New Maison Christian Dior Fragrance for 2022?

[imm0rtelle]

I'm so interested in Eau Noire, and it's been one of the few fragrances I've wanted to get my nose on I haven't been able to. I'll get one of those 250ml bottles in September.

It smells herbal, spicy, sweet hay, syrupy sweetness, and smouldering woods. It does all this while still remaining somewhat airy, and not dense.

 

[Vitamin D]

I wonder how much the limited edition 3x40ml set is going to cost in July

 

[imm0rtelle]

I don't like how Francois creatively directed the current privé line up. The only fragrances from Dior's privé line that I bothered with are the original 3 (Cologne Blanche, Eau Noire, and Bois d'Argent) since they were created with a strong creative direction in mind. I really feel like they have a lot of "soul", and the rest of the line is "soulless" in comparison. I feel the same with with Louis Vuitton's fragrances, so I've never given them a chance. Amongst the designer brands, I think Hermès and Celine stand out to me in terms of how consistent their olfactory aesthetic is, and how they all feel like they were made with a "soul", rather than mainly for commercial purposes. I really wouldn't mind if Francis wiped the entire slate clean with the privé line. I feel like the Dior privé fragrances are lacking an overarching theme or story. I think he should implement a fragrance wardrobe, similar to his own brand, for the Dior privé line. Since Christian Dior is long dead, I wouldn't mind if the fragrances were based on Francis' own life. I find it kind of corny how Vanilla Diorama was based on one of Christian Dior's favourite desserts.

I do wonder what my approach would be if I were a creative director of a fragrance line. I would definitely be selfish and make sure they are fragrances that I personally want to wear. I would want something that ties all my fragrances together, creating an olfactory aesthetic that is identifiable with my brand. My fragrances would be inspired by emotions/personalities/characters. I want them to be designed to be used as an olfactory filter for the wearer's presentation. They are to complement the wearer, rather than be the centre of attention. My philosophy would be that the fragrances are incomplete without the right wearer that resonates with it.

 

[RawM.I.A.]

I don't like how Francois creatively directed the current privé line up. The only fragrances from Dior's privé line that I bothered with are the original 3 (Cologne Blanche, Eau Noire, and Bois d'Argent) since they were created with a strong creative direction in mind. I really feel like they have a lot of "soul", and the rest of the line is "soulless" in comparison. I feel the same with with Louis Vuitton's fragrances, so I've never given them a chance. Amongst the designer brands, I think Hermès and Celine stand out to me in terms of how consistent their olfactory aesthetic is, and how they all feel like they were made with a "soul", rather than mainly for commercial purposes. I really wouldn't mind if Francis wiped the entire slate clean with the privé line. I feel like the Dior privé fragrances are lacking an overarching theme or story. I think he should implement a fragrance wardrobe, similar to his own brand, for the Dior privé line. Since Christian Dior is long dead, I wouldn't mind if the fragrances were based on Francis' own life. I find it kind of corny how Vanilla Diorama was based on one of Christian Dior's favourite desserts.

I do wonder what my approach would be if I were a creative director of a fragrance line. I would definitely be selfish and make sure they are fragrances that I personally want to wear. I would want something that ties all my fragrances together, creating an olfactory aesthetic that is identifiable with my brand. My fragrances would be inspired by emotions/personalities/characters. I want them to be designed to be used as an olfactory filter for the wearer's presentation. They are to complement the wearer, rather than be the centre of attention. My philosophy would be that the fragrances are incomplete without the right wearer that resonates with it.

So you feel the original releases of Vetiver, Leather Oud, Oud Ispahan, Cuir Cannage, Granville, Ambre Nuit, & Mitzah are soulless?!

 

[imm0rtelle]

So you feel the original releases of Vetiver, Leather Oud, Oud Ispahan, Cuir Cannage, Granville, Ambre Nuit, & Mitzah are soulless?!

Especially Leather Oud, and Oud Ispahan. I find it kind of gross how brands were all jumping on the oud bandwagon and it felt extremely soulless, and they were mainly there to push products out to customers. "Oh oud is popular right now? Let's get an oud fragrance out to cash out on the hype." I care about the story, and French brands releasing oud fragrances feel like they're pandering to the trend or to the Middle Eastern market, so I am very suspicious of any oud fragrance.

