works well when it has room for all and accepts a hierarchy based on competence: a culture of consensus achieved through a subculture runs the risk of, at worst, becoming a cult (especially when it ignores truth and nature for the sake of beliefs and/or persuasive abilities).

Ultimately, it comes down to the people. If someone wants to contribute positively and honestly to the best of their abilities, they'll do that until they can't or won't. That's all you can really ask. If someone wants to post cringe or derail or whatever, they'll similarly do that until they're stopped. Look at this in the wider cultural sense. With all of America's abundance, what was the culture that they produced? They gave us the hamburger, the sneaker, the pop song, and porn. This is in part because of the people doing the creating - their instincts, their desires, their abilities - as well as the audience and market. If you need breadth of appeal without distinguishing one person from another - if you eschew formalised or explicit or even just the old forms of hierarchy - then you'll create something with one-dimensional wide appeal. Without any vertical acknowledgement - that something is better than something else; that someone is better than someone else - there is a flattening to the lowest common denominator. Attempts to remedy this within the framework are ridiculous e.g. the gourmet burger, the $500+ plain white sneaker, the pseudo-intellectual treatment of pop music (less applicable now than it was 10+ years ago but still applies to a few megastars like Taylor Swift). Or, perhaps the $300 designer fragrance remix as made by Parfums de Marly et al.

So, if you don't want expertise or exclusivity forged through the intense selection process of meritocracy (you throw off the idea of regulation or stringent criticism as elitist and/or oppressive) you're going to have a culture that requires a commonality with all. This makes room for the the amateur to come in and take up the vacant space (again, think of how indie/artisanal perfume does exactly this as well, for good and ill, where the hustler can profit from expensive clones or a social media presence as an aromachemical-deciphering chemist-perfumer). Naturally, it makes sense to limit the ambitions or expectations of the amateur group - you can't expect expertise and/or flawless knowledge and understanding of perfumery. It's just not going to happen. What is a bigger issue is the threat that consensus-seeking has on suffocating individual expression and honesty. This is more important to think about that trying to aim for the stars. Leaving room for honest, uninhibited contribution is probably the most important feature of a public forum. Even the beginner who knows none of the terminology can provide an interesting observation or thought about perfumery - in fact, their outsider status may even be a benefit to this - and ultimately the newcomer is the lifeblood that keeps a subculture or hobby group alive. They're essential to its continuation so all the more reason to try not to alienate them.

Starblind said:

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.

Click to expand...

A great point, and another product of the separation of people in to hobbyist and/or interest groups. These groups will tend towards in-group incentives and are prone to self-indulgence (how many perfumers are making fragrances specifically for a small number of fragrance enthusiasts, knowing novelty and/or concept is desirable?). When writing about writing () or for writers leads to reward, it makes sense to do it.

Of course, the greatest works are generally those that appeal to the high, middle, and low. Does anyone create anything like this anymore? Nothing comes to mind. Perhaps in a degraded form, where the values and meaning of the high have been replaced by the midwit-middle, postmodern ripping away of meaning e.g. Banksy becomes profound anti-commentary or whatever. Pop music is all sugar and no protein. Modern classical music is mostly like speaking in a foreign language to all but a small fraction of the population. Ridley Scott makes middlebrow interpretations of high culture. Manga is for children.

One final point on evidence and how it's not a good idea to demand it: speculation is important when it comes to discussing discontinuations. Now, it's not great to have 10 threads a day asking if AdG Profumo is discontinued just because it's sold out on the website. But, eventually, AdG Profumo was discontinued - the speculation wasn't unfounded, there was some substance behind the lack of availability. This is useful, not least for those who might want to stock up on a bottle or three before prices shoot up. Another example would be Zino Davidoff, which also seems to have threads discussing its discontinuation going back decades! Now, again, this might not seem overly helpful because it wasn't discontinued, therefore the speculation wasn't correct. But it can be useful to go back and use these threads, connecting them to changes in production, where the formula and license was sold to another company (therefore disrupting distribution and/or coinciding with a reformulation).

At best, a public forum should act like a good natured pub. Speculation, rumour, gossip etc is all part of that. Consensus shouldn't be sought, nor accepted: disagreements are perfectly acceptable and in fact necessary to avoid groupthink (which in turn creates a hostile environment for potential newcomers). If someone were to try to use their influence and standing to persuade others that a fragrance definitely is or isn't discontinued, despite not knowing whether it truly is or not, then that's the nightmare scenario.

“Quality maybe a subjective experience”— with a huge caveat— it depends on the individual making that subjective call on the quality of a specific entity.
An individual is a product of their upbringing, their education, innate intellect, aptitude, thought process, culture/ religion or lack thereof… humans are such complex networks.

