The Lack of Evidence in Fragrance Discussion

Mr. Spritz said:

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.

Click to expand...

I use techniques like this (basic science) to compare formulations and detect counterfeits all the time.

Some would be surprised how much difference can be found between different bottles and samples of the exact same fragrance. Oxidation, aging, freshness, storage - they all make a difference.

I think that spreading techniques when commenting (using the spoiler feature to hide long experimental sections) would be a way to change the culture toward more quantitative citizen science.

Having hundreds of smelling strips (mouillettes, blotters) is the first step.

Redneck Perfumisto said:

I use techniques like this (basic science) to compare formulations and detect counterfeits all the time.

Some would be surprised how much difference can be found between different bottles and samples of the exact same fragrance. Oxidation, aging, freshness, storage - they all make a difference.

I think that spreading techniques when commenting (using the spoiler feature to hide long experimental sections) would be a way to change the culture toward more quantitative citizen science.

Having hundreds of smelling strips (mouillettes, blotters) is the first step.

Click to expand...

My issue is metering small quantities. I have a micro balance that's good to .1g but you really need exactly the same quantity of fragrance to make an honest assessment.

I have a bunch of identical samples bottles and spraying from those removes that variable but I'm curious how you'd approach it.

As I see it the really scientific way would be to measure the time it takes for a fragrance to totally depart, but this is challenging and also some fragrances linger at a weak strength after burning out quickly. So comparative measures are better- every time you test a fragrance you test it against 5 random samples you've used before.

I think statistically this would allow you to make accurate statements about compartive strength if not hours of sillage on skin, which is a way more complex phenomena.

Colbourne said:

@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."

Click to expand...

I'll agree it's not ok to outright lie. How much they want to tell us is fine by me. If they want an air of mystery like Nasamotto who list nothing, or they list exact percentages and country of origin like Les Indemodables I'm ok with both (as long as there's nothing toxic, but we have labeling regulations for that).

But if they say "Egyptian jasmine grandiflorum" I expect there to be at least some amount in the juice, and as far as I know it would be illegal to do otherwise.

Overall greater transparency in all industries is a good thing. If only meat and clothing manufacturers were required to put pictures of their facilities on the packages we might live in a less cruel world.

What I meant is that greater transparency doesn't much affect my evaluation of the fragrance since I'm evaluating as an aesthetic object rather than the value of it's constituent parts.

Colbourne said:

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

Click to expand...

Not the list I had in mind but I appreciate the alliteration.

My mind went to Philip Glass, Pollock, Rothko, Georgia O'Keefe, Truman Capote, Andy Warhol, Rick Owens, John Cage, Andy Warhol, Lenny Bernstein. I could go on but my thumbs might get tired. Of all the crazy erroneous things he posts, this might take the cake.

@cheapimitation I love your list!

I'll be honest, none of these methods are going to yield reliable results that would be much more useful to me than the reviewing that take place today, because there are so many variables and inconsistencies in testing. However they may of course be entertaining.

I remember being quite surprised about the lackluster reviews online for performance for some of my favorite hermessence fragrances that I had owned for years. Reading about the poor performance of amber narguile because it is an eau de cologne when I could smell it off my scarf 3 months later was very strange.

The majority of reviews rely mostly on visual information and text about the product (heavy bottle is high quality and expensive, cheap price is cheap fragrance, marketing says laotian Oud, says eau de cologne must be poor performance, etc...), even when the product has been tested. And that is probably more of a good thing than a bad thing in the end, otherwise I suspect most reviews would be like this:


Also, there's the variation in human perception that has a major impact. If I smell cloud by Ariana Grande one day and Cloud 2.0 the next day, I would say they smell more or less exactly the same. If I compare them side by side, there are differences that are being amped up. Just like colors look different depending on the colors next to them.

On transparency, interestingly, the new Dolce & Gabbana flanker to the highly successful Devotion has an overview of both allergens and ingredients if I'm not mistaken?

