Define "quality"

lair77

Super Member
Jun 7, 2022
People tend to use the word "quality' a lot (i.e. calling fragrances high quality or low quality) without specifying exactly what they mean.

By quality, do you mean projection and longevity? Do you mean that the base develops over time rather than the fragrance being totally linear and the base being just a weaker version of what the fragrance was like in the first few minutes? Are there other aspects of quality?

(Another aspect is marketing: price, brand, aesthetics, name, company history, etc. can cause some people to deem a fragrance high quality, but it's important to judge only the scent itself and disregard these other factors.)

What do you define as quality?
 

Bavard

Wearing Perfume Right Now
Moderator
Basenotes Plus
Jul 20, 2015
People tend to use the word "quality' a lot (i.e. calling fragrances high quality or low quality) without specifying exactly what they mean.

By quality, do you mean projection and longevity? Do you mean that the base develops over time rather than the fragrance being totally linear and the base being just a weaker version of what the fragrance was like in the first few minutes? Are there other aspects of quality?

(Another aspect is marketing: price, brand, aesthetics, name, company history, etc. can cause some people to deem a fragrance high quality, but it's important to judge only the scent itself and disregard these other factors.)

What do you define as quality?
I think high quality is linked to reliability, so a high quality perfume would smell great, be the right strength, and have a good sprayer.
 

lair77

Super Member
Jun 7, 2022
I think high quality is linked to reliability, so a high quality perfume would smell great, be the right strength, and have a good sprayer.

  • Smell great: Subjective. With any fragrance, you'll get some people who like it and some don't. Maybe that's inevitable and there is no objective definition of quality. But in that case, people could just say they don't care for a fragrance rather than trying to objectively say its low quality.
  • Strength: You could argue that some people like weaker fragrances, and you can just spray more on if you want more strength. Though having to spray more per wear means you get less wears for your money.
  • Good sprayer: If a great perfume had a bad sprayer, would it no longer be great. What if it were decanted into a mediocre sprayer; it would still be the same scent.
But maybe you mean the overall experience (in a gestalt way): A company having a meticulous attention to detail to get many aspects of the product right.
 
Last edited:

metanoia

Super Member
Oct 7, 2021
Tbh what Bavard says makes sense.

What doesn’t make sense is people using the "quality ingredients" formula when they actually haven’t got the foggiest about perfume ingredients in the first place. When pressed, they often veer off into a perfumy version of the natural fallacy ("natural" is better). So summed up, some people basically mean that if something smells pleasant to them, it’s good quality.
 

Bavard

Wearing Perfume Right Now
Moderator
Basenotes Plus
Jul 20, 2015
I agree quality is largely subjective. And it's a matter of context - people even change their minds!!

The reviews section on here is good when there are a bunch of reviews, say 20 or more, for a fragrance and you can get an aggregated view of opinions.
 

Bonnette

Missing Oakmoss
Basenotes Plus
Jul 25, 2015
It's something my limbic system recognizes and says: "I bow down before you." There's no blast of insecticide, nothing out of place (even dissonance is welcomed as part of an overall structural integrity), something akin to character is discerned. Houses wth fine reputations don't necessarily produce excellent perfumes, and the nose alerts on imitation, cheap substitution and falsehood. High quality can come in inexpensive packages, provided there's a mind and heart, dedication to an ideal or concept, behind them.
 

lair77

Super Member
Jun 7, 2022
What doesn’t make sense is people using the "quality ingredients" formula when they actually haven’t got the foggiest about perfume ingredients in the first place.
Yes.

Maybe 1% of people will take the time to learn about how perfumes are made, about the various different aromachemicals and how they're mixed together. (I can't say I'm part of this 1%, because I know very little, but at least I'm aware of my ignorance).

The other 99% learn via marketing from the company, or from youtubers/influencers.

A portion of people will also learn from users on forums like this or facebook groups. But where are those people getting their information from? Probably 99% of them are getting their info from marketing and influencers, so it's sort of an incestuous circle of information that originates from marketing.
 

Lomaniac

Basenotes Dependent
Aug 4, 2014
It's usually associated with the brand and price. In blind testing it is shown that people actually have no idea what to call quality or not. There's no consistency with what they say when they know the identity vs what they say blind. Most noticeable when someone says they don't like something but still "acknowledge" the high quality. It's fragrance, it has one job. If you don't like the smell, then it isn't high quality. As this is a purely subjective assessment, not liking something says everything. The idea that someone else might like it because it is niche or expensive ends up causing a person to invalidate their own feelings.
 

