I would say yes, with very few exceptions. It would also depend on your particular tastes and preferences in fragrance. I can totally understand a younger guy who doesn't quite have the nose yet, or appreciation for the older stuff hating vintage, and there is nothing wrong with that, especially at first whiff of stuff.
The ingredients were more natural, and potent, and they were how the fragrance was designed to be. However, there are many vintage fragrances that may not fit well in todays tastes. You really need to go easy on the trigger with many fragrances of the past. There are some who prefer some of the reformulations. I do not fit into that category. I can appreciate when something gets modernized to some extent to keep it in line with fashion trends, but because so many ingredients are no longer allowed to be used, it is just usually not as good and doesn't last as long either.
I keep test strips in most of my boxes of cologne. There are a few modern scents that I rarely have to spray to keep the scent on the strip but many of them don't last too long. The older stuff will last for weeks or much longer on those strips.
Also there are fragrances that I never wore, or had never tried and then had the opportunity to try the vintage over the reformulation, and I always preferred the vintage, they smell more full and complete. Many reformulations just smell more synthetic and like something is just missing. So in those cases that removes the variable of nostalgia or memories.
I was born in early 80's and started to wear fragrances in late 90's. No nostalgia for me, when it comes to my favourite vintages. If I would be nostalgic about fragrances, it would be about stuff like A*Men and Mugler Cologne, but those are not among my favourites. Both are alright, but you don't see me raving about them.
You are taking my somewhat lighthearted post a bit too literally in your interpretation Bigs. You also have to admit that the collector mentality is somewhat of an obsessive or compulsive mentality in addition to that. Especially when it concerns spending a good deal of money looking for that certain comic book or baseball card or vintage of wine. We know what we want or what we are looking for, and only want to spend money if its the real deal!!
It's not just you - I can't remember how many times people use such language (and only in the vintage context, IIRC), which really reflects back upon themselves, since they can't "read minds." I'll be addressing this in an upcoming blog post, for those interested.
It's not just you - I can't remember how many times people use such language (and only in the vintage context, IIRC), which really reflects back upon themselves, since they can't "read minds." I'll be addressing this in an upcoming blog post, for those interested.
No, I meant it to be somewhat of fun and passion of driving yourself crazy along with frustration in trying to authenticate and date many past fragrances, since there are various forms of packaging and releases in the same periods or lack of batch codes on bottles in many cases too.
I'm still not exactly sure what you are getting at and what language bothered you in the vintage context.
I would also like to add, since the majority of my argument seemed to center around stuff from the 70's - 90's, that for the benefit of the OP and his original question of reformulation, you don't even have to go back that far.
The same thing holds true for fragrances in the last 5 or 10 years even. Heck some aren't making it 5 before reformulation occurs. Most fragrances released in the first decade of the 2000's have already been reformulated, and they are NOT AS GOOD. Then there are examples of mid-reforms that are still usually better than the current. Of course there are always a few exceptions and those are somewhat subjective, but as time goes on the perfumers have to work so much harder with synthetics to get it to smell like the original and it never does. So usually a downward progression is the rule and not the exception. Whats in the stores now, may smell similar but most of them are just not the same, even from stuff 5-10 years ago.
Please keep in mind I am speaking mostly of designer stuff I have had experience with. I do not have much from the niche market because I don't live in an awesome city anymore where I can go and smell almost anything I want, and niche prices have gotten downright outrageous.
No, I meant it to be somewhat of fun and passion of driving yourself crazy along with frustration in trying to authenticate and date many past fragrances, since there are various forms of packaging and releases in the same periods or lack of batch codes on bottles in many cases too.
Again, this is not "crazy-making" but rather typical of many hobbies. The "niche samplers," as I called them a couple years ago, did seem to be driving themselves crazy, though I never claimed that I knew they were. They would write up a bunch of reviews, over time becoming more bitter/jaded, denouncing "the industry," etc. By contrast, I'm content with my vintage bottles, but if I see an excellent deal I'll often acquire a new one - nothing "hysterical" about it. Imagine buying what you think is a Nolan Ryan rookie card, only to discover it is a fake or non-first edition? If you do and get angry, are you "hysterical?" Why don't we just talk about our own emotions and not concern ourselves with those of others, unless there is a clear pattern. Even then, all we can say is that there appears to be a pattern - we can't read minds.
