"Who are you wearing?": does the designer brand still matter in the era of homogeneity?

woodnotes55 said:

like this?


The volume of verbiage relative to the amount of "explaining" is just calling out for another bs gif by @Varanis Ridari (imo).....

To the original question in the first post before the 87 detours...... No.

Click to expand...

timetoexpress said:

Fascinating, but have you ever considered the counterpoint: yes

Click to expand...

Let's compromise with a solid "maybe"

(case by case, of course).

Steering back to whether it still matters which perfume brand (or even which perfume) you wear, assuming it ever did: if things are as dire as some of the above makes it look, then no. I don't think it's quite that extreme: fragheads still have preferences based on what they perceive as a house style, even if that style owes everything to a current perfumer or creative director rather than anything firmly rooted in brand history. Francis Kurkdjian is not Olivier Polge, who is not Mathilde Laurent, etc. If you know who's who—and, if they freelance, how they work under particular briefs—it could matter to you. But, virtually no one is going to know what/who you're wearing unless you post it on social media (BN included). That's going to be the case whether you're wearing a mainstream, me-too gourmand or an obscure artisanal made from tinctured bat guano and aluminum siding.

So, I guess it depends what "matters" means to you. If you can't tell the difference between offerings from different designers, then it only matters if you have some other basis for brand loyalty or association. If you perceive a difference, then it matters which you prefer. I do think that expectations of new fragrances based on vintage ones is a recipe for disappointment. We have different perfumers working to different briefs now than we did back in whichever day. Chanel will not make another Antaeus; Guerlain will not produce another Mitsouko (although it will apparently crank out no end of Shalimars). We can theorize at the top of our lungs about globalization, corporatization, and every other potentially relevant sort of socioeconomic ill, but those things just reframe the central question without answering it. Whether brands matter, and how, depends on what the brands are about now, not what they once were. (If you detect a through line, then it's a bonus.)

The thing is, given identical briefs, different perfumers will produce different perfumes. So, as dreary as the homogenization of designer perfumery may be, it's not complete, and unlikely to become so—at least, not until all designers sack their perfumers in favor of AI. For the time being, I'm not buying just any tinctured bat guano and aluminum siding EdP: it has to be from someone whose taste and skill I trust.

ScentBeagle said:

For men, Versace, Kiton, and Burberry ( the Burberry made in Italy) make the best pants and shirts, although the prices have soared! Versace has a lot of misses, but when they hit they are home runs.

Click to expand...

I like Burberry.

Chanel. Antaeus Pour Homme by Chanel. Chanel hasn’t come out with many men’s fragrances. I tried vintage Egoiste, but I keep going back to Antaeus as my favorite men’s fragrance. The Sports Cologne of Antaeus is very good too, albeit not as sexy as the Eau De Toilette. As for Chanel De Bleu? It’s not for me. I like the current tv ad they have for Chanel De Bleu, set to “Rockit” by Herbie Hancock. It’s one of my favorite songs; I think “Rockit” actually should be used in a tv commercial for Antaeus Pour Homme instead.

Varanis Ridari said:

Let's compromise with a solid "maybe"

(case by case, of course).

Click to expand...

I dunno man, that’s a leap too far. Don’t think the internet could handle that sort of indecisiveness. (Though our swedish friends…)

Varanis Ridari said:

People historically didn't want to smell like dessert, at least not to this extreme if they did, even when gourmands first hit the scene in the wake of Angel's success. Maybe the internet and constant visual bombardment with decadence like food is a driver?

You surely have noticed with your time here, that our most vocal population here is older and hasn't been swayed by gourmands, and similar situations abound elsewhere on the internet if you look around (FB, Insta, YT, Fragrantica, X, so on), so I do think it is still generational to a degree.

I personally know few people 40 and up across my various networks IRL and online that fully go in on foodsmells dominating their perfume, barring maybe some citrus, fruit, or spice/herb notes that have crossed over from culinary to olfactive for centuries (eg. blackcurrant or nutmeg).

I'm just riffing here, so don't see this as argument; but the leap for me is the broad-stroke thinking that they must replace generations of variety among still-relevant styles with this monocultural foody style across all sectors globally just because of one or two smash hits in big (but culturally specific) markets?

It's as @PStoller said about the allure of trying to make the perfume equivalent of Coca-Cola.

I can understand the temptation, because industry for years has been geared towards short-term explosive gains, and capitalizing on zeitgeists (then optimizing everything), ergo all cars are SUVs and everything is a service with no ownership.

