Aaron Terence Hughes

[Hugh V.]

I don't have anything to add, as I still have yet to sample any of his fragrances. But I'm genuinely happy to read these updates, as he seems to create high quality fragrances, and I like how he presents his image and brand.

In regards to him hinting that he wants to work for a designer:
Despite his love of being independent, I think most artists would like the opportunity to be 1) more financial secure, and 2) to be able to reach a much larger audience. I would imagine that it's incredibly demanding to be both an artist AND run your company, including figuring out the distribution, employing others, etc. If he were hired by a Dior, Chanel or YSL, he could focus on his creations, and leave all the businesses aspects to the higher ups.

 

[lfc1892]

I’ve always quite liked him. He’s honest about who he is and what he does. He has his haters and his supporters. I really do not understand the former, at all. He’s a strong personality, but my goodness, some of the stuff spouted about him.

As to the fragrances… never tried them.

 

[milkbaby]

Aaron was on Frag-mental doing a "blind rating" of some of his own fragrances, just for fun. But he said something interesting towards the end - that his work over the past year, with fragrances like Maverick, Legend, Hard Candy, High Voltage - has been to prove he can do "designer done well". He said something to that effect back when he released Maverick and Legend, but now he's also saying he would love to "get into industry" and says he made these fragrances to show he can make things for companies and that he's "employable".

Huh, interesting. I always took Aaron to be someone who enjoyed the creative independence to make whatever he wanted, not someone who wants to work within the confines of the briefs and budgets of big designer and niche companies.

His original "Legend" and "Maverick" are still the only frags of his that I've bought. He initially released them at an EDP level concentration, but rather quickly discontinued that and reformulated them at his normal parfum concentration. I was a little disappointed with that, it felt like he was abandoning his experiment with trying to make frags more in the designer space. I was kind of eh on Legend, but I did quite like Maverick.

But hey, more power to him if he wants to try to actually get into the industry. The ball is in his court to try to sell his skills as a perfumer to bigger companies.

I wonder if he's hoping for a large company to buy his brand so that he can avoid the headaches of being in charge of everything...

 

[perfumer86]

i dont know how his perfumes smell. havent tried them. i live very very far from uk. some of the names and desciption sound appealing. seems alot of the perfumes he reviews has almost the same notes, hedione, IES, same white musks, coumarin, vanillin, ethyl vanillin, acetates, etc. at least that he claims he can detect. i like when he moves his fingers rapidly when smelling a fragrance, same as roja dove sometimes, jejeje.

 

[BoogieDaddy]

His original "Legend" and "Maverick" are still the only frags of his that I've bought. He initially released them at an EDP level concentration, but rather quickly discontinued that and reformulated them at his normal parfum concentration. I was a little disappointed with that, it felt like he was abandoning his experiment with trying to make frags more in the designer space. I was kind of eh on Legend, but I did quite like Maverick.

The reformulations of Maverick and Legend led to a higher concentration, but the fact he didn't weaken them didn't change them nearly enough to keep them from being designer-like in their profiles. He received negative feedback on Legend for being a great scent but poor performer so he listened and increased the concentration to 25% rather than 20% on both of the fragrances, while also adjusting some of the notes in Legend to make it last a bit longer. In all honesty, I can't tell much of a difference with Maverick - it lasts about the same amount of time as the original formula. The new version of Legend does last longer and smells a bit more mossy than the original, but it still fades rather quickly. I think the best of his "designer done well" frags are Maverick and Hard Candy. Guapo I can't fairly judge due to my sensitivity to ambroxan (I go immediately noseblind to ambroxan bombs like it), but it smells wonderful in the air as I'm applying it. High Voltage is nice but it's essentially a lighter version of his already existing Haze fragrances, except its lemon instead of grapefruit - it also has hints of an Aventus/Cedrat Boise-type scent in the drydown but nowhere close to being a clone of either one.