Ingredients

ALCOHOL DENAT., PARFUM (FRAGRANCE), TETRAMETHYL ACETYLOCTAHYDRONAPHTHALENES, VANILLIN,HEXAMETHYLINDANOPYRAN, AQUA (WATER), DIPROPYLENE GLYCOL, LIMONENE, CITRUS AURANTIUM PEEL OIL, CITRUSLIMON PEEL OIL (CITRUS LIMON (LEMON) PEEL OIL), ETHYLHEXYL SALICYLATE, BUTYL METHOXYDIBENZOYLMETHANE,LINALOOL, CITRAL, LINALYL ACETATE, COUMARIN, PINENE, GERANIOL, BENZYL ALCOHOL, GERANYL ACETATE, PENTAERYTHRITYL TETRA-DI-T-BUTYL HYDROXYHYDROCINNAMATE, TERPINEOL, CITRONELLOL, BENZALDEHYDE, CITRUSAURANTIUM FLOWER OIL, ALCOHOL, TRIS(TETRAMETHYLHYDROXYPIPERIDINOL) CITRATE, CITRUS AURANTIUM BERGAMIAPEEL OIL (CITRUS AURANTIUM BERGAMIA (BERGAMOT) PEEL OIL) , CARVONE, TERPINOLENE, CANANGA ODORATA OIL/EXTRACT, ROSE KETONES, BENZYL BENZOATE, FARNESOL, CI 14700 (RED 4) , CI 60730 (EXT. VIOLET 2) , CI 19140 (YELLOW 5)

cheapimitation said:

Not the list I had in mind but I appreciate the alliteration.

My mind went to Philip Glass, Pollock, Rothko, Georgia O'Keefe, Truman Capote, Andy Warhol, Rick Owens, John Cage, Andy Warhol, Lenny Bernstein. I could go on but my thumbs might get tired. Of all the crazy erroneous things he posts, this might take the cake.

Click to expand...

Erroneous? It's "erroneous" to say America exports porn, hamburgers, and sneakers? There you go, using words incorrectly yet again...

And who can forget the elitism and exclusivity in Warhol's art...

Incredible.

leffleur said:

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

Click to expand...

In all fairness I was speaking generally but there are some examples so egregious they're impossible not to come to mind.

Colbourne said:

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.

Click to expand...

No, algorithms aren't especially relevant to what I'm saying. They're only a minor part of it. It's the consensus-seeking that is the important point. It's a big part of what's given rise to the midwit phenomenon: strength in numbers through snark, and obedience on sharing the 'right' opinions. It has nothing to do with truth or competence, is purely a status game (sometimes measured in likes, followers). Algorithms don't have much importance on the basenotes of fragrantica forums, for example. Again, this isn't really something that can be prevented. People respond to incentives.

Colbourne said:

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

Click to expand...

Apart from jazz, which was shortlived as a creative force and limited in its appeal (rock and roll and then hip hop quickly replaced it), none of those are applicable. Jambayala is regional one pot slop - everywhere has a similar type of food, nothing to shout about. And importantly, none of those are high/middle/low examples of cultural artefacts. Hollywood may have come close at times but its decline appears to be terminal. Again, jazz flirted with it, but never really managed it. America's true culture (as distinct from Europe and in particular the Anglo, Celtic, and Germanic cultures of the majority of its population) is fast food, where everyone gets the same standardised product regardless of wealth or station. The attempt to remedy this desire for distinction with gourmet burgers coated in gold leaf or whatever is futile.

Colbourne said:

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.

Click to expand...

There's a balance to be struck. Like the pub, you can't treat every newcomer like an established patron. But there also needs to be a way to become a regular.

Mr. Spritz said:

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.

Click to expand...

There might be interest but it's going to be frustrated by the limitations of perfumery. People who compare fragrances to art are reaching ( and usually hopelessly wrong about both). Fragrance should be understood as equivalent to food or wine, not art or music.

Think about how food and wine is reviewed/analysed. Your own metrics already cover most of them.