JBHoren

I *am* smiling
Apr 25, 2007
I think high quality is linked to reliability, so a high quality perfume would smell great, be the right strength, and have a good sprayer.
  • Good sprayer: If a great perfume had a bad sprayer, would it no longer be great. What if it were decanted into a mediocre sprayer; it would still be the same scent.
I like to think of this mechanical aspect (itself, a component of reliability) in terms of repeatability: Can I count on it to spray the same, every time? Does the mechanism depress smoothly, or does it sometimes jam or "catch" on something? Don't laugh... few things ruin a fragrance experience like errant application; how many of us know, for a given fragrance, how many sprays to apply? (I bet the answer is "many") — too few sprays, or too many, and it's "game over" (and what's often expensive "juice" is wasted).

For a working definition of Quality, I'd recommend [re-]reading Robert M. Pirsig's classic novel, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values.
 

imm0rtelle

Basenotes Junkie
Apr 2, 2021
People tend to use the word "quality' a lot (i.e. calling fragrances high quality or low quality) without specifying exactly what they mean.
Everyone thinking they are ingredients experts makes me chuckle a bit. People use the word "quality" just to be able to justify why they like what they like, while pretending they're objective about it.
 

Ken_Russell

Basenotes Institution
Jan 21, 2006
While quite tricky and not easy to define, personally rating the quality fragrance mostly if scoring quite high at the same time on a various factors like good performance, smooth blending, long term usability without spoilage, the subjective/mood enhancing effect etc.
As well as regrading the synergy, the interaction, the harmony between these and more beneficial aspects.
 

Maxtesti

Super Member
Feb 18, 2018
For me is how the notes are blended together. Of course, the quality of the notes does make a difference, I think.
For example:

MFK Baccara Rouge 540 = good quality.
Ariana Grande Cloud = cheap knockoff.

They might smell similar but in terms of quality, they're worlds apart.
 

Rodolfo

Basenotes Junkie
Jun 2, 2008
In my opinion, the use of quality ingredients is related to the quality of the perfume. It is of course not decisive, because a fragrance with high quality ingredients can be garbage and another with ingredients of a lower quality can be wonderful. There lies the mastery of the perfumer. But if you have a good piece of leather or good actors you will always have more opportunities to make quality shoes or a good movie.

You don't need to be an expert in notes and materials to discern and get one to the idea that it's quality. One can sense it simply by checking the path that many fragrances have had in the industry: reformulations. If you smell RL Polo, an Antaeus or a Givenchy Gentleman from the 80s and a current one or a Lutens from 2000 and one from 2020 there is, for me, a difference in quality.

I do not associate the word quality with something that I can like personally, many times I smell some fragrance that I do not like and I consider it a quality fragrance.

On the other hand and in relation to many of the current releases, I personally miss a greater attention to the structure of a fragrance. And this does not mean that it has to be extremely complex and ostentatious, it can be minimalist, but the self-indulgence of linearity does not move me too much and often turns into carelessness and tedium. A long time ago I did not know where I read the structure of a fragrance had a certain similarity with the time slots. Thus, the top notes, which are usually sharper and more citric, stimulate and awaken you in the morning with its energizing qualities. At noon, the heart notes, expand the fragrance with different nuances and settle it, while the basenotes, which are usually sweeter, static and denser, tune very well with those hours at night or after work, leisure or rest.
It seems silly but I personally love it when I smell a fragrance and it has a certain development, a worked structure. That for me is also quality. And not a simple nice accord with a 10-minute citrus prelude that lasts in time until the ambroxan runs out of batteries, for example.

What has dragged on in time has been this post, excuse me!
 

LiveJazz

Funky fresh
Basenotes Plus
Mar 16, 2006
It's something my limbic system recognizes and says: "I bow down before you." There's no blast of insecticide, nothing out of place (even dissonance is welcomed as part of an overall structural integrity), something akin to character is discerned. Houses wth fine reputations don't necessarily produce excellent perfumes, and the nose alerts on imitation, cheap substitution and falsehood. High quality can come in inexpensive packages, provided there's a mind and heart, dedication to an ideal or concept, behind them.
I like this. It gets at the elusive thing we always circle around in threads like this, but can't quite pin down. Yes, it's ultimately subjective, but there's a deeper layer that I'm not sure words can fully capture...some kind of sixth sense. Just saying it's subjective doesn't seem sufficient. I've given up trying to define it concisely...it's something you feel in your bones when a scent hits, and the feeling is the thing.