If you like them then more power to you, but it is pretty transparent they had little care for the story of the brand, and were more interested in pumping out fragrances and see which stick. I find brands pumping out a lot of fragrances, and then discontinuing those that don't perform well, to be a very soulless, albeit pragmatic, approach. It shows me that the brand doesn't actually stand behind the fragrances they create, and are willing to treat them as throwaway products if they're not profitable. This says nothing about how the fragrances actually smell, but the whole situation is very soulless, and not something I want to support.

 

[RawM.I.A.]

Especially Leather Oud, and Oud Ispahan. I find it kind of gross how brands were all jumping on the oud bandwagon and it felt extremely soulless, and they were mainly there to push products out to customers. "Oh oud is popular right now? Let's get an oud fragrance out to cash out on the hype." I care about the story, and French brands releasing oud fragrances feel like they're pandering to the trend or to the Middle Eastern market, so I am very suspicious of any oud fragrance.

If you like them then more power to you, but it is pretty transparent they had little care for the story of the brand, and were more interested in pumping out fragrances and see which stick. I find brands pumping out a lot of fragrances, and then discontinuing those that don't perform well, to be a very soulless, albeit pragmatic, approach. It shows me that the brand doesn't actually stand behind the fragrances they create, and are willing to treat them as throwaway products if they're not profitable. This says nothing about how the fragrances actually smell, but the whole situation is very soulless, and not something I want to support.

Interesting take, I can respect it.
I don't totally agree though, I think Francois's early Dior Prive work was amazing, many believe even better than the original trifecta.

Also I don't think Dior ever pumped out fragrances just to see what sticks.
Everything they released had a specific task, even the fragrances some dislike from Sauvage to all those light colored /scented "Maison Dior" releases which were made for a certain demographic are very successful.
Dior is not a small niche house, they are part of a luxury conglomerate & this is a business.
They will never leave money on the table just to please a small niche group.

I think Dior realized the world is way bigger than french perfumery & decided to also focus on what the world is asking for.

I'm not saying it was the honorable thing to do, but it was definitely the smart thing as they are now part of billion dollar entity.
No offense, but they don't mind losing you as a client in order to gain at least a couple hundred thousand new Asian & Middle Eastern clientele.

One last thing, I feel Dior has definitely involved the story of the brand through many of their Prive fragrances such as Granville, Mitzah, Gris Montaigne, New Look 1947, Cuir Cannage, & Milly-La-Foret.
All of these fragrances are inspired or related to an event, item, or person in Christian Dior's life.

 

[imm0rtelle]

All of these fragrances are inspired or related to an event, item, or person in Christian Dior's life.

This kind of thing feels very corny to me since the founder is often long dead. This reminds me about recent fragrances launched at Chanel that are influenced by Chanel's life or whatever. I wonder how Dior and Chanel would actually feel about those fragrances inspired by their life, if they were alive today. It just feels like soulless marketing, but I'm happy for the people who enjoy the fragrances.

 

[chypre]

Especially Leather Oud, and Oud Ispahan. I find it kind of gross how brands were all jumping on the oud bandwagon and it felt extremely soulless, and they were mainly there to push products out to customers. "Oh oud is popular right now? Let's get an oud fragrance out to cash out on the hype." I care about the story, and French brands releasing oud fragrances feel like they're pandering to the trend or to the Middle Eastern market, so I am very suspicious of any oud fragrance.

If you like them then more power to you, but it is pretty transparent they had little care for the story of the brand, and were more interested in pumping out fragrances and see which stick. I find brands pumping out a lot of fragrances, and then discontinuing those that don't perform well, to be a very soulless, albeit pragmatic, approach. It shows me that the brand doesn't actually stand behind the fragrances they create, and are willing to treat them as throwaway products if they're not profitable. This says nothing about how the fragrances actually smell, but the whole situation is very soulless, and not something I want to support.

I'm not sure if you are familiar with the feminine fragrances of Dior, but it has been no secret to me that the modern house of Dior is, well, yes, gross. Amongst the atrocities are renaming a ridiculous fruity thing "Miss Dior", and buying Jean Patou to cannibalise the name "Joy", and then discontinuing the magificent original.