The reality is there are a few reviewers who develop credibility because of their accuracy and insight. Darvant comes to mind. Those are the ones worth reading. Outside of that, a broad aggregate of reviews/opinions about a fragrance may be useful when you're wondering whether to buy or try a fragrance: things like performance, how masculine or feminine it is, these are the important details. The more descriptive reviews are better suited to when you've tried it - just likes notes can help give form to the smell, so can reviews that go in to the small nuances of a fragrance.

Ultimately, there's just not much to actually say about fragrances as fragrances as opposed to the culture and commercial discussions that surround it. Any discussion pales in comparison to actually smelling and wearing the stuff (like food and wine). It is much more specifically sensory, and less cerebral, than art. And because most fragrances are using different combinations of the same aromachemicals, unsurprisingly a lot of what is written about fragrance is comparison i.e. X smells like Y and Z. Again, like food or drink and unlike art, the individual's opinion and preference (e.g. whether they like it) is all important.

This is what most discussions are going to come down to: what other fragrances does it smell like, do I/you/we like it, does it suit men and/or women, is it worth the cost, and how well does it perform. Connecting these concerns to chemical analysis - which posters like Redneck Perfumisto do, which is admirable - can be tricky and also largely opaque for anyone without the technical understanding of what's being discussed (and I'd also agree with baklavahruzh in that descriptive reviews convey more useful and interesting info).

Interesting. I'm a professional writer, too, and I do find that knowing how to write helps me to appreciate the craftsmanship of other writers. But in terms of recognizing "quality writing", I already had that ability in high school, just didn't know how that quality was achieved. Same for me with perfume: I don't know very much about the nuts and bolts of the perfumer's art, and I may or may not like a particular frag, but I can usually tell what is a high quality scent and what is cheap rubbish. On the other hand, lots of people prefer the latter, so I suppose it really is mostly subjective! Still, after you've sniffed enough scents you get a feeling for what is a complex, subtle frag made with high quality ingredients, and that must surely be some indication of quality?
Thinking of art, for example, I consider that works by da Vinci, Titian, Constable, etc., are of higher quality than Tracy Emin's "unmade bed" type of creation. I don't see any quality at all in the latter. And I think the majority of people, whatever their artistic tastes, would agree.

slpfrsly said:

No, algorithms aren't especially relevant to what I'm saying. They're only a minor part of it. It's the consensus-seeking that is the important point. It's a big part of what's given rise to the midwit phenomenon: strength in numbers through snark, and obedience on sharing the 'right' opinions. It has nothing to do with truth or competence, is purely a status game (sometimes measured in likes, followers). Algorithms don't have much importance on the basenotes of fragrantica forums, for example. Again, this isn't really something that can be prevented. People respond to incentives.


Apart from jazz, which was shortlived as a creative force and limited in its appeal (rock and roll and then hip hop quickly replaced it), none of those are applicable. Jambayala is regional one pot slop - everywhere has a similar type of food, nothing to shout about. And importantly, none of those are high/middle/low examples of cultural artefacts. Hollywood may have come close at times but its decline appears to be terminal. Again, jazz flirted with it, but never really managed it. America's true culture (as distinct from Europe and in particular the Anglo, Celtic, and Germanic cultures of the majority of its population) is fast food, where everyone gets the same standardised product regardless of wealth or station. The attempt to remedy this desire for distinction with gourmet burgers coated in gold leaf or whatever is futile.


There's a balance to be struck. Like the pub, you can't treat every newcomer like an established patron. But there also needs to be a way to become a

Click to expand...

Always a delight to read your responses.

Colbourne said:

Always a delight to read your responses.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I mean if you want to disagree, then go for it. Just make sure you do it well.

@slpfrsly or else?

Or else you might end up arguing that Andy Warhol is high culture or that wet streets cause rain!

Or, rather, we could argue what defines "high culture" to begin with.

slpfrsly said:

Connecting these concerns to chemical analysis - which posters like Redneck Perfumisto do, which is admirable - can be tricky and also largely opaque for anyone without the technical understanding of what's being discussed (and I'd also agree with baklavahruzh in that descriptive reviews convey more useful and interesting info).