For me, the feeling is something like the satisfaction of see the parts of a complex and finely calibrated machine lock into place and function smoothly, or the way some people carry themselves with effortless grace no matter their age or outfit, or reading a perfect turn of phrase.
 
Last edited:

Rodolfo

Basenotes Junkie
Jun 2, 2008
This reminds me of Ashley's video on reviewers talking about smelling naturals in the fragrance:

Thanks for the video. I have taken a look at her channel and mamma mia, if this is the level, now I understand a little more why Bourdon left the industry more than 10 years ago. I seem to understand that this apprentice says at the beginning that she has created 4 major fragrances? Does anyone know what they are? Just curiosity...

A book that I am reading and I find it very interesting, maybe someone else will too. By way of contrast.
https://b-ok.cc/book/2242501/fe70ae
 

imm0rtelle

Basenotes Junkie
Apr 2, 2021
I seem to understand that this apprentice says at the beginning that she has created 4 major fragrances?
She says she works "for a major fragrance creator" (Givaudan), not that she made 4 major fragrances.

I have taken a look at her channel and mamma mia, if this is the level, now I understand a little more why Bourdon left the industry more than 10 years ago.
😭 I will not tolerate any slander on Ashley! She started off as a regular consumer, then became an SA at Tigerlily, then graduated from ISIPCA as a perfumer, and now works at Givaudan. If we're talking "levels", she's head and shoulders above almost everyone here with raw knowledge alone.

Also, I'm pretty sure Bourdon left not because of other perfumers, but he left because he didn't want to deal with fragrance evaluators. They're the ones who he submits his formulas to and decide whether he will win the brief or not. He's like an actor who feels like it is beneath him to still need to do castings for a role. He believes he should just be offered the roles based on his previous achievements alone. I get an impression of someone set in his ways and saying he knows better than them, and that they should be listening to him on what good perfumery is. Another example are chefs who don't want to play the Michelin star game anymore after earning 3 stars, like Marco Pierre White. All that said, don't forget that Pierre's achievement that he is most proud of is Cool Water.
 

metanoia

Super Member
Oct 7, 2021
Thanks for the video. I have taken a look at her channel and mamma mia, if this is the level, now I understand a little more why Bourdon left the industry more than 10 years ago. I seem to understand that this apprentice says at the beginning that she has created 4 major fragrances? Does anyone know what they are? Just curiosity...

A book that I am reading and I find it very interesting, maybe someone else will too. By way of contrast.
https://b-ok.cc/book/2242501/fe70ae
I’m putting the book on my list, thanks. I still haven’t finished reading this, although it’s great, but less about perfumes and more about science and the sense of smell. In case you’re looking for something to read:
B277B1EF-0555-4957-AA68-42B118E7C7CA.jpeg
 

Rodolfo

Basenotes Junkie
Jun 2, 2008
She says she works "for a major fragrance creator" (Givaudan), not that she made 4 major fragrances.
Oh now I understand! It already seemed strange to me that he had already created 4 perfumes haha.

😭 I will not tolerate any slander on Ashley! She started off as a regular consumer, then became an SA at Tigerlily, then graduated from ISIPCA as a perfumer, and now works at Givaudan. If we're talking "levels", she's head and shoulders above almost everyone here with raw knowledge alone.
Oh I see, excuse me. I didn't know you had such a high regard for Ashley, I'm sorry I was so rude. I remembered you, imm0rtelle, before when I was watching her video of his top 10 Tom Ford perfumes :LOL:

Also, I'm pretty sure Bourdon left not because of other perfumers, but he left because he didn't want to deal with fragrance evaluators. They're the ones who he submits his formulas to and decide whether he will win the brief or not. He's like an actor who feels like it is beneath him to still need to do castings for a role. He believes he should just be offered the roles based on his previous achievements alone. I get an impression of someone set in his ways and saying he knows better than them, and that they should be listening to him on what good perfumery is. Another example are chefs who don't want to play the Michelin star game anymore after earning 3 stars, like Marco Pierre White. All that said, don't forget that Pierre's achievement that he is most proud of is Cool Water.

