- Oct 17, 2012
- 16,707
- 14,180
(You're probably right, actually.)Seconded.
I'm blaming that 1999 version of Vent Vert.
<Joking/Not joking>
You are now able to log into the forums and post
(You're probably right, actually.)Seconded.
I'm blaming that 1999 version of Vent Vert.
<Joking/Not joking>
So I just jumped into what appears to be a curated group of people who are invited; hope that didn’t violate basenotes etiquette…
Anyone with experience of scents being discussed in a pass is welcome to share their opinions.
I reviewed Jolie Madame by Pierre Balmain (1953), which didn't seem to have an analog in the pass. More thoughts here to follow.
I’ve got some Boudreaux and Thibodaux jokes I could tell. They’re pretty funny in English but better when you hear them in Cajun English. 😃Or, if you have none, make up stuff, so long as it's entertaining.
I’ve got some Boudreaux and Thibodaux jokes I could tell. They’re pretty funny in English but better when you hear them in Cajun English. 😃
Its analog was supposed to be the Bottega Veneta EDP, as an example of a modernized violet leather.'
Well, that explains a lot !Glad you liked that! I enjoyed seeing your bottles of Cabochard, and your insightful comments.
The synthetic, fractionated, cleaned-up versions of “patchouli” typically found in modern feminine pink “chypres” just mystify me. Why call it patchouli at all if only to explain, in the next marketing burble, that this isn‘t hippie or funky or head-shop or skanky patchouli. Heaven forfend!
I think natural patchouli smells amazing, and I think it is infinitely preferable and more interesting than modern replacements such as, for example, Firmenich’s Clearwood—
“Soft, clean version of Patchouli without the earthy, leathery and rubbery notes found in the natural oil” (description from the Perfumer Supply House).
Or, in other words, why bother? Clearwood is yet another creamy, woody amber. Firmenich classifies Clearwood as a “natural” ingredient, developed using “white biotechnology” (the name for actual category of biotechnology, it seems, with rather unfortunate connotations) so it can be described as such by those who like to greenwash (or whitewash) their perfumery descriptions.
Well, that explains a lot !
Someone asked me recently why, apart from well, no oakmoss, why I'd commented on a thread (elsewhere) that I didn't really place modern "chypres" ( the examples being BV and Nomade ) in the same catagory when telling someone else what chypres to try. The og OP liked these but then hadn't liked any old school Chypres. I said: it's misleading to call these chypres so I'm not surprised. The second commentator queried why and I struggled to explain ( apart from "have you smelled any Bernard Chant ? Now that's a Chypre 😂" )
They wanted answers that weren't "no or little oakmoss" as that would mean a modern ( EU commercial ) Chypre couldn't exist at all which they refused to accept. That if they had "tree miss" Instead, why weren't they still a chypre ?
In part, my answer was looking at intent and composition - they had to be a prominence of dark green, mossy accords often with "leather" or "patch" too. Just having some "oak/tree moss" wasn't enough. Same as having a single floral note didn't make something a "Floral" or having some aldehydes didn't make it an "Aldehyde" by genre. That it was almost incidental in some of these, they were equally floral-green-woody-powdry-musky etc.
I also went on to say: it's a bit like the fad for sticking woody notes in everything but calling it "oud" or modern "patchouli" frags, that don't really smell patch as I know it, just another generic woody note.
This explains it !
I was nodding along along with pretty much your whole review. Smooth, light, "modern" for its time. I liked your description of the type of violet note used...candied-ish violet.I reviewed Jolie Madame by Pierre Balmain (1953), which didn't seem to have an analog in the pass. More thoughts here to follow.
Heck. even the original Coty Chypre and the 80’s reissue smell completely different.I am not at all opposed to discussions of perfume genres and classifications, they can be illuminating and useful, but there is a tendency to assume that there is more consistency within a genre than there is, especially over time. Heck. even the original Coty Chypre and the 80’s reissue smell completely different.
Oh, yeah, and the aldehyde thing. There is a wide variety of aldehydes—powdery, fruity, creamy, waxy—so saying that a perfume is an aldehyde due to the presence of ”aldehydes” doesn’t take us very far. NB: Vanillin is an aldehyde.
I reviewed Bottega Veneta EDP.
To me, it does not compare to Jolie Madame, but is nice in its own way.
Yeah, it's still sub-$200 as of this post, until the scalpers who hoard stock from discounters see it and go "oh yeah? @#$% you! Now it's $400" lolInteresting that you found similarities to Kokorico by Gaultier. I have a decant of that around somewhere, I'll have to track it down and compare, since I can't really dredge up any memories of it. I've always thought its closest contemporary analog was Cuir d'Amethyste by Armani, which was about 3X time price of the BV (no longer true, now that the discontinued BV is going unicorn).
Heck. even the original Coty Chypre and the 80’s reissue smell completely different.
Now THAT'S something I'd love to compare. Coty Chypre now & then . It's my white whale. I have one memory of picking a small bottle off my relative's dressing table late 70's and sniffing. Then completely ignoring it in the 80's ( yes, I'm an idiot ) .
And, like that, it was gone !