 

[BoogieDaddy]

i dont know how his perfumes smell. havent tried them. i live very very far from uk. some of the names and desciption sound appealing. seems alot of the perfumes he reviews has almost the same notes, hedione, IES, same white musks, coumarin, vanillin, ethyl vanillin, acetates, etc. at least that he claims he can detect. i like when he moves his fingers rapidly when smelling a fragrance, same as roja dove sometimes, jejeje.

If you are interested in trying his stuff, I would recommend Hard Candy, Raw Cherry, Slut, Onyx, and Haze Black - I think those are very representative of what he is about while giving a good range of different profiles.

 

[BoogieDaddy]

Interesting. I do like his reviews but they are too short. And he seems to be spending alot of money just to review them. What I don't understand is why he puts his nose so close to where he sprays the fragrance each time. I would go nose blind if I did that. And you can't tell if a fragrance has good longevity in a three minute review. But he seems like an interesting bloke. I would like to try his fragrances one day.

I'm sure you probably missed it, but several months ago he changed how he reviews things and he does test for longevity. He said that he wears them all for around 2-3 hours and comes back later to film his "final thoughts" segment. The videos are just cut short because he finds long reviews boring and harder to keep people's attention. As far as his spending...I'm sure his employees love it - he said he gives all the bottles to the guys working for him so nothing gets tossed out. Besides, he can write the cost off on his taxes because he uses the products for his channel. Kinda makes me want to start one. lol

 

[Foamywax]

Interesting ! Like I said , he seems like a decent guy who knows alot about fragrance . I really liked his review on fahrenheit .

 

[ionone]

Never seen a perfumer smell anything the way you describe to smell it. They're always digging their nose in it and not moving at all. Francis Kurkdjian, Christoph Laudamiel and Francois demachy come to mind

you can do it like that, but the experience will be totally different when wearing it.
so you have to keep that in mind. Two totally diffferent ways to test perfume.
To this day i'm still testing perfumes that way (waving a paper far from my nose) and it never has disappointed me.
sometimes I even test it by waving it very strongly and very far for the paper.

also smelling up close is the worst for your nose, you become instantly partially nose blind

and btw I don't care how known perfumers test their perfume, I have my own way and I don't claim it's the best way either. It suits me and i'm happy with it

 

[slpfrsly]

Bit of a weird one, wasn't sure where to post this, and don't want to derail the thread from discussing his fragrances.

However, I'm baffled as to how/why ATH has credulity as a reviewer. One of his videos popped up in recommended feed on youtube and I'll be honest I'm amazed to see that he has an audience that is receptive to the content he puts out.

I'm making no comment on his own fragrances, his ability as a perfumer, or anything else. I definitely don't want this to be seen as an invitation to criticise any perceived issue other than his reviewing of fragrances i.e. appearance and so on. I'm not writing this to be mean. I'm genuinely baffled as to how something like this can exist and be received well by some people. I know there are lots of other reviewers and so on, but I think I can grasp how/why they have an audience, but with this I can't think of any reasonable explanation. I just don't get it.

To "live review" fragrances by claiming to detect specific aromachemicals seems fanciful at best. I'm not sure it's really worth going in to the nitty gritty of these reviews: unless you take it as performance art or something, the 'factual' info within these reviews is, at times, complete bollocks. And because he clearly isn't clueless about fragrance and perfumery, that makes it all the more confusing. Why ruin what could, presumably, be somewhat insightful reviews with bullshit?

Anyway, from the perspective of a watcher/wearer of fragrance, it seems pretty simple: do you believe that what you're seeing in this video is an honest, uncontrived assessment of a fragrance, or do you suspect it's someone chancing their hand by pretending to analyse and detect specific aromachemicals solely with their nose (etc)?

Perhaps this topic has been discussed before, I don't know. The mind boggles at what - if you'll excuse the pun - must undoubtedly pass the sniff test for dozens of people who don't see his reviews this way. There must be some, because he has an audience, who take it at face value; who think that he's actually analysing a fragrance and giving the viewer genuine insight. Are there are fans of his on basenotes? Again, I'm not talking about his skill as a perfumer and the products he sells, but as a reviewer?