But perfume as a luxury item has seldom found luck operating on such populist terms for long, and when it has, the given style quickly becomes pedestrian, and moves downmarket into oblivion. We no longer even have the drugstores to sell this stuff when it does, thanks to extraneous stuff irrelevant to the thread.

Problem here is with nearly all perfume going this way, there won't be more-distinct alternatives, unless you count the brass cap $400 nonsense market which is itself stuffed full of failing hopefuls and headed to pop like a zit.

If everything below that price effectively becomes McDonald's, therein lies the problem. Either everyone likes it, or everyone doesn't and the whole merry-go-round comes crashing down.

All it takes is another BR540 that moves the needle towards something not food-related. So why homogenize and bank so hard on one-size-fits-all thinking and be left flat-footed when that surprise left-hook comes?

Something Something all your eggs, something something one basket, something something complete.

Click to expand...

Totally agree, think the internet is a strong driver of that result.

Can’t really speak for others but you seem to be pretty plugged into the fragrance world and social media excitement, so I don’t have any reason to think you’re off-base with the possible generational aspect to it.

What i can say is that i think there’s a bit more pull for persons that aren’t so enthusiast-level in their fragrance appreciation to be marketed something that’s food-related, simply because there’s a preexisting personal affinity for specific foods. That may seem silly for someone who already knows what scents/notes they already appreciate, and has more of a “menu” of fragrances they know they will/may like based on the note pyramid. The average consumer has no such (or minimal) knowledge, therefore marketing a scent that makes one smell like your favorite dessert or what is an easy “in” to attract interested buyers who might not know what any given fragrance/house will smell like, but know they like smelling like a pina colada, so cheers.

Always appreciate a good riff! I see what you’re saying, and think in this instance the generational aspect applies nicely. Companies are always chasing the “next big thing” so while they know they already have a subsection of customers who like what they are offering (ie: the established variety, as you mention), but want to rope in the customer base they are currently not attracting. Generational tides push tastes like no other (see: smells like grandma/pa) and companies know this, so they will pivot quickly once a trend appears to be forming. Late stage capitalism FTW.

You might be right about the populist catering, or it might live a bit and evolve into something completely different, guess we will have to see what shakes out.

Mcdonalds is even expensive now , but i see what you’re saying. Not sure if that will collapse the market but I appreciate where you are going with that, concept wise. Thankfully we have lots of options with respect to acquiring fragrances and aren’t dependent on specific outlets or brands. Tons of indie and small biz operations attempting to genuinely push the needle creatively.

It’s easier said than done, the economy is still in a fragile state, to not “put your eggs in one basket”, at least from a equity-owned large biz perspective. All it takes as you say is a new game-changing fragrance like BR to reset the market again, and the story goes…

This is why, among other reasons, I don’t buy designer fragrances. Vote with your dollars and all

For me, it's more about how the brand treats their perfume department within the company structure. Chanel, Hermes, and Cartier all seem to give a lot of creative freedom to their head perfumer which provides a playground with the budget and resources for some master perfumers to create beautiful and artistic work. These perfumers via their work create something of a brand identity (Ellena and Hermes) and occasionalIy reference themes from the brand's past. Chanel probably has the most coherent identity, they have the iconic No. 5 as a constant reference point and the family lineage of the Polge dynasty probably doesn't hurt either. These brand's identities are as strong, if not stronger than ever.

These brands must see the value of allowing their perfume dept to flourish artistically as bringing prestige to the brand even if it doesn't make strict financial sense, in the same way that couture does.

I do follow noses to houses I otherwise wouldn't be interested in (see recently Fendi) but even great noses can do boring work if the brief isn't good. A few like JCE have such a strong signature it doesn't seem to matter which brand he is creating for, it's still recognizable.

"Me too" brands that didn't have a real perfume heritage or are late to the "luxury" tier lines and suddenly want to jump into the exclusive fragrance market by launching entire ready made collections farmed out to a variety of perfumers from the usual fragrance houses tend to have generic results. I'm not sure what would make anyone want to buy a new exclusive Fendi perfume over any other brand besides a preexisting loyalty or interest in the brand. Maybe that's enough, or maybe the brands who are new to the game are still finding their footing.

I initially got into perfume via fashion, I tried brands whose clothes I liked such as CDG and Dior when Hedi Slimane creative directed. Now my perfume interests aren't tied so much to the brand's aesthetic, I'm definitely not an Hermes customer and wouldn't wear Chanel even if I could, yet those are two of my favorite houses for perfume.