I agree that Bourdon must have felt depressed not primarily by perfumers but by fragrance evaluators or others (however, I only know Ashley from the videos on Youtube in which she is precisely dedicated to fragrance reviews; I don't know her talents as a perfumer).
But I think your conclusions are quite interpretive and a bit adventurous. I mean, I could turn the tables and also say that Bourdon in his last stage met intransigent and inflexible people with very poor technical notions and no knowledge of the history of perfume, people who perhaps came from another sector and that they considered Bourdon an unwieldy dinosaur compared to a young beginner from Givaudan, for example. In reality, it is most likely a mix of both. A pity that we cannot know more Bourdon anecdotes because I am sure they would be juicy and illustrative.

I’m putting the book on my list, thanks. I still haven’t finished reading this, although it’s great, but less about perfumes and more about science and the sense of smell. In case you’re looking for something to read:
View attachment 274019
Thank you very much for the suggestion!
 

ultravisitor

Basenotes Dependent
Nov 4, 2014
Before we get to that, let's define 'define'.

I always associate quality mostly with the ingredients that are used.

I’d tend to use the word “quality” in regards to perfume as meaning a scent that has high end ingredients, a top notch blend ans some real thought behind it.
But how do you know what the ingredients are? Do you go by the notes? Notes are not ingredients. And quite often a particular note can be achieved or evoked by any of a number of different ingredients, so exactly how do you know which ingredient was used?
 

lfc1892

Basenotes Junkie
Dec 12, 2021
But how do you know what the ingredients are? Do you go by the notes? Notes are not ingredients. And quite often a particular note can be achieved or evoked by any of a number of different ingredients, so exactly how do you know which ingredient was used?
Ingredients as in a bottle full of ambroxan with a hint of orange blossom vs a Prin concoction, for example, which is packed with naturals along with some synthetics. Although some of his stuff is natural only. That’s high quality to me.
That’s not to say decent perfumes can’t be mainly synthetic, not at all.
I can smell abroxan a mile off, and I’m not a fan. Same with ISO E Super duper. Its relatively easy to pump something out that’s smells nice using either of those. I don’t view them as quality ingredients. Orris, Oud etc etc, for me, are quality ingredients. Purely subjective or course.
 

ScentSensei

Basenotes Plus
Basenotes Plus
Aug 21, 2020
As I tend to enjoy using musical analogies for scent topics, I'll jump into this topic with that very thing, using speakers as reference for the term quality relating to sound. When listening to music through speakers, terms like articulation, accuracy, and soundstage come to mind. A speaker that is able to articulate the clarity of notes with the timbre or color of the instrument or source would be considered a higher quality speaker. Also the ability to recreate the 'soundstage' or placement and size of the music is paramount to it's level of perceived quality. With eyes closed, a speaker that sounds like it fills the ground to the heavens with gigantic depth versus one that sounds like it's coming from a 3" x 6" dashboard speaker would be better quality. So with fragrance, the note definition and clarity, and the fullness and richness of the overall composition tends to be the barometer of quality.
 

PStoller

I’m not old, I’m vintage.
Basenotes Plus
Aug 1, 2019
I like a number of the answers here. Of course, “quality” can simply be “what I like,” but there’s a limit to that trap.

@ScentSensei talks about quality sound reproduction, something with which I have some familiarity. And it’s a pretty good analogy up to a point. The thing is, consumer systems (even high-end ones) are designed to be more pleasing than accurate. Accuracy can please, but only in a limited way. (This goes for live musical performance, as well: accuracy alone is impressive, but not inherently moving.) Some of the other factors SS mentions—articulation, soundstaging, etc.—might be best achieved through sacrificing a bit of accuracy in other areas, such as instrumental timbre. And most people won’t know, because they don’t spend much time up close and personal with unamplified musical instruments and voices.

I enjoy some music that’s not very well recorded, some not even technically well performed. I’m responding to a quality it has, but that’s not what we usually mean by “quality.” Whereas some impeccably recorded and performed music doesn’t do much for me. I may recognize it as “quality” without much caring for it.

This applies equally to food: I have eaten in a Michelin star restaurant that was clearly “quality,” but not so satisfying as a bag of potato chips and a Coke. So, quality ≠ what I like.

All the same applies in perfumery. I know (to some extent) the difference between what’s well made and what’s to my taste. Quality isn’t necessarily “better” ingredients, though they help. I assess it as what the perfumer has done with what they had—not what they started with.