You seem to be taking a lot of this too literally and very personally.
Take your own advice and stop telling other people what they think. Sure, feelings of frustration may not apply to your thought processes, but it may to others. Nobody is telling you what you think. It's more how people who take any hobby seriously are perceived by those outside the hobby. And yes, even baseball cards or wine.
Rather than going on about the impossibility of mind reading, why not put yourself in their shoes and consider how such people may be perceived. Then consider how this may be amplified by communication using this imperfect medium. This cuts both ways. Perhaps both sides are feeling persecuted.
Plenty of people would regard having even a small perfume collection weird or "crazy". There are people who regard some of the rigorous processes I have to apply in my work as crazy or obsessive. It's just a matter of perspectives and values. No need to interpret it as a personal attack. It creeps into hysteria when people who value these things start crapping in threads where someone asks about a scent but the vintage collector makes it sound like it's worthless unless they seek out the vintage. They could at least give a comparison of the differences between vintage and current formulations. For the record, my past references to hysteria were to some statements that get posted when people initially suspect reformulations and overstate or exaggerate perceived changes, not to thorough due diligence when collecting known vintages.
I would say the same thing about people who crap on a thread about a designer fragrance with statements to the effect that they shouldn't bother with the designer and stick to niche.
The real issue here isn't whether vintage is better than current, reformulations do or don't exist, or if Ronda Rousey still has a concussion.
The issue that has come up in this thread is whether or not it's actually a decent thing for one group of people to demean another group because they're incapable of smelling "quality" ingredients in perfumes.
Which is a completely subjective position for anyone to take.
And very problematic.
The first issue is this: Reformulations have always happened. Always. From the beginning of perfume history, to this very day - they happen.
So why suddenly, in the last ten years, has this become such a big deal? Some will argue that it's because nowadays companies don't give a shit anymore, and simply dump super-cheap crap chemicals into formulas that used to be rich with "natural" essences. Except that synthetics were always the backbone of perfumery. Not naturals. And the cheaper the bottle of juice, the less likely it is there is any significant quantity of naturals in there that cannot be duplicated by synthetics. And no, companies don't suddenly give less of a shit now than they did twenty or thirty years ago. The buyers give less of a shit. That's why they keep these reformulated fragrances in production. Do you really think they're still making Drakkar Noir because they want to?
The second issue: this thing I read now and then about how some people can just smell quality in vintage juice, while others can't. Those who can't are the idiots. Those who can are the enlightened souls.
Except time after time in these threads, what ends up becoming obvious is that there's no middle ground with some people. The people who defend reformulations strictly believe it's not worth bothering with vintage, because why shell out, why hunt, when it's right there on Amazon for thirty-five bucks?
Those who worship vintage won't acknowledge that it's a tremendous crapshoot, and the odds are not on your side. You could go into any perfume store with a backlog of bottles and pick certain twenty-five or thirty-five year-old perfumes off the shelf, and you know something? Probably a sizable number of them will smell "off," for lack of a better word. And then there's the fact that they're likely discontinued, and therefore very likely expensive. In that mix are several bottles that will smell very good, and those are possibly worth pulling the trigger on. But let's not insist and pretend that this is something everyone should be doing. That this is a risk people should take if they claim to smell "quality ingredients." I mentioned Drakkar Noir above. That fragrance, in its current form, still smells great. There's a thread elsewhere on the board by a member who wonders aloud why his vintage Drakkars aren't as rich and potent as he remembers them. Well that's a very minor issue, but it's there - my new Drakkar smells plenty potent. To me, and others around me. I wear it with caution.
The third and last issue: Slamming reformulations because they're automatically "bad." I haven't really encountered anybody who made me feel bad about liking a vintage fragrance, but I sure have come up against backlash for saying I enjoy reformulations. The language is always very carefully crafted on that side. Here's an example from this thread alone:
The short/easy answer is that if scents are more or less an olfactory blur to you, then it probably doesn't matter. If, however, you smell a scent and say things like, "wow, that's a nice yet subtle sandalwood note," many if not most of the reformulations (of let's say pre-1995 vintage) will likely disappoint you.