In that content, I think that launching a fragrance like Leather Oud, which I adored in its original incarnation, is actually pretty innocuous. Sure, having a French company making an oud fragrance may feel like, I dunno, cultural appropriation to some, or "not Monsieur Dior enough" to others, but making an oud fragrance is to me one of the least offensive things Dior has done since LVMH decided it was the jewel in their crown.

 

[imm0rtelle]

Since Francis wasn't the one who made Bois d'Argent, I wonder what motivated him to want to move away from Francois' formula of it. I have both Annick's original formula, and I've tried Francois' formula that's available in stores just a few weeks ago. Francois' version has the sweetness emphasized, and the resinous facets toned down. It might also be slightly more animalic than the original. The original has the resinous and woody facets more emphasized, and overall feels more layered and nuanced. Francois' version feels flatter and sweeter. The way the original is built makes it lean more elegant than Francois' formula. While I might consider Francois' version an "edgy" fragrance, I would consider the original an "elegant" fragrance. There is this very clean vibe about the original in the late drydown. I can also feel the "silver" in the original, which perfectly matches with the name of the fragrance.

 

[GWM]

This kind of thing feels very corny to me since the founder is often long dead. This reminds me about recent fragrances launched at Chanel that are influenced by Chanel's life or whatever. I wonder how Dior and Chanel would actually feel about those fragrances inspired by their life, if they were alive today. It just feels like soulless marketing, but I'm happy for the people who enjoy the fragrances.

I'm glad I'm not the only one. The odd vague references to people long gone -- Coco Chanel's astrological sign, Christian Dior's supposed favorite desert, Chanel's whole Les Eaux line -- doesn't do anything for me.

 

[GWM]

I truly am excited for Eau Noire in a way I haven't been for fragrances in a long while. I think I'm going to hold off buying anything until September, and then wear the hell out of a 250ml bottle. If they offer it in the 450ml I may even spring for that.

 

[RawM.I.A.]

This kind of thing feels very corny to me since the founder is often long dead. This reminds me about recent fragrances launched at Chanel that are influenced by Chanel's life or whatever. I wonder how Dior and Chanel would actually feel about those fragrances inspired by their life, if they were alive today. It just feels like soulless marketing, but I'm happy for the people who enjoy the fragrances.

I'm glad I'm not the only one. The odd vague references to people long gone -- Coco Chanel's astrological sign, Christian Dior's supposed favorite desert, Chanel's whole Les Eaux line -- doesn't do anything for me.

LOL, Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I don't think they do it to seek anyones approval.
Almost every brand no matter the genre pays homage to the creator of the brand at some point.
You may not be able to relate to it, or even like it, but they didn't accomplish so much for people to forget their legacy.

What I also find interesting imm0rtelle is that you have continuous high praise for Hedi Slimane & that's fine, but you have an issue with Chanel & Dior involving Coco's & Christian's history into the modern day brand.

Does that mean you will stop singing Hedi's praises after he is God forbid "long dead"?

 

[GWM]

LOL, Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I don't think they do it to seek anyones approval.
Almost every brand no matter the genre pays homage to the creator of the brand at some point.
You may not be able to relate to it, or even like it, but they didn't accomplish so much for people to forget their legacy.

Well that's not really correct, is it? They advertise to completely seek approval of their current & potential market base -- that's the only reason for advertising. Now, they don't have my approval, which they couldn't care less about, but then again I'm not too concerned either.

 

[imm0rtelle]

What I also find interesting imm0rtelle is that you have continuous high praise for Hedi Slimane & that's fine, but you have an issue with Chanel & Dior involving Coco's & Christian's history into the modern day brand.

Does that mean you will stop singing Hedi's praises after he is God forbid "long dead"?

I think you're conflating two different things, but I get the gist of what you're trying to do. Your wording is a bit off, so I'll interpret that you're asking me how I would feel if a brand says their fragrances are inspired by Hedi's life, even if Hedi is already dead and has no say at all in the fragrances that are inspired by him. My feelings would be the same as how I feel about fragrances inspired by Chanel or Dior's life that are released without their input at all.

Hedi is the founder of the privé line at Dior. If Francis releases new fragrances inspired by Hedi's life for Dior's privé line, I would be appalled, unless Hedi actually has a say and approves it. This is why I suggested Francis to release fragrances inspired by his life instead at Dior. It would feel a lot more genuine and less "fake". At Celine, Hedi's fragrances are marketed to be based on his own life, not Céline Vipiana's, the founder of the brand, life.