It’s still as subjective as hell, but that’s my viewpoint.
 

imm0rtelle

Basenotes Junkie
Apr 2, 2021
This applies equally to food: I have eaten in a Michelin star restaurant that was clearly “quality,” but not so satisfying as a bag of potato chips and a Coke. So, quality ≠ what I like.
For me, I can separate foods from fancy places I like and junk food that I also like. I seem to draw a distinction based on whether I would recommend it to a friend to try. It is much harder for me to recommend junk food as something of a "must try". If I was on death row, I wouldn't want to have junk food as my final meal. So it seems like convenience plays a serious factor in the perceived pleasure I get from junk food, and I'm not judging it purely on its taste alone. If I were served the junk food in a fancy place, I would be very disappointed. It really feels like a "you get what you pay for" type of mentality.

Accuracy can please, but only in a limited way. (This goes for live musical performance, as well: accuracy alone is impressive, but not inherently moving.) Some of the other factors SS mentions—articulation, soundstaging, etc.—might be best achieved through sacrificing a bit of accuracy in other areas, such as instrumental timbre. And most people won’t know, because they don’t spend much time up close and personal with unamplified musical instruments and voices.
I really like this point. I feel like the people who prize accuracy above all else is similar to those who think photorealistic fragrances are the pinnacle of perfumery. I think there is something more moving when reality is refined, rather than duplicated.

1660274329270.png
 

cheapimitation

Basenotes Dependent
May 15, 2015
Another music analogy, my first thought was "composition".

Attempts to define quality by raw materials fall apart for me because a lot of bad perfumes get made with very expensive materials, and a lot of very fine quality perfumes might be made with nary a rare essence in the bottle. Hermessence comes to mind in this regard, they all smell of great quality and match Hermes' luxury image, but I have a sneaking suspicion hardly any of them contain particularly expensive natural ingredients. But they are expertly composed with a high level of skill and creativity. That to me conveys a sense of quality.

As far as I understand, there are also varying qualities of synthetic ingredients and high quality ones can be quite expensive. So quality definitely doesn't have to do with natural vs. synthetic but can have some relation to the cost of an ingredient.

I think we can all smell when something is cheap or low quality. It is hard to define but adjectives like harsh, scratchy, clunky, astringent, fake, come to mind. But unless we dabble in making perfumes ourselves, I think very few of us really have the knowledge of materials to tell what is natural/synthetic or expensive/cheap in a perfume to truly say with accuracy which fragrance are using "quality" ingredients, so again it comes down to composition -- does the perfume combine those ingredients in a successful and artistic way.

Ultimately most of us are shooting in the dark with a "I know it when I see it" sort of intuition about quality (myself included) because it involves many factors coming together in just the right way (ingredients, composition, manufacture, creativity, concept, uniqueness etc). And I think that's fine, sometimes the only real way to convey what is quality is to experience it. I can tell you the fine leather and high level of design and craftsmanship that goes into that $10,000 sofa, but until you sit in it you won't really know what true quality is. (btw I definitely do not own a $10,000 sofa 😆)

All I can say for sure is that for me quality has nothing to do with longevity and projection.
 

PStoller

I’m not old, I’m vintage.
Basenotes Plus
Aug 1, 2019
For me, I can separate foods from fancy places I like and junk food that I also like. I seem to draw a distinction based on whether I would recommend it to a friend to try. It is much harder for me to recommend junk food as something of a "must try". If I was on death row, I wouldn't want to have junk food as my final meal. So it seems like convenience plays a serious factor in the perceived pleasure I get from junk food, and I'm not judging it purely on its taste alone. If I were served the junk food in a fancy place, I would be very disappointed. It really feels like a "you get what you pay for" type of mentality.

I do agree with this, but I was trying to get at something else, which is that the aesthetic aims and requirements of “junk food” are fundamentally different from those of “fine food” in ways beyond accessibility (convenience, cost, and so on).

I’ve had transcendent fine dining experiences. But then, that’s the aim, and “experience” is the right term, as it’s about more than food. So, the idea of “quality” associated with that, as opposed to potato chips or even a cheeseburger, is defined relative to a different baseline. And yet, any of these can lead to soaring joy or crashing disappointment.

I must say, I have no qualms about recommending “must-try” pedestrian foodstuffs. As for my final meal, it might be a chef’s tasting menu at Le Bernardin. Then again, few things beat a top-notch mac & cheese.

I think it’s not as clear cut with perfumery because we have so many fuzzy notions of what it means to be niche or designer, or any number of other subsets. It’s reasonable that we have different expectations of a $20/100ml drugstore EDT and a $400/15ml niche extrait. But there’s an enormous amount of wiggle room in between, not least because almost everything is sold with the pretense to a unique and profound olfactory experience.