Thus came the role of the critic, and well-known perfumers always work closely with and refer to their perfume evaluators (polite phrase for formal criticizers of their work)… meaning, you may know how to create an amazing accord (per perfumery criteria), but how would the masses react to it is a vastly different phenomenon.
Fact remains… perfumes are made to be sold; perfumery is driven by its wearability and sale value. And the awful premise that exclusivity of luxury is something to chase.

Thus, I may read opinions, reviews here, there… but there’re very few people in perfumery whose opinion (really) matters to me.
And even then, focus is on,
perfume-historical data,
perfumery materials info,
how to translate a scent-note’s emotion, etc.

However, just the way, one acquires a taste for bitterness, a discerning artistic palette, develop an appreciation for new tonalities… one simply hopes (for oneself) that the scent/perfume course would lead to a similar path.

PS: obliged for not quoting.

The premise of the OP is wrong. Most materials imvolved are known. The quality of them too: synthesis routes of synthetics are either published or for most of them the basic option of synthesis can be extrapolated from methods of the chemical industry in general. Captives and modified synthesis routes are the execration.

There is also progressing and emerging data on the environmental and biological effects of many used materials.

All of it combined allows a judgement of quality and especially price-/-quality ratio on another basis than hedonic appreciation.

Which makes most fine fragrances highly overpriced pollutants.

I know I may very well get lambasted for my response as it may not add much value, but these discussions often tend to get tedious rapidly.

I will agree that "quality" is a construct based on one's societal and cultural expectations of what "qualifies." We can opine about whether one has more acumen in their discernment, but if we steep ourselves too much in the analysis, we may very well lose sight of perfume's purpose. I say that as someone who has been both an enthusiast of perfume and has also studied its composition and formulation.

It would be worth exploring how algorithm-driven social media has shaped the way we impart value and quality in perfume versus the many centuries that preceded this huge culture-busting change.

slpfrsly said:

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/

Click to expand...

The person you speak of immediately came to my mind. Irritates my soul.

The lack of transparency doesn't really bother me, as @monacelli1 and others pointed out, fragrance is an art and I can judge whether I like it well enough to spend the asking price without knowing the material value of the contents.

The lack of transparency has worse consequences in the cosmetics world, with $200 serums promising miraculous results where most dermatologists would look at the formula and say it contains nothing special.

The difference is fragrance doesn't need to produce or promise any results other than provide aesthetic and sensory pleasure, and I'm the only one who can measure the value of that.

The idea of quality is a construct, but it's a useful term because it encapsulates a network of aspects about an object that are implicitly understood. Like all constructs, it's not absolute but it communicates a lot with little words (like the word "masculine" for example).

I don't really see this figure of the self anointed but incompetent expert fragrance reviewer. I think it's a bit of a straw man, everyone I've come across is pretty humble and transparent about their qualifications and simply share their experience and passion for the hobby with others. The only people I've seen who fake expertise are ones who promise specific results with fragrance (wear these 3 fragrances and get laid!). But those guys never really talk about ingredients or feign expertise in fragrance making. They just claim to know what the fragrance will do for you, which they can't possibly know.

I know that people are into fragrance for different reasons and there are brands that cater to someone looking for the most rare and precious ingredients, or ingredients amount lists (Les Indemodables), or all natural brands. Transparency is important from a human rights/environmental angle, but this is a problem in all industries.

I think the people most likely to get ripped off are the casual fragrance buyers who might spend too much for something that just isn't very good if they knew what else is out there. But for the most part I don't think they care.

I would also add that, other than the pure enjoyment, appreciation and perceived artistic value of a fragrance, there are objective measurements of quality already applied to fragrances that are compliant with regulations.

Some regulatory standards are optional and some not. It is possible to establish standards that ensure certain qualities ( such as certified containing or lacking ingredients) if there's a reliable scheme in place. You could make a "Certified 5 m projection per spray" label, you just need to establish a standard for it. At that point you don't need reviewers for 5m projection claims anymore either.

Whether an individual values that quality is another topic. Someone could prefer wild, uncertified bear meat to an A5 graded wagyu or a locally produced parmesan style cheese from Michigan to a certified DOP Parmesan cheese, however, only the DOP cheese and A5 wagyu will consistently have the qualities that are being measured and controlled for.

Standards will give you more objectivity. That's not what reviewers or critics or sales people or influencers should be doing or aiming to do in the first place.

I'm looking to buy a new keyboard, can anyone recommend one?

Mr. Spritz said:

I'm looking to buy a new keyboard, can anyone recommend one?

Click to expand...

Designer, or niche?

Um, I mean, Mac, PC, or musical?

Mr. Spritz said:

I'm looking to buy a new keyboard, can anyone recommend one?

Click to expand...

I don't have a degree in computer science or engineering; so regardless of what my fingers find most comfortable, I'm unqualified to recommend one unless I learn how to build the circuit boards, cast the plastic, and assemble it myself; sorry.

@leffleur I know exactly who he is referring to, and I get vicarious embarrassment for him, especially when I am perplexed that he detects certain materials in a given fragrance that I am convinced are not really there short of having a GC/MS result right in front of me.