 

[RawM.I.A.]

Well that's not really correct, is it? They advertise to completely seek approval of their current & potential market base -- that's the only reason for advertising. Now, they don't have my approval, which they couldn't care less about, but then again I'm not too concerned either.

No I think that's not correct at all, number 1 they are not a new company, in fact they're one of the most successful companies at the current moment so their marketbase is not potential, it's almost a certainty.
Also advertising has more than 1 reason to exist they advertise to inform their loyal marketbase on new products.
They have already garnered approval since 1946 my good man, but if you think they are seeking approval while people are lining up outside their boutiques to purchase luxury goods worldwide during a pandemic then more power to you.

I think you're conflating two different things, but I get the gist of what you're trying to do. Your wording is a bit off, so I'll interpret that you're asking me how I would feel if a brand says their fragrances are inspired by Hedi's life, even if Hedi is already dead and has no say at all in the fragrances that are inspired by him. My feelings would be the same as how I feel about fragrances inspired by Chanel or Dior's life that are released without their input at all.

Hedi is the founder of the privé line at Dior. If Francis releases new fragrances inspired by Hedi's life for Dior's privé line, I would be appalled, unless Hedi actually has a say and approves it. This is why I suggested Francis to release fragrances inspired by his life instead at Dior. It would feel a lot more genuine and less "fake". At Celine, Hedi's fragrances are marketed to be based on his own life, not Céline Vipiana's, the founder of the brand, life.

I didn't conflate anything, i simply asked why is it wrong for a company to honor it's creator long after passing?
For some reason you find that "fake", which is weird to me that's all.

I also asked would you stop praising Hedi if he was to pass, because that's what you're basically asking these companies to do.

I'm still waiting for that answer.

 

[GWM]

No I think that's not correct at all, number 1 they are not a new company, in fact they're one of the most successful companies at the current moment so their marketbase is not potential, it's almost a certainty.
Also advertising has more than 1 reason to exist they advertise to inform their loyal marketbase on new products.
They have already garnered approval since 1946 my good man, but if you think they are seeking approval while people are lining up outside their boutiques to purchase luxury goods worldwide during a pandemic then more power to you.

Part of what makes Chanel, Chanel, is the image that Chanel's marketing has crafted. I'm not sure we disagree here big picture. Chanel is an immensely successful brand, and what makes Chanel is the marketing that decides what Chanel is, and more importantly, is not. If Chanel ceases to be Chanel, which is very easy as Coco Chanel is dead, so what Chanel is now is abstract, then they no longer have a consumer base. Therefore, advertising is of course to continue to seek approval of their current clientele, and their future clientele. If you had approval of neither of these, then you don't have a business anymore. Chanel is fashion, and fashion so quickly goes out of style, so Chanel could easily stop being the queen if they didn't seek approval of the people with actual power: consumers. There's an argument, and I believe a legitimate one, to be had on if marketing decides what the consumer wants, or if the consumer decides on what they desire, and marketing effectively advertises a brand can meet that desire, but either way brands are completely appealing to the only way they have to make money: the consumer -- and they are appealing constantly for this approval at all times.

There's only so many people around who can afford the actual artistic endeavors crafted by the artists that Chanel employs. What sustains the brand is placating to the masses to consume (be it general masses ala Bleu de Chanel, or nouveau-rich with most of their other products) Chanel's products. Anyways, I'm not trying to start some big philosophical argument, and I'm sounding a little too like the others who posts long diatribes on ultimately useless and uninteresting topics for my tastes, so I'll bow out here.

EDIT: If we do disagree, then I believe it may be on this principle. I believe that the reasons so many artists are poor and unhappy is nearly every monetarily successful artist has to meld their style with what the consumer wants. If they fail to do so, then they are unsuccessful in business, regardless if their art sucks or is ahead of the time. No matter how big the artist, or art in an abstract sense with Chanel, is, you must make art the consumer desires. Therefore, artists are always placating when they want to see to large amounts of consumers. That is why I claim Chanel looks for approval -- because they have to. Small niche brands that sell 100 perfume bottles in a year do not have to seek approval. Chanel does.