I don't think the distinction between then and now is so clear. I'm sure you could find dozens of 80s powerhouse masculines from a variety of brands that smell nearly identical. Individual releases back then likely had more personality because there were less of them, but I'm not sure the distinction in brand identity via perfume was any stronger. As usual, Slpfrsly constructs a past or a persona that never really existed on which to base an argument.

It has been argued that the same is happening on the fashion side, design is becoming more bland and generic across brands; with Gucci's 180 from creative fashion leader to bland luxury under Sabato being the poster boy. But these things go in cycles and not a straight line. I'm sure we will see a return to greater individuality and creativity as people get bored of restraint.

You might say "oh 20-30 years ago fashion was so much more interesting". But you must remember that the widely available designer ready to wear didn't really exist at all until the last 20-30 years. Just like designer exclusive fragrances it's a brand new category so it's not really valuable to compare it to the past. And don't forget in that "golden era" most brands were licensing the crap out of their name for cheap perfumes, suiting, logo tshirts etc that were completely generic. Almost no one had access to those beautiful clothes on the runway other than celebrities and the most wealthy clients.

cheapimitation said:

As usual, Slpfrsly constructs a past or a persona that never really existed on which to base an argument.

Click to expand...

Theory of mind and object permanence are two concepts that relate to a person's capacity to know that things still exist even if/when they are not perceived. Something can be true even if you do not know or are incapable of understanding it. Truth is not whatever you happen to know or believe.

For example, to be able to engage with the logic of this thread, you would have to understand it. Because you don't understand it, you think the very basis of the discussion is illegitimate. You mistakenly claim the topic is based on "construct that never existed": an unfalsifiable claim for those who think truth is whatever they think or believe.

Your argument displays both poor theory of mind (an incorrect assessment of someone else's motivation and reasoning) and object permanence (the qualities of designer fragrance as it relates to each brand over time). And so many words for a topic you think is a "false construct"...amazing.

Pippin06 said:

As with people, I care about quality, content and character--not labels.

Click to expand...

Interesting. How do you think this relates to the topic? How do you think designer brands might consider this approach among customers?

Mr. Spritz said:

How many people have smelled most of every major designer's fragrances?

Click to expand...

Oh, that's not essential. In no way would that be a requirement to have an opinion on a house, or to contribute to this thread.

Again, I reiterate: don't overthink it. Broad brush strokes are fine, no need for a fully referenced and precise argument. It's all about attitude and intention: take the spirit of the thread in the right manner and it'd be pretty hard to come up with a wrong answer.

Mr. Spritz said:

You'd need to smell a lot of them to notice patterns and commonalities, and you'd need to smell their peers in order to see how they are distinctive.

Click to expand...

Well, yes. Of course. This is a basic part of being a perfume hobbyist, isn't it? We're constantly sampling, reviewing, and analysing different fragrances. We even compare different batches of the same fragrance. Over time, you'd hope most people would be able to recognise some sort of pattern or familiarity in a house, as they would for note type, era, location. If you can then link that to wider cultural understanding e.g. of the history of a house, its marketing campaigns, its clientele and so on...it takes care of itself.

Mr. Spritz said:

This is a very tricky thing to do, especially with boutique exclusives and brands like Chanel discouraging decants.

Click to expand...

Is it tricky? I don't think so. Think about where we are: on a website for perfume enthusiasts. Online shopping has made sampling fragrances much easier than it once was, as has the nature of work and travel, which means trying fragrances at airports, in city boutiques etc is possible. The ease (or difficulty) of this is presumably quite personal. I'm not saying it's easy but I wouldn't say it's prohibitively difficult to have tried a few dozen designer fragrances during your lifetime, is it.

I think the salient point is that I'm asking this question on basenotes. I'm not trying to strike up conversation with a stranger, or drop this on someone during small talk: I am asking a congregation of the committed. There's no better place, no better people, to ask (ofc the inevitable quibbling and denial is par for the course but this is just what life is like everywhere now).

Mr. Spritz said:

From Dior I've smelled Dior Homme, which to my understanding has had an enormous amount of variation over the years, Farenheit, Sauvage, Sauvage 9000, Eau Sauvage and Dior Homme Intense. Maybe a couple others, but I didn't notice much in common between these.

Click to expand...

Well, that's alright. Like Pstoller, cheap etc you just might not have an answer to contribute. No harm in that. Participation isn't mandatory!