Hints: "whipping through the base" and "jazz hands."

I really don't mind when reviews do mention the detection of aromachems and other materials as long as when reading them, it seems to "make sense" that they are mentioned in the context of describing and evaluating a scent. Too often though, I read and hear certain questionable "reviewers" and "influencers" making rather specious observations and once again, I feel that vicarious embarrassment.

@cheapimitation On the contrary, I do think the perfume industry does owe the consumer some transparency, especially when it comes to claims of using certain natural materials that are actually in dubious, homeopathic doses or when it comes to the provenance or these materials ("Venetian Bergamot" for example: bergamot is not commercially grown in Venice).

Listing notes and accords can be a useful and effective marketing tool, but boasting Egyptian jasmine grandiflorum absolute when its only .01% of the formula is a cynical and manipulative way of convincing the consumer of its "quality" and "value."

LOL @ "homeopathic doses" and "Venetian bergamot." This stuff vexes me, along with the "poetic" promotional verbiage that amounts to nothing beyond, "aren't we special."

@Stonecrop Here's the thing: in a GC/MS report, it isn't exactly easy to peace together the specific natural materials used and even less so, the provenance/terroir of said natural materials. Each is as complex as a single perfume itself, with a long list of compounds. Therefore, someone creating a reproduction is faced with reconstructing a puzzle, often having to hypothesize what naturals were in fact used, with no guarantee that they have made a correct guess on each of one.

It has been mentioned that a number of master perfumers, JCE, for example, who deliberately include a soupçon of a few natural materials just so that their formulas would be nearly impossible to reproduce by GC/MS alone.

slpfrsly said:

Culture works well when it has room for all and accepts a hierarchy based on competence: a culture of consensus achieved through a subculture runs the risk of, at worst, becoming a cult (especially when it ignores truth and nature for the sake of beliefs and/or persuasive abilities).

Click to expand...

This is where a discussion comes in on how social media algorithms in the past decade have played a role in flattening culture, drowning on any hierarchy of competence whatsoever in favor of what drives the algorithm forward and gets the most attention.

slpfrsly said:

Ultimately, it comes down to the people. If someone wants to contribute positively and honestly to the best of their abilities, they'll do that until they can't or won't. That's all you can really ask. If someone wants to post cringe or derail or whatever, they'll similarly do that until they're stopped. Look at this in the wider cultural sense. With all of America's abundance, what was the culture that they produced? They gave us the hamburger, the sneaker, the pop song, and porn.

Click to expand...

But there's also jambalaya, Johnston & Murphy, jazz, and Jim Jarmusch.

slpfrsly said:

Even the beginner who knows none of the terminology can provide an interesting observation or thought about perfumery - in fact, their outsider status may even be a benefit to this - and ultimately the newcomer is the lifeblood that keeps a subculture or hobby group alive. They're essential to its continuation so all the more reason to try not to alienate them.

Click to expand...

There's nothing worse than seeing an eager newcomer made to feel unwelcome because of their perceived "inexperience" or lack of knowledge. I can relive the excitement of newness and enthusiasm through chatting, sharing with them, and making them feel like they are part of the community.

Is there really no interest in developing ways to compare fragrances in a meaningful way? I bet some interesting and useful methods could be established.

For me the basic qualities of a fragrance are the weight, the opacity vs translucency, distinct notes vs a blended whole, and sweetness vs dryness. Add that to performance, which I think could be quantified to a useful degree.

For example I sprayed paper samples a few hours ago. Two identical sprays each. The comparative strength now is very clear:
1. Gucci Guilty Absolute PH (gone)
2. Pasha edt (There but subtle)
3. Saharian Wind (similar to 2)
4. Declaration edt (Light but still strong)
5. Full Incense (still strong)
6. Honey Aoud (Close to 5 but a bit fuller)

These aren't the results I expected. Declaration is over performing and Gucci is totally gone.

I could easily standardize this, order over time and establish at least part of the performance characteristics of these fragrances.

@Mr. Spritz I don't necessarily think there is no interest making meaningful comparisons, but it all depends on one's own subjective perceptions of quality in perfume.

What you are initially referring to are more observable, quantifiable characteristics but not necessarily quality in terms of what has been discussed here. If I am not mistaken from reading here, most have been referring to quality in terms of how a product has been blended and composed by a perfumer, the materials used, and an even the most subjective parameter of quality that you do happen to subsequently mention: performance.

I don't think that you can standardize perfume performance on anyone but yourself as too many variables are involved. One being the perception variable. This can be affected by how much or how little is worn, whether one individual tends to get hyposmic faster, whether one is asnomic to certain bases or musks, and individually determined expectations for how a perfume wears on them.

That said standardizing for yourself can prove to be useful as you can weed out what perfumes are more satisfying and meet your expectations and ones you can put into different categories or trim from your collection.