People line up outside of Chanel during a pandemic, because Chanel products are desirable. If Chanel doesn't make products that are desirable, then people do not want Chanel anymore, and the level of business success that has people lining up outside during a pandemic ceases. This happens, and can happen to anyone. All the old brands of the past that were huge, and no long are around are proof of this. It can happen to Chanel. How does it not? Well, because Chanel is well established, and has clientele that expects certain products from Chanel, the business avoids this by seeking approval from these clients, and furthermore seeking approval from potential new clients. That's why Chanel & Dior make light musky floral perfumes for the most part now -- they're seeking new clients in newly wealthy markets such as China. I'm not trying to be repetitive or annoying, I'm attempting to fully flesh out why I made the statement I did, because it seems perhaps counter intuitive.

 

[imm0rtelle]

I didn't conflate anything, i simply asked why is it wrong for a company to honor it's creator long after passing?

We have a different understanding of what it means to honour a creator. Honouring Christian Dior means highlighting his creations and his achievements, not releasing a fragrance that is supposedly based on his favourite dessert. This says nothing about the actual fragrance, to be fair. I just find the whole marketing of it very corny and fake.

I'm still waiting for that answer.

You will unfortunately have to continue to wait with bated breath, as I do not want to continue engaging with you when you have obviously shown that you're not arguing in good faith.

 

[RawM.I.A.]

Part of what makes Chanel, Chanel, is the image that Chanel's marketing has crafted. I'm not sure we disagree here big picture. Chanel is an immensely successful brand, and what makes Chanel is the marketing that decides what Chanel is, and more importantly, is not. If Chanel ceases to be Chanel, which is very easy as Coco Chanel is dead, so what Chanel is now is abstract, then they no longer have a consumer base. Therefore, advertising is of course to continue to seek approval of their current clientele, and their future clientele. If you had approval of neither of these, then you don't have a business anymore. Chanel is fashion, and fashion so quickly goes out of style, so Chanel could easily stop being the queen if they didn't seek approval of the people with actual power: consumers. There's an argument, and I believe a legitimate one, to be had on if marketing decides what the consumer wants, or if the consumer decides on what they desire, and marketing effectively advertises a brand can meet that desire, but either way brands are completely appealing to the only way they have to make money: the consumer -- and they are appealing constantly for this approval at all times.

There's only so many people around who can afford the actual artistic endeavors crafted by the artists that Chanel employs. What sustains the brand is placating to the masses to consume (be it general masses ala Bleu de Chanel, or nouveau-rich with most of their other products) Chanel's products. Anyways, I'm not trying to start some big philosophical argument, and I'm sounding a little too like the others who posts long diatribes on ultimately useless and uninteresting topics for my tastes, so I'll bow out here.

EDIT: If we do disagree, then I believe it may be on this principle. I believe that the reasons so many artists are poor and unhappy is nearly every monetarily successful artist has to meld their style with what the consumer wants. If they fail to do so, then they are unsuccessful in business, regardless if their art sucks or is ahead of the time. No matter how big the artist, or art in an abstract sense with Chanel, is, you must make art the consumer desires. Therefore, artists are always placating when they want to see to large amounts of consumers. That is why I claim Chanel looks for approval -- because they have to. Small niche brands that sell 100 perfume bottles in a year do not have to seek approval. Chanel does.

People line up outside of Chanel during a pandemic, because Chanel products are desirable. If Chanel doesn't make products that are desirable, then people do not want Chanel anymore, and the level of business success that has people lining up outside during a pandemic ceases. This happens, and can happen to anyone. All the old brands of the past that were huge, and no long are around are proof of this. It can happen to Chanel. How does it not? Well, because Chanel is well established, and has clientele that expects certain products from Chanel, the business avoids this by seeking approval from these clients, and furthermore seeking approval from potential new clients. That's why Chanel & Dior make light musky floral perfumes for the most part now -- they're seeking new clients in newly wealthy markets such as China. I'm not trying to be repetitive or annoying, I'm attempting to fully flesh out why I made the statement I did, because it seems perhaps counter intuitive.

The difference in opinion is you believe that Chanel/Dior seeks approval & I believe they are far beyond that.
They are the trendsetters, just like Apple & Mercedes.
They tell the masses this is what's in, not the other way around.
Chanel & Dior have steadily raised prices twice a year for the past couple years & the masses have complained, but low & behold the lines are still there every day & Chanel/Dior did not listen to "the masses" that you say they seek the approval of & have not lowered those prices yet.