Mr. Spritz said:

I'm not an authority on fragrance, but I am an authority on my perception, and I have rarely noticed distinctive common accords in a house; I have noticed stylistic things but they are subtle, and often defied. For example, for Guerlain I have smelled Mitsuoko, Shalimar, Chamade I think, Homme EDP, two of the Homme Ideals, Vetiver, Heritage, Habit Rouge, Encens Mythique, Eau de Guerlain, and a few others from the Absolus Orient Line. What commonality do I notice? Very little; they tend to have a sense of moderation and an affinity for traditional-ish ingredients, they tend to smell 'blended' rather than having very distinct notes, but the same could be said for a lot of good perfumes.

Click to expand...

You're perhaps trying to be a bit too literal about it, it's not just the accords. But not to worry. As I say, the requirement for contributing is neither so high as to put people off, but nor is it compulsory. No one has to try to come up with an answer if they don't have one (or don't want to risk posting one they think isn't up to scratch, even though the barrier for entry is very low).

Mr. Spritz said:

I can't definitively say that there are not house styles, but I can suppose that if I, someone who seeks smells more than most people, doesn't notice an aromatic identity, there may be limited incentive for brands to maintain such identity.

Click to expand...

Of course, but expenditure is no guarantee of understanding. Expertise, in any area, isn't just a matter of time + money. I've seen far better reviews and insights in to fragrances from novices than I have from veteran perfume enthusiasts. There are many reasons why someone might not be able to come up with an answer to this - one of them is experience, definitely, but it's certainly not the most important measurement. Again, no harm in that whatsoever.

FiveoaksBouquet said:

The Guerlinade, Lanvinade, Chanelade, Ricciade, etc., used to make a brand very identifiable. The restriction of many of the original “ade” notes is likely a major factor in their disappearance, probably as well as various corporate and creative decisions through the years.

Click to expand...

Thank you @FiveoaksBouquet! I cannot quite believe it took several pages and nearly 100 posts for someone to mention Guerlinade but you finally did it, so thank you.

We can, and we do, understand the house styles and commonalities when we want to...

What is going on in here? Yall are wild lol.

I've never had anyone ask we what brand i'm wearing. Seems kind of dead to me. Not sure if that's actually a good thing for good perfurmes getting made though.

Varanis Ridari said:

So Takasago is echoing the global market towards genderless bubblegum fragrances made with carbon-neutral cruelty-free materials.

Everyone will smell like biodegradable donuts and like it.

Click to expand...

LVMH:



The fragcomm:

Mr. Spritz said:

Speaking of Takasago, everyone should read their marketing materials about fragrance trends:

Inspiration & Trends

Introducing 'Inspiration & Trends' of Takasago International Corporation. Ohta-ku,Tokyo,Japan,The global Takasago organization maintains offices, production sites and R & D centers in 27 countries. Through our network of global research, production, creativity and marketing, we develop products...

www.takasago.com

To see a list of fragrances Takasago is taking at least some credit for, see:

Creations

Introducing 'Creations' of Takasago International Corporation. Ohta-ku,Tokyo,Japan,The global Takasago organization maintains offices, production sites and R & D centers in 27 countries. Through our network of global research, production, creativity and marketing, we develop products tailored to...

www.takasago.com

Brands including Matiere, Shiseido, Lempicka, Carven, Joop, Burberry, Paco Rabanne, Elie Saab.

Click to expand...

Chinese customers went patriotic products that reify their national and cultural identity? Shocking, I tell you, shocking!

The other two points are very interesting. Really ties in to a few different things I think we've all been discussing - and mostly bemoaning? - over the last few years.

On the way gourmands have engulfed perfumery, I reckon it ties in to a few things mentioned in this thread: https://basenotes.com/community/thr...-it-change-how-people-judge-sweetness.524820/

It seems entirely predictable that perfumery would seek to do what the food industry has done in synthesising what people crave (brawndo) and constantly trimming the aromatic fat, leaving just the sugar rush. Add in coloured bottles and perfumery feels not too dissimilar to fast food/confectionary these days.

timetoexpress said:

To the OP - I do think that in general there are differences between brands and their aesthetic, but the space is muddied by the less creative brands who just copy the recent hot trend that is lucrative and can’t/won’t take more risks then that.

As usual, a lot of grey here, not much black/white

Click to expand...