Click to expand...

Spot on, and thank you for voicing the reason behind my hesitation to even begin addressing the methodological aspects of comparative sniffing. Which in my case, really amounts to thousands of microtechniques borrowed from bygone eras of chemistry.

I began training in analytical chemistry when it still had strong traces of the paper-and-liquids-and-glassware science close to entry level perfumery, and finished on electronic circuitry and computer programming that later set up the foundations of AI in both chemistry and perfumery. The only constant has been change and the pressure to get more done in less time.

Spraying onto paper and sniffing, with as much honesty to self and others as possible, is the bottom line. It is possible to factor out as much scientific numerology as possible in this fashion, thus getting to desired truths in a matter of seconds, but what are the desired truths?

For me, they end up being the same outputs many of us desire from scientific papers, AI responses, and fragrance reviews - basic but true and trustworthy numberless comparators such as more, less, present, not present, maybe present, like, unlike, similar, different, longer, shorter, faster, sooner, later, and many more.

How I insure a fair sniff is far less important than that I insure a fair sniff. After that, accepting that my nose has only created a data point, and that trusting other people's noses is key to understanding.

Seeking reasons why we are both right when our perspectives differ, my greatest scientific weapon!

Spray your blotters as fairly as possible. This is why I soak the fine end carefully, hold the paper consistently, remember every deviation like a terrible sin, and still dream about not rinsing pipettes thoroughly enough.

Chemical justice, comrades! It matters!

Colbourne said:

Or, rather, we could argue what defines "high culture" to begin with.

Click to expand...

Well, trying to deconstruct basic concepts and ideas on ideological grounds - however irrelevant to the original topic/purpose of the website - is part of the derangement I described. So probably best not to. It wouldn't add anything to this thread, that's for sure.

Redneck Perfumisto said:

Spot on, and thank you for voicing the reason behind my hesitation to even begin addressing the methodological aspects of comparative sniffing. Which in my case, really amounts to thousands of microtechniques borrowed from bygone eras of chemistry.

I began training in analytical chemistry when it still had strong traces of the paper-and-liquids-and-glassware science close to entry level perfumery, and finished on electronic circuitry and computer programming that later set up the foundations of AI in both chemistry and perfumery. The only constant has been change and the pressure to get more done in less time.

Spraying onto paper and sniffing, with as much honesty to self and others as possible, is the bottom line. It is possible to factor out as much scientific numerology as possible in this fashion, thus getting to desired truths in a matter of seconds, but what are the desired truths?

For me, they end up being the same outputs many of us desire from scientific papers, AI responses, and fragrance reviews - basic but true and trustworthy numberless comparators such as more, less, present, not present, maybe present, like, unlike, similar, different, longer, shorter, faster, sooner, later, and many more.

How I insure a fair sniff is far less important than that I insure a fair sniff. After that, accepting that my nose has only created a data point, and that trusting other people's noses is key to understanding.

Seeking reasons why we are both right when our perspectives differ, my greatest scientific weapon!

Spray your blotters as fairly as possible. This is why I soak the fine end carefully, hold the paper consistently, remember every deviation like a terrible sin, and still dream about not rinsing pipettes thoroughly enough.

Chemical justice, comrades! It matters!

Click to expand...

Well said.

I wonder if a video guide on testing techniques may be of use. Who knows how that might have changed the numerical ratings of pretty girls in the club comparing Aventus and Sauvage?

I learned how to test by watching the wafts from the lofts guys. Basically I find a guy with a beard and drag him into an isolated area of a church. Then I spray him with a 70s chypre and smell his arm like a dog smelling a fire hydrant or a French mime smelling the entire length of a baguette and say things like 'that is ab-solutely beautiful' or 'tremendous'. When I wake up he's normally gone and go I wait for my new samples to come in by the mail box.

I go through my samples fast, they call me Randy Oakmoss