We have a different understanding of what it means to honour a creator. Honouring Christian Dior means highlighting his creations and his achievements, not releasing a fragrance that is supposedly based on his favourite dessert. This says nothing about the actual fragrance, to be fair. I just find the whole marketing of it very corny and fake.


You will unfortunately have to continue to wait with bated breath, as I do not want to continue engaging with you when you have obviously shown that you're not arguing in good faith.

I am sorry that LVMH/Christian Dior has not lived up to your standards, hopefully the re-releases of the original trifecta will somehow make amends & re-establish the respect you once had for the brand.

Unbeknownst to you by not answering tells me everything I want to know.

 

[cheapimitation]

All this creative director talk has me wondering what the influence of the current designers Kim Jones (men's) and Maria Grazia Chiuri (women's) has, if any, on the direction of the fragrance line.

Hedi is a total control freak, so I think it is quite accurate to consider the creation of the original 3 and the creation of a separate exclusive designer line very much his idea and a product of his creative vision. It would feel wrong now to return to that vision since he is currently heading up Celine, but I read Francis' reintroduction of the original 3 as a very good sign.

I wasn't much of a fragrance nerd when Demachy first started, but I remember one day suddenly there was a shit ton of new Dior prive and I tried ones like Leather Oud and Oud Ispahan and wondered what the hell happened after Hedi left. In retrospect, those were masterpieces in comparison to what would come later from Demachy, but I think a lot of his later work is grounded in making ever more boring variations on these heavy handed rich concoctions (Tobacolor, Oud Rosewood, Feve). I do agree that taken on its own Leather Oud is a stunning and super challenging fragrance for a big designer house to release. But those early Demachy were a total 180 from the refined classicism of the original 3 and feel quite rough and grotesque in comparison. Ultimately though, I understand it's a matter of taste and style for which era you favor.

I also believe Kris Van Assche was the director at the time of those early Demachy releases, and what he was designing was quite dark and heavy handed so I wonder if he had any influence on the fragrances that came out.

Kim Jones and Maria Grazia's designs have been a disaster IMO, maybe not financially but creatively. They turned Dior into just another bland luxury brand. Whereas before Dior was leading the pack with extremely creative and influential designers like Hedi Slimane, John Galliano, Raf Simons... now when I see the clothes in stores it is just bland logo luxury goods a la Louis Vuitton. Maybe it makes sense then that the fragrance releases of the past few years hew towards bland and mass appealing.

So... this puts Francis in a bind given that there hasn't been an accompanying change in creative direction on the fashion side of things. Best case scenario is that because Francis is such a big name, they give the fragrance line completely autonomy from the rest of the label in the way that Chanel does. I wonder if he will take Hedi's prive line as the foundation for Dior's fragrance style, or go further back to the original legendary fragrances like Miss Dior and Eau Sauvage.

 

[imm0rtelle]

All this creative director talk has me wondering what the influence of the current designers Kim Jones (men's) and Maria Grazia Chiuri (women's) has, if any, on the direction of the fragrance line.

I actually felt that Dior Homme 2020 should have been named Dior Men, to be consistent with how Kim changed the menswear's name. It makes sense why Hedi's original Dior Homme was relegated to limited distribution. Aside from not being commercial enough, it no longer matches the fashion side either.

Hedi is a total control freak, so I think it is quite accurate to consider the creation of the original 3 and the creation of a separate exclusive designer line very much his idea and a product of his creative vision. It would feel wrong now to return to that vision since he is currently heading up Celine, but I read Francis' reintroduction of the original 3 as a very good sign.

I agree that Hedi is a control freak, but I see it as a positive thing. This is Hedi's thoughts at being called a control freak:

Designers or creative directors in the current fashion industry have one foot in the studio, the other in the store, and both eyes on the stock exchange. The “controlling” cliché is maybe convenient but misleading. It is never about control, but about consistency, and there is simply no way around it within a global institutional house. There is no choice. Creative, strategy and management are now interconnected, and there is a lot at stake, including the image of an institution, thousand of employees and the responsibility toward shareholders.

I value his control freak tendencies because it allows for consistency between everything in the brand. He makes sure everything meshes together and "makes sense". It almost feels like Apple products, and their ecosystem.

These are interviews Hedi had when the trio were first launched:

-----------

So your gut instincts that this being a very Hedi project is 100% right.