Yes, that's certainly true. I think for ease of what has proven to be a surprisingly controversial and difficult discussion (!), if we just keep it to the more reputable and established designer houses for now, that would be best (although by no means is this a hard rule if anyone wants to discuss clone-y fashion brands as well).

I do think - and obviously this was part of the OP - that the distinction between houses is decreasing at a rate of knots. It's a lot easier to compare, say, a house's "feel" in the 90s to what it is now, and then compare to another house in the 90s and now. It's almost a guarantee that the lines of comparison will have converged during that time. I just think it's interesting to discuss what little differences still exist between houses - and also to what extent, if any, people care about the label. It used to be a fairly big deal but now, with rampant and widespread cloning, imitating, and just many more fragrances at all sections of the market...does it matter as much? Is there any sort of expensive/cheap division by smell; is it less than it used to be? All sorts of interesting, mostly sociocultural, points of intrigue flow out from the original discussion...or would if we were allowed to have it without disruption hahaaha!

Varanis Ridari said:

I'm not concerned by the number of genders or the gender/lack thereof in the end consumer, I just don't like the insistence that everyone wants to smell "delicious" because of it.

I'm not sure how everyone in these marketing spaces made the logic leap that unisex/genderless = smelling like food. As someone who has enby friends, you'd be surprised if I told you what they wear (ranges from Yatagan to Gucci Guilty for Women).

Although I bet this has more to do with targeting age demographics than gender. Kids and teens/young adults have seemed crazy about foody smells since the 2000's.

Also lmao @ tumblr. That place stopped being relevant when Verizon bought and flushed it.

Click to expand...

Off topic, although the thread has well and truly gone off the rails by now haha, but I do think the answer to this is twofold. Firstly, it's just catering to hunger/taste, and tapping in to an already zapped sensory feedback loop that fast food/processed food has its hooks in. The second is women's tastes are now totally dominant: women generally love sweet things, men want to smell good for women, hence men end up wearing gourmands as the sexy/date/club scent.

If the foody fragrances continue down the savoury route i.e. people start wearing perfumes with prominent notes of carrot, potato, pita bread etc en masse then I will have to come up witth another explanation haha...

timetoexpress said:

Where’s the leap? Food is universal, you don’t see gender lines correlated with food preferences. Not sure why that’s a strange strategy for you given the simple fact that food appreciation knows no social boundaries.

You really think age could be the main driver of this? Don’t you think it’s moreso the internet providing visible exhibitions of extreme passion and food just happened to be an an easily relatable thing to obsess over? Not sure that falls across age lines, but I’m willing to hear a case for it.

Click to expand...

Yeah, a great point. How do you find the point of commonality for ~9bn people? Food! I think the way American cuisine in particular has changed in just the last 15 years is interesting in how homogenisation and optimisation can occur with a large audience providing feedback. I'm thinking about social media, the Buzzfeed-adjacent youtube/Instagram accounts, with their overhead angled content: a lot of that food is often a simplification or combination of different recipes. Although it's not strictly taste - it's primarily visual content after all - you can A-B test different recipes to discover what elements are people responding positively towards. Keep selecting for that over time...

Varanis Ridari said:

But perfume as a luxury item has seldom found luck operating on such populist terms for long, and when it has, the given style quickly becomes pedestrian, and moves downmarket into oblivion. We no longer even have the drugstores to sell this stuff when it does, thanks to extraneous stuff irrelevant to the thread.

Problem here is with nearly all perfume going this way, there won't be more-distinct alternatives, unless you count the brass cap $400 nonsense market which is itself stuffed full of failing hopefuls and headed to pop like a zit.

If everything below that price effectively becomes McDonald's, therein lies the problem. Either everyone likes it, or everyone doesn't and the whole merry-go-round comes crashing down.

All it takes is another BR540 that moves the needle towards something not food-related. So why homogenize and bank so hard on one-size-fits-all thinking and be left flat-footed when that surprise left-hook comes?

Something Something all your eggs, something something one basket, something something complete.

Click to expand...

I think we've had this discussion before about how the old designer houses, especially Guerlain who have struggled, are caught between low cost boutique and indie brands who are offering more exclusivity and more creativity than them on the one hand, and the derivative/clone brands that are undercutting them considerably on the other. The fashion houses can no longer (can they?) claim superiority of product as most people know how the sausage is made, so to speak, and that the whole rare, precious ingredients spiel is bullshit. Apart from the greenest of customers, nobody thinks designer houses are selling tens of thousands of bottles containing a substantial amount of real oud every year.