Maybe it takes a certain level of desensitisation to tolerate the world of youtube influencers, and having not watched any for a good while has left me defenceless. But I'm just astounded this exists and felt like asking a question about it. Am I alone in this view? It all seems so...strange.

 

[Hugh V.]

There must be some, because he has an audience, who take it at face value; who think that he's actually analysing a fragrance and giving the viewer genuine insight. Are there are fans of his on basenotes? Again, I'm not talking about his skill as a perfumer and the products he sells, but as a reviewer?

Maybe it takes a certain level of desensitisation to tolerate the world of youtube influencers, and having not watched any for a good while has left me defenceless. But I'm just astounded this exists and felt like asking a question about it. Am I alone in this view? It all seems so...strange.

EDITED
I feel like my initial post was too negative.

I get what you're saying, but in the context of branding AND "influencers," I "get" what he's trying to do and I can see an acceptable lane for that in terms of reviews, and perfumery. When I do watch his videos on a fragrance I like or am interested in, I realize it's to influence me on a particular fragrance. He has an articulate and eloquent way of not only speaking, but of gesturing, so his reviews come across as almost performance art or some type of upper body ballet mixed with an audio short story. Now I'm compelled to see his take on Cool Water.

 

[Sultan al Hindi]

Bit of a weird one, wasn't sure where to post this, and don't want to derail the thread from discussing his fragrances.

However, I'm baffled as to how/why ATH has credulity as a reviewer. One of his videos popped up in recommended feed on youtube and I'll be honest I'm amazed to see that he has an audience that is receptive to the content he puts out.

I'm making no comment on his own fragrances, his ability as a perfumer, or anything else. I definitely don't want this to be seen as an invitation to criticise any perceived issue other than his reviewing of fragrances i.e. appearance and so on. I'm not writing this to be mean. I'm genuinely baffled as to how something like this can exist and be received well by some people. I know there are lots of other reviewers and so on, but I think I can grasp how/why they have an audience, but with this I can't think of any reasonable explanation. I just don't get it.

To "live review" fragrances by claiming to detect specific aromachemicals seems fanciful at best. I'm not sure it's really worth going in to the nitty gritty of these reviews: unless you take it as performance art or something, the 'factual' info within these reviews is, at times, complete bollocks. And because he clearly isn't clueless about fragrance and perfumery, that makes it all the more confusing. Why ruin what could, presumably, be somewhat insightful reviews with bullshit?

Anyway, from the perspective of a watcher/wearer of fragrance, it seems pretty simple: do you believe that what you're seeing in this video is an honest, uncontrived assessment of a fragrance, or do you suspect it's someone chancing their hand by pretending to analyse and detect specific aromachemicals solely with their nose (etc)?

Perhaps this topic has been discussed before, I don't know. The mind boggles at what - if you'll excuse the pun - must undoubtedly pass the sniff test for dozens of people who don't see his reviews this way. There must be some, because he has an audience, who take it at face value; who think that he's actually analysing a fragrance and giving the viewer genuine insight. Are there are fans of his on basenotes? Again, I'm not talking about his skill as a perfumer and the products he sells, but as a reviewer?

Maybe it takes a certain level of desensitisation to tolerate the world of youtube influencers, and having not watched any for a good while has left me defenceless. But I'm just astounded this exists and felt like asking a question about it. Am I alone in this view? It all seems so...strange.

As a fellow brit, does the term 'horses for courses' come to mind?

If I thought what he was doing was detrimental to society/the perfume world then maybe I'd understand your grievances, but until then live and let live!

 

[ErroneousFact]

When I watch his reviews I sense constant tension between three goals: Honesty, agreeing with the audience so they keep watching, and being critical to give the impression that his fragrances must be great. So I take it all with a grain of salt.