More to my original, hastily dashed off point, though, is that if I like leathers and I don’t like aquatics, I would probably prefer even a mediocre leather to a best-in-class aquatic. What I’m still learning to do is appreciate the “quality”—the myriad aspects of craft and artistry, of materials individual, selected, and balanced—of compositions not to my taste. And still, I might rather wear a given vintage drugstore cheapie than a particular rare and precious attar. I aspire to know if the emperor is indeed wearing clothes, but if he is, that doesn’t mean I want to dress like him.

Perhaps the biggest problem with quality is that it’s not clearly, consistently quantifiable. Yes, with sufficient experience and/or training (which I don’t claim to have), one can identify “good” materials, blending techniques, and so forth. But that strata of quality we call greatness isn’t so easily measured, even if more easily ascertained because it’s blatantly obvious in the smelling.

That being us back to analogies with other arts. Identifying technique tells you something, sometimes even a great deal, but never everything.
 

lair77

Super Member
Jun 7, 2022
As I tend to enjoy using musical analogies for scent topics, I'll jump into this topic with that very thing, using speakers as reference for the term quality relating to sound. When listening to music through speakers, terms like articulation, accuracy, and soundstage come to mind. A speaker that is able to articulate the clarity of notes with the timbre or color of the instrument or source would be considered a higher quality speaker.
The music analogy applies to the contrary as well.

Part of sound is subjective. You may like some frequencies more than others, just as you may like some notes more than others. And in many cases, what speakers people prefer is partly due to how they're EQ'd rather than because X speaker is objectively better than Y speaker.

There are many people in audio who are proud audiophiles who will gladly assert that the more expensive product sounds way better and must be high quality because the company behind it is European, has been in business for a long-time and they use all the best quality parts. But then when it comes to the blind-test, they get it totally wrong.
 

PStoller

I’m not old, I’m vintage.
Basenotes Plus
Aug 1, 2019
The above is spot on. So much of audiophile perception is psychological, or due to simple things like a slight level mismatches that listeners will swear are profound differences in clarity.

More money can buy you better quality. But that’s no guarantee that it will.
 

Rodolfo

Basenotes Junkie
Jun 2, 2008
I am a little perplexed by the little importance that some give to the value of the quality of the raw materials when making a perfume. It is true that there can be fragrances with the most exclusive and valuable essential oils and molecules in the world that are absolute crap and other made with much more humble ingredients that are an exceptional achievement, but what does that prove? The opposite also happens, and I don't think anyone would dare to say that the raw materials that make up a perfume are the only factor that defines its quality.

I am not an expert in audio systems, and I also understand that when looking for quality products, whether they are shoes or a sofa, there is always a subjective component inherent in each subject (obviously there is no best shoes or sofas brand, but several good brands, for example). But I also personally intuit that there must be a completely objective percentage in such decisions. I look at famous guitarists and they play Fender, Gibson guitars etc. Great oil painters choose top grade oil paints from brands like Old Holland, Blockx, Williamsburg or others, they don't paint with the student grade Tim Robbie brand. Great violinists go wild with excitement when they get the chance to play a Stradivarius. If I'm a movie producer and had the chance I'd go against Tarantino, Scorsese or Kubrick before Ed Wood or Tom Wiseau lol. The perfumers themselves, if they were given carte blanche, I am sure that each one would choose very specific ingredients/suppliers, which obviously would not be the same for everyone, but what I am sure of is that they would not be the essential oils that I could buy in my city corner store for $5 a bottle. Why? I don't think it's because of pure snobbery, but because of a search for quality.

In my opinion, the quality of a perfume must come from two main factors: the materials and the perfumer. If you put together some good materials and a good perfumer, there has to be a better chance of creating something good than with amateur materials and an amateur perfumer. Subjective preferences are another thing (eg. I don't like JC Ellena's style and Bourdon enthuses me or vice versa / I like linear and very refined fragrances or baroque and changing essences / I hate the guerlinade base or the woody base of Azzaro perfumes and I love the one from Rogue / etc) that I modestly believe could not avoid admitting the quality of a perfume even if we don't like it. I can also like perfumes that may not be of exceptional quality (and even I feel that way) but that I like for various reasons: because they smell good, because they are versatile, because they are subtle and not very ostentatious...
 
Perfumania - America's Leading Perfumery Chain!

Latest posts

Latest News

. .
Top