Designer brands are caught in a bind of not being able to rely on quality and distinction compared to the competition, who can take more risks, with significantly lower costs (especially if they're ripping off an existing fragrance), therefore producing something equivalent or even better than the fashion brand. This is the cause of the rapid discontinuations and new releases: it's novelty, not quality, that is driving customer interest. JPG were on to this years ago: have a few fragrances, e.g. Le Male, that hit all the important points needed for recognition and so on (distinctive bottle, name, current aromas). Then just pump out a special edition every 3-6 months, where you can do anything from tweak to completely overhaul the original fragrance. Intrigue and compulsion will keep customers buying your fragrances. By contrast, if Guerlain's high end oriental is no better or even worse than an indie or boutique brand sold at Jovoy or LuckyScent...uh oh spaghettios. At least in western markets and for enthusiasts like the people on this site, the boutique and artisanal companies have obliterated the appeal and status of the old designer and niche houses. It's a horrible position to be in and no doubt the frustration for people like Wasser, who no doubt understand the commercial imperatives, however much they jar with whatever vocational and aesthetic concerns motivate them.

woodnotes55 said:

like this?


The volume of verbiage relative to the amount of "explaining" is just calling out for another bs gif by @Varanis Ridari (imo).....

To the original question in the first post before the 87 detours...... No.

Click to expand...

Be sure to always open with your best...

timetoexpress said:

Fascinating, but have you ever considered the counterpoint: yes

Click to expand...

MacSuibhne said:

I've never had anyone ask we what brand i'm wearing. Seems kind of dead to me. Not sure if that's actually a good thing for good perfurmes getting made though.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I think it's something that might come across slightly anachronistic to a lot of people. Since the late 90s, it's been fashionable to downplay background and class, to appear more common than you are. But in some circles, the label is still important as an indication of social (or perhaps: economic and cultural) strata. For example:



I think it also matters to those who care about designer clothing. If you pay attention to the runway shows, the seasonal designs - and especially if you buy and wear branded clothing, bags, shoes, belts - then it's natural to care about the fragrance as well.

slpfrsly said:

I think we've had this discussion before about how the old designer houses, especially Guerlain who have struggled, are caught between low cost boutique and indie brands who are offering more exclusivity and more creativity than them on the one hand, and the derivative/clone brands that are undercutting them considerably on the other. The fashion houses can no longer (can they?) claim superiority of product as most people know how the sausage is made, so to speak, and that the whole rare, precious ingredients spiel is bullshit. Apart from the greenest of customers, nobody thinks designer houses are selling tens of thousands of bottles containing a substantial amount of real oud every year.

Designer brands are caught in a bind of not being able to rely on quality and distinction compared to the competition, who can take more risks, with significantly lower costs (especially if they're ripping off an existing fragrance), therefore producing something equivalent or even better than the fashion brand. This is the cause of the rapid discontinuations and new releases: it's novelty, not quality, that is driving customer interest. JPG were on to this years ago: have a few fragrances, e.g. Le Male, that hit all the important points needed for recognition and so on (distinctive bottle, name, current aromas). Then just pump out a special edition every 3-6 months, where you can do anything from tweak to completely overhaul the original fragrance. Intrigue and compulsion will keep customers buying your fragrances. By contrast, if Guerlain's high end oriental is no better or even worse than an indie or boutique brand sold at Jovoy or LuckyScent...uh oh spaghettios. At least in western markets and for enthusiasts like the people on this site, the boutique and artisanal companies have obliterated the appeal and status of the old designer and niche houses. It's a horrible position to be in and no doubt the frustration for people like Wasser, who no doubt understand the commercial imperatives, however much they jar with whatever vocational and aesthetic concerns motivate them.

Click to expand...

Guerlain being 'caught in the middle' is precisely why I like them and favor them. When they release orientals, or references to newly popular styles, they filter them through their own standards of wearability, conservativism and quality. I've smelled Guerlains that I didn't like, but I have never smelled one that made me think they were screwing up. Their pricing is also more reasonable, in my opinion, and don't seem to trade on hype as much. Similar thing with aquatics - this whole trend of watery marine fresh men's fragrances, and the closest Guerlain ever came to it is Guerlain PH EDP. That and the fact that they still make old classic fragrances available is why I always try and recommend Guerlain.

Incidentally, I follow Wasser on Instagram and his job looks incredibly fun, he really does a good job creating the impression of a guy traveling the world like Tintin in search of aroma.