 

[Profcool]

I enjoy watching his videos, but as with all fragrance YouTubers view this as a bit of light entertainment rather than taking anything else out of it. The video posted is I think an older one of his and I think he has generally gotten more confident, comes across more professionally and spends more time wearing the fragrances in his latest ones. Whether he is chancing it or not I don't know, but I also don't think it is too much of a stretch for someone whose day job is making fragrances and working with raw ingredients to be able to better dissect a fragrance, identify ingredients etc than your average reviewer. If it was another high profile perfumer conducting this type of analysis would you feel the same way, or also dismiss their ability to unpick a fragrance? At the end of the day he offers something different from the hundreds of others out there and that, in the main, is the appeal for me.

 

[lfc1892]

I quite like him. Have no idea what his perfume are like though.

 

[Dorje123]

To "live review" fragrances by claiming to detect specific aromachemicals seems fanciful at best.

You really think a professional chemist and perfumer can't identify common aromachemicals?

 

[DudeLebowski]

Tried a handful of them. They were quite forgettable.

Didnt know even know he was a fragrance influencer till after the fact.

 

[Smellyicious]

Bit of a weird one, wasn't sure where to post this, and don't want to derail the thread from discussing his fragrances.

However, I'm baffled as to how/why ATH has credulity as a reviewer. One of his videos popped up in recommended feed on youtube and I'll be honest I'm amazed to see that he has an audience that is receptive to the content he puts out.

I'm making no comment on his own fragrances, his ability as a perfumer, or anything else. I definitely don't want this to be seen as an invitation to criticise any perceived issue other than his reviewing of fragrances i.e. appearance and so on. I'm not writing this to be mean. I'm genuinely baffled as to how something like this can exist and be received well by some people. I know there are lots of other reviewers and so on, but I think I can grasp how/why they have an audience, but with this I can't think of any reasonable explanation. I just don't get it.

To "live review" fragrances by claiming to detect specific aromachemicals seems fanciful at best. I'm not sure it's really worth going in to the nitty gritty of these reviews: unless you take it as performance art or something, the 'factual' info within these reviews is, at times, complete bollocks. And because he clearly isn't clueless about fragrance and perfumery, that makes it all the more confusing. Why ruin what could, presumably, be somewhat insightful reviews with bullshit?

Anyway, from the perspective of a watcher/wearer of fragrance, it seems pretty simple: do you believe that what you're seeing in this video is an honest, uncontrived assessment of a fragrance, or do you suspect it's someone chancing their hand by pretending to analyse and detect specific aromachemicals solely with their nose (etc)?

Perhaps this topic has been discussed before, I don't know. The mind boggles at what - if you'll excuse the pun - must undoubtedly pass the sniff test for dozens of people who don't see his reviews this way. There must be some, because he has an audience, who take it at face value; who think that he's actually analysing a fragrance and giving the viewer genuine insight. Are there are fans of his on basenotes? Again, I'm not talking about his skill as a perfumer and the products he sells, but as a reviewer?

Maybe it takes a certain level of desensitisation to tolerate the world of youtube influencers, and having not watched any for a good while has left me defenceless. But I'm just astounded this exists and felt like asking a question about it. Am I alone in this view? It all seems so...strange.

I just watched the review you posted and I thought it was fantastic. And very tame for ATH.

Most of his reviews are an avalanche of aroma chemical names flying out of his mouth, with even occasional chemistry formulas or molecular constructions superimposed on the video. Sounds like you‘d REALLY like that! Lol.

I do wonder sometimes if he’s not just taking the piss, but mostly I’ve decided I believe in his knowledge and understanding of perfumery and how to build a fragrance and I enjoy his reviews very much.

 

[BoogieDaddy]

To "live review" fragrances by claiming to detect specific aromachemicals seems fanciful at best. I'm not sure it's really worth going in to the nitty gritty of these reviews: unless you take it as performance art or something, the 'factual' info within these reviews is, at times, complete bollocks. And because he clearly isn't clueless about fragrance and perfumery, that makes it all the more confusing. Why ruin what could, presumably, be somewhat insightful reviews with bullshit?