So, to put it bluntly, if your sense of smell sucks, then you're happy with reformulations of vintage classics. If you can detect "subtle" natural notes from, let's say, something older than twenty years, reformulations will disappoint you.
This is, in my opinion, not the only time I've seen this sort of dynamic being set up for people who engage in discussion about this topic. What bothers me about it is that it's blatantly false. You can have a terrific sense of smell, and still prefer reformulations - because of the issues I've already listed here. Realistically, many vintage fragrances aren't quite what they used to be. Some vintages are, or at least are close enough for it to not be a big issue. Again, it's a crapshoot. And if you can detect notes accurately, with some serious knowledge of what kinds of synthetics were used years ago, vs what is used today, you'll realize that it isn't some "natural sandalwood" or whatever else is out there that is missing. It's a synthetic, swapped out for what could be an arguably inferior synthetic. I tend to wonder about people who think they're smelling anything more than some oakmoss or lavender oil in vintage masculines. Unless the original price point for the frag was quite high relative to the competition, how can you really make much of an accurate case for these formulas being full of natural ingredients? At best, you're speculating.
You seem to be taking a lot of this too literally and very personally.
Take your own advice and stop telling other people what they think. Sure, feelings of frustration may not apply to your thought processes, but it may to others. Nobody is telling you what you think. It's more how people who take any hobby seriously are perceived by those outside the hobby. And yes, even baseball cards or wine.
Rather than going on about the impossibility of mind reading, why not put yourself in their shoes and consider how such people may be perceived. Then consider how this may be amplified by communication using this imperfect medium. This cuts both ways. Perhaps both sides are feeling persecuted.
Plenty of people would regard having even a small perfume collection weird or "crazy". There are people who regard some of the rigorous processes I have to apply in my work as crazy or obsessive. It's just a matter of perspectives and values. No need to interpret it as a personal attack. It creeps into hysteria when people who value these things start crapping in threads where someone asks about a scent but the vintage collector makes it sound like it's worthless unless they seek out the vintage. They could at least give a comparison of the differences between vintage and current formulations. For the record, my past references to hysteria were to some statements that get posted when people initially suspect reformulations and overstate or exaggerate perceived changes, not to thorough due diligence when collecting known vintages.
I would say the same thing about people who crap on a thread about a designer fragrance with statements to the effect that they shouldn't bother with the designer and stick to niche.
No, I'm saying that's how it comes across (note my use of the word "seems"). If you want your position to be perceived differently maybe you should express yourself differently. I'm not a mind reader you know.
If only your skills and discernment with respect to scent could also be applied to other aspects of communication on the forum.
Hankharvey, I agree with everything you said. These are my thoughts as well. After being able to compare more vintages to reformulations, I don't see a winner and a loser. I smell the same thing, but with different twists. I happen to now prefer reforms, as they are more wearable and a bit modernized, but would own a vintage for some situation or whatever. My Drakkar Noir is the newest and it lasts more than 12 hours with occasional whiffs to remember me the fragrance is still there, and people can smell it when by my side. For me, it's perfect. Why should I go nuts over an older formula of this very fragrance? At least for me, there is no need to. And also because I'm not a fan of too much oakmoss and super dense cologne punching everyone. That's me, of course.
I'm very happy to see they continue making classics under modern reforms. If people started to boycott these fragrances because they're not the same as the early ones, these companies would descontinue them. And that would make me and many others very angry.
I'll just mention that the "mind reading" continues with HankHarvey's comment. As a newbie, as I've said, I couldn't tell the difference. It certainly was an olfactory blur, and when I read reviews I get the sense that this is true for many others. Of course, it's a generalization, based upon my perceptions. Again, I like "super cheapos," and wear them often. There is no disgrace in enjoying whatever you enjoy, again, as a generalization (if you smear your body in feces and enjoy the smell, then yes, some might say that is disgraceful). But we don't need people claiming that there is "hysteria" because vintage aficionados are seeking information from fellow aficionados. Those who can't smell the difference appear to get irritated that such threads exist, which makes no sense to me. I often do not read threads that do not appeal to me or that I feel are ridiculous or irrelevant. I do not start new threads on those subjects, calling those people hysterical, silly, or whatever.