I mean, once you have worked around a wide range of aromachemicals day in and day out for years, you are going to be able to pick them out. Heck, most of us frag heads can pick out a handful of materials and we don't work with them all the time. For instance, ISO-E, Ambroxan, Calone, and musks like Ambrettolide/Galaxolide can be smelled from a mile away by most seasoned fragheads. Even lesser known chemeicals like the Ethyl Maltol Aaron frequently refers to being in many sweet fragrances is easy to pick out once you know what it smells like. Therefore, I don't see this as far-fetched or fanciful at all being he knows exactly what each of these materials smells like on its own ans how they react with and smell with other ingredients.

 

[slpfrsly]

Surprised by the replies tbh. I thought this would be a simple cut and dry thing but clearly he has a fan base.

https://imgur.com/BufwLMm

Anyway I vaguely remembered this from back in covid times. Something about it being harder to convince people they're being tricked than tricking them...it seems relevant. Honestly, I really thought it was so obvious I'd be pushing at an open door! 😄

 

[slpfrsly]

I don't want to hammer the case too hard (really though, I am surprised to see so much support, I was thinking the opposite might happen) but I feel generally bewildered about figures like this. I might be struggling to compute how others don't see it as I do, maybe that's it. I can see the argument that's been made re: florid reviewing having its place, something more impressionistic, even the visual performance element. But all of that is tarnished -actually not just tarnished, but ruined - once you know there's a heavy dose of bullshit, presented as fact, being used to lend the appearance legitimacy to that performance. I don't for one moment think he is picking out individual aromachemicals, nor analysing a fragrance "chemically", and I'm baffled that people could fall for it in any great number (there will always be some ofc). What's more plausible, that he can not only pick out individual aromachems within a blend of hundreds of them, but also analyse them in the moment with commentary on their role, how long they last (how tf do you know that 2 minutes after applying?! 🙃), and conjure an economic valuation for the perfume? Or...the alternative.

I also think it might also be something mentioned above as well, which is a greater tolerance for less of a black/white and more of a greyer approach to lying and so on. I find myself increasingly isolated when it comes to having a pretty rigid stance on lying, deception, cheating etc, particularly when it comes to tricking or exploiting other people. There's been a horrible slipping of attitudes to these things even within my adult life and perhaps others are not so hostile; are more tolerant and accepting of these traits and behaviours. Maybe that's relevant as well? I dunno.

Anyway, I see this no real oud saga happened a few years ago (the coof was a timewarp) and was already discussed in the thread. I didn't intend to excavate what looks like a slightly feisty topic of convo so I'll just link it as the discussion looks like it's already been had: https://basenotes.com/threads/aaron-terence-hughes.472790/page-5#post-5041909

Thanks to everyone who replied, good to get some honest responses, even when it's disagreeing with me. 👍

 

[Dorje123]

I don't want to hammer the case too hard (really though, I am surprised to see so much support, I was thinking the opposite might happen) but I feel generally bewildered about figures like this. I might be struggling to compute how others don't see it as I do, maybe that's it. I can see the argument that's been made re: florid reviewing having its place, something more impressionistic, even the visual performance element. But all of that is tarnished -actually not just tarnished, but ruined - once you know there's a heavy dose of bullshit, presented as fact, being used to lend the appearance legitimacy to that performance. I don't for one moment think he is picking out individual aromachemicals, nor analysing a fragrance "chemically", and I'm baffled that people could fall for it in any great number (there will always be some ofc). What's more plausible, that he can not only pick out individual aromachems within a blend of hundreds of them, but also analyse them in the moment with commentary on their role, how long they last (how tf do you know that 2 minutes after applying?! 🙃), and conjure an economic valuation for the perfume? Or...the alternative.

I also think it might also be something mentioned above as well, which is a greater tolerance for less of a black/white and more of a greyer approach to lying and so on. I find myself increasingly isolated when it comes to having a pretty rigid stance on lying, deception, cheating etc, particularly when it comes to tricking or exploiting other people. There's been a horrible slipping of attitudes to these things even within my adult life and perhaps others are not so hostile; are more tolerant and accepting of these traits and behaviours. Maybe that's relevant as well? I dunno.

Anyway, I see this no real oud saga happened a few years ago (the coof was a timewarp) and was already discussed in the thread. I didn't intend to excavate what looks like a slightly feisty topic of convo so I'll just link it as the discussion looks like it's already been had: https://basenotes.com/threads/aaron-terence-hughes.472790/page-5#post-5041909

Thanks to everyone who replied, good to get some honest responses, even when it's disagreeing with me. 👍

So the guy makes a mistake and now everything is BS? You are wrong, actually, let's make that WRONG!!!

The thought that a professional perfumer can't tell what aromachemicals are used in a fragrance is absolutely ridiculous.

I think you need to be more careful, you are maligning and defaming an actual human being without any qualifications to do so, as far as I can tell. I mean, are you a trained chemist and perfumer? Why do you feel you're qualified to make these judgements?

 

[Varanis Ridari]

I don't want to hammer the case too hard (really though, I am surprised to see so much support, I was thinking the opposite might happen) but I feel generally bewildered about figures like this. I might be struggling to compute how others don't see it as I do, maybe that's it. I can see the argument that's been made re: florid reviewing having its place, something more impressionistic, even the visual performance element. But all of that is tarnished -actually not just tarnished, but ruined - once you know there's a heavy dose of bullshit, presented as fact, being used to lend the appearance legitimacy to that performance. I don't for one moment think he is picking out individual aromachemicals, nor analysing a fragrance "chemically", and I'm baffled that people could fall for it in any great number (there will always be some ofc). I also think it might also be something mentioned above as well, which is a greater tolerance for lying and so on. I find myself increasingly isolated when it comes to having a pretty rigid stance on lying, deception, cheating etc, particularly when it comes to tricking or exploiting other people. There's been a horrible slipping of attitudes to these things even within my adult life and perhaps others are not so hostile; are more tolerant and accepting of these traits and behaviours. Maybe that's relevant as well?

Anyway, I see this no real oud saga happened a few years ago (the coof was a timewarp) and was already discussed in the thread. I didn't intend to excavate what looks like a slightly feisty topic of convo so I'll just link it as the discussion looks like it's already been had: https://basenotes.com/threads/aaron-terence-hughes.472790/page-5#post-5041909

Thanks to everyone who replied, good to get some honest responses, even when it's disagreeing with me. 👍

I'm not sure what I said earlier in this thread (my opinions shift as I learn more or I soften to things I was originally skeptical of, etc). I'm also not following the current debate so sorry to anyone that is. I'm just updating my opinion on the brand/owner.

But my current view on him is sort of amused indifference. He was fun to watch for a long time, with the magic perfume hands and "in touch with our higher selves" BS that really reminded me of motivational speakers (in a bad funny/harmless way).

But you know that was back when he first started and before the perfumes came out, then immediately after when they were still in little glass pochet bottles with white labels and plain black caps.

I won't really question the magic nose too much, although it is possible to know the tell-tales of certain aromachemicals at least when used in large amounts, or when something like an alpha isolmethyl-ionone is "iris" versus when real orris butter is being used for an iris note (sorta like telling dark vs milk chocolate in a sense).

If you're not majorly overdosing a material like cis 3 hexanol for a massive green note, or a huge slug of Iso E Super like in Terre d'Hermès, I do believe it seems like a bit of "hocus pocus alakazam" to pinpoint exactly that "yep there's ethlene brassylate and habanolide in here.. yup yup some salicylates and a drop of cashmeran folded over too". Especially since very similar effects are achievable with a wide variety of materials. I fully agree there.

People generally don't have gas chromatography in their sinus cavities unless you're the T-1000 from the Termintor movies. Although if you work with materials enough, you can pretty accurately guesstimate their effects in a formula you didn't make I'm sure. Never 100% pinpoint accuracy though. As for -his- perfumes, I haven't smelled a one, and he wasn't shipping to the US at the time.

Again though, sort of amused indifference here, especially since so many things have come and gone from his lineup in just 2 years. I'm not going out of my way to buy expensive discovery sets not knowing if something I like is going to still be made if I decide I want a bottle. No real negative thoughts on ATH and he at least seemed nice. Just not sure if I jive with the brand culture he presents, hence unfollowing him.