Because you're right. There isn't a winner, OR a loser. Now, you might in the future try some things side-by-side and find that the vintage is preferable to you. But your reasons for finding that version to be preferable will be hard for you to quantify. Unless you're a chemist, you're not going to be able to accurately state why exactly you prefer it. You just will. You may believe it smells richer, or more natural, but let's face it - your real reason for preferring a fragrance is because it smells good. And if a newer version smells sucky in comparison, no reason to feel ashamed about saying so. It's just that the flip side, the very reverse of that scenario is also true; those of us who enjoy reforms shouldn't have to feel like we're admitting our noses suck.
Why should I go nuts over an older formula of this very fragrance? At least for me, there is no need to. And also because I'm not a fan of too much oakmoss and super dense cologne punching everyone. That's me, of course.
I'm very happy to see they continue making classics under modern reforms. If people started to boycott these fragrances because they're not the same as the early ones, these companies would descontinue them. And that would make me and many others very angry.
And this is another secondary topic, perhaps brought up in detail elsewhere to avoid completely hijacking this thread. But seriously, trash-talking frags en masse may have undesirable consequences. Just saying.
For me, and I can only speak for me, it's not that I can't smell the difference, it's that I don't care as much as you. As I've said earlier, my brief is very different from yours. While I like some quality Mysore as much as the next guy, it's not my primary motivation and the scents that feature it in a way I like are, by my own personal values, not worth seeking out and paying a premium for. I'll keep my old Indian sandalwood carving for when I need a hit.
It's important not to bring in another issue which serves to obfuscate the discussion in favor of the "pro reformulation" side of things. That is, I'd be the first to mention that I used to wear vintage more often, and that some vintage I don't like as much as I used to, whereas others I like more. This, however, has nothing to do with my perception of the "quality" of the scent. Now sometimes I don't feel the need to wear a quality scent, and I often reach for a "super cheapo," but if I'm in the mood for vintage Zino, for example, that's what I want. I have no interest in wearing what I believe to be reformulated Zino, ever. Others can't detect any difference, or claim it is negligible. That's fine, but it has absolutely nothing to do with what I want to buy or wear. And that's why my first response referenced how you perceive and appreciate these concoctions - that is what matters, and nobody can read your mind, so the best you can do is read the relevant information online and try to make the right decision (but it will only be the right decision for you, not necessarily for anyone else).
And I have found that vintage holds up incredibly well over the decades. If your experience is different and that has led you to avoid vintage, I applaud your strong decision-making qualities, but again, that has nothing to do with my decisions in this context. If you don't like it when others talk about how much they like their vintage scents, then just ignore them - why post something that suggests you think they are deluded, lying, or wasting their time? It's a hobby, and the internet provides places like BN to share opinions and information, so of course there are going to be threads on the subject! I remember when I investigated the world of fine art works on paper, some people thought pop art was "garbage" and laughed at the prices, yet that would have been a much better investment than something like op art or minimalism, that's for sure (generally-speaking). And with scents, most are not trying to "cash in," but just seeking out what they consider to be the best scents ever made. Some people might eat any pizza that put in front of them, whereas others only want "quality" pizza, and even if the restaurant is out of anchovies, and they'd really prefer it that way, they are not going to eat the "garbage" pizza because that restaurant didn't run out of anchovies. LOL. So, it may be true that top notes are sometimes "messed up" (which is irrelevant to me) or that base notes have shifted slightly, because they are still head and shoulders above everything else! Again, if you think that's not the case, then go ahead and be happy with your decision, but that has nothing to do with me.
And as to money being no object if you want to buy vintage, exactly where are you looking for them? I've got so many great vintage deals, just on ebay alone, that I wouldn't want to think about putting a list of those together! Even if you pay "high" prices," how do they compare to the prices being asked at the local dept. store for the usual generic/synthetic dreck? There are only a small number that sell for "big bucks" in vintage: PPH, Derby, Egoiste Cologne Concentree. Others with prices that high are usually an ebay seller's wishful thinking, as I have waited for great deals on many of those and was rewarded. It's more an issue of patience with probably at least 90% vintage, if you want to pay at current dept. store prices or lower, in my experience.
I think you are going way too deep into what I said. I didn't say anyone was deluded or making things up. I am simply stating how I feel about vintage scents and reformulations, and my experiences and the possible variables for why I don't feel its a huge deal. Why? Because someone asked a question about this specific topic and I am sharing my thoughts on it. This is a discussion forum and so I am discussing it. I don't speak in absolutes. I am open to all possibilities. Whether it shines others in a positive or negative light is irrelevant to me. And I often do ignore the talk about vintage. Do you see me going around trolling vintage discussions? No you don't because I don't.
I think since you are the one taking issue with what I have said and have quoted me, its a sign that the advice you are giving is the advice you should be following. You don't agree with my opinions? that's fine. Do as you recommend and ignore them. And when you want to berate others for possibly offending you and your choices (which I did not address you in any way) you may want to refrain from using your own colorful language like "synthetic dreck" to describe what others may find appealing. It kinda takes the steam out of your argument to being above it all. The bottom line is I don't agree with you and I don't have to. And most importantly I don't have to censor my opinions so they don't affect your feelings when like you say, you could just ignore it.
Wow, I wasn't passing judgment or saying anything disparaging about either those for or against vintage. I simply stated my point that there is unequivocally a difference between vintage and reforms, because the post was about reformulations. I like vintage. For things I used to wear, it is what I expect and will not settle for a Frankenstein re-creation of an original scent I was familiar with and loved. If you can not tell that something has been reformed then fine, I'm jealous!! I WISH I could come to terms, and not mind that my favorites from the past have been butchered. It would save me a ton of time and money trying to unearth what I was expecting my fragrance to smell like.
I also addressed the downfalls of vintage in my first post.
I have no judgement on people either way. I don't slam anyone for praising vintage vs. reform or the fact that people do not have a problem with reforms.
I do not have the history that Bigsly does on this board. Ive been lurking it for about 2 years. I come to this board for opinions and information on stuff. Then I acquire or try stuff usually new vs. the vintage, and make my own decisions and conclusions. I was sharing them here from my personal experiences.
He has many posts and has contributed very much in the forums. It seems to me, there has been some history in other threads I'm unaware of. Some other back and forths shall we say. To that history, I am naive in what he was referencing with respect to other people making comments. I still don't really understand what he was trying to tell me, only because I am unaware of what may have irked him.
Yes, I have no idea of the history and if people have given bigsly a hard time in the past. Apologies for using the inflammatory term hysteria, I could have tried to express myself more reasonably from the beginning.
If you don't care about vintage at all then these threads are irrelevant to you, so I'm not sure why you waste your time on them! I'm certainly not one to tell people that if they don't like vintage they are somehow a lesser person.
This is not a pro vintage thread. This is a thread in the male fragrance discussion sub forum where someone asked, again, asked for opinions on reformulations. Not positive praise vintage opinions, just opinions. And no you dont say they are lesser of a person you just criticise there opinions and ask they dont share them and refer to what they like with inflamatory comments like "synthetic dreck". Again read the ops post and subsequent replies. No, this is not a "man vintage is so awesome" thread. And you posting before anyone else doesnt mean you have dibs and can call the tone of the thread. The first person here to start discussing other members instead of the topic was you.
Hello All,
I have been reading more and more and watching reviews etc. and it seems some people will say that the juice "used to be fantastic in 1998, but the new formulation sucks." and I'm using 1998 as an example. So my question is, is there any validity to this? I understand opinions are subjective, but I'm thinking like a new guy like me, what am I supposed to do? just not buy any cologne that was reformulated? Or just look for all "pre-reformulation" bottles? I tried Joop! Homme, many people on different sites said that it was reformulated and now doesn't have the projection or lasting power it used to. Well my brand new bottle arrived and I happen to like the scent, one spray lasts me FOREVER and projection is marvelous. So either I got a pre-reformulation bottle, or I got a "magic" bottle that happened to be okay, or the people saying this don't know what they are talking about. Also true, is I never smelled an old bottle of the stuff, so maybe compared to the old stuff this stuff is weak. I just can't believe someone saying what I have is weak compared to anything. Just looking for ideas and opinions here. Thanks!
-Steve E.
I like modern versions of Fahrenheit, Egoiste, and Bel Ami. People are free to like or prefer current versions and/or vintage versions of fragrances, and to change their minds, and change them back again. All options are the table. Some vintage fragrances are great, to be sure, but the modern market has so much choice, and people should feel free to ignore talk of vintage.