You're not a fan of deceptive practices, and neither am I; but I'm also not a fan of constant fomo-inducing novelty. I make an exception for Avon because their products linger in the aftermarket for literal decades, so there's no real scare there. 🤣

People can like or dislike him all they want though, so if someone loves his work or videos, please do NOT perceive my words as any form of attack. I assure it is not. I respect a hustle, as I always say. I'm just not a hustler myself.

 

[RPLens]

Anyway I vaguely remembered this from back in covid times. Something about it being harder to convince people they're being tricked than tricking them...it seems relevant. Honestly, I really thought it was so obvious I'd be pushing at an open door! 😄

I get what you say here.
But honestly, I have seen a lot of his video's where he is reviewing fragrances.
I only watch the part where he calls out the aromachems etc., I don't really care for the rest.

Sure, he is not live reviewing it.
Just like the other reviewers on Youtube are not "live" reviewing.
Professional wrestling is also not a spontaneous fight, and politics may be theatre too.
This became quite clear since 2019.

But how exactly is Aaron tricking me, when he is talking very positively about other brands?
He called Parfums de Marly a top notch brand.
Ok wait.... so he is subconsciously projecting onto his viewers that his own brand must be equally good as the big players.
Alright, I can see that.

But honestly, I don't really see that as a big problem.
The only thing he has triggered in me, is that I want to buy some samples or a discovery set.
If it is trash, I will smell it directly and post it here.
So eventually, he will just shoot himself in his own foot.

 

[Red Hawk]

Surprised by the replies tbh. I thought this would be a simple cut and dry thing but clearly he has a fan base.

https://imgur.com/BufwLMm

Anyway I vaguely remembered this from back in covid times. Something about it being harder to convince people they're being tricked than tricking them...it seems relevant. Honestly, I really thought it was so obvious I'd be pushing at an open door! 😄

He ran into legal trouble with Fragrance Du Bois for claiming there wasn't any oud in a fragrance of theirs he tested, which forced him to read that statement. However, he made a follow up video of sorts talking about oud in general and illustrating how much - or rather, how little - oud can be used in a formula and still "legally" be considered to have oud in it.

His point being that this is such a miniscule amount by volume that he wouldn't be able to detect it. It doesn't really affect the smell of the fragrance. And I think he has a point here.

 

[DudeLebowski]

Well- which one is it?

Did he innocently misspeak about Fragrance du Bois' miniscule amount of oud?

OR

Did he simply claim the oud was synthetic and not an aberrant raw material, in other words saying none of their fragrances contain real oud?

For a niche house like FdB, the first statement is a bit of a stretch. As most of the oud scents I've tried from them were austere, which led me to believe there was quite a bit oud in them. To me, the tiniest bit of Oud (whether synthetic or not) makes a difference. Which is why Papyrus Oud will never smell like Gucci Pour Homme to me.

 

[Quay Limey]

claiming to detect specific aromachemicals seems fanciful at best

I know I’m wandering quite a way OT with this post so I’ll try to make it brief. As someone that uses ACs most days and has done for over seven years now, I find it difficult to smell a fragrance without automatically pulling it apart. When I really focus I can visualise a large amount of what makes up various stages of the perfume's progression.

I’m not a tech head and don’t know how to use the thing but there used to be a page inspector in Firefox that allowed you to view the content in 3D. That’s kind of what happens for me but I visualise the fragrance in slats or square plates of varying states of transparency depending on the material. Sometimes these slats are not really visible and it takes a while to fit a material to the slat. Sometimes materials remain elusive and it takes blending what you suspect is in a fragrance to help get a better idea of what’s going on. Obviously it becomes increasingly difficult when lots of naturals are used.

I would imagine that a lot of folk on the DIY forum can do exactly the same thing, albeit without the 3D visualisation. It's a bit of a curse TBH. As I previously wrote on this forum, once you see behind the curtain there’s no going back.