Is this the oldest Creed bottle you've ever seen ?

[Topsail]

I think it is a reasonable assumption that these are the earliest "creed" labelled perfumes/colognes that were made and mark the beginning of creed as a perfume house as opposed to its earlier existence as a taylor (tayloring is what Creed received royal warrants for, not perfume which makes it somewhat misleading to print them on the side of perfume boxes...)

at the same time, there's no evidence that they DIDN'T make fragrances either.

it is quite possible that they made fragrances all along, but just started selling them to the public around 1970.

here's the thing i can't get over with this Creed conspiracy stuff: if you believe that they were just tailors up until 1970, then you are saying that ALL the copy on their website... all the stories and claims that are still next to every fragrance on www.creedboutique.com... you are claiming that they are 100% fiction?

that would take balls. not just balls, but GIANT HUGE CAJONES. I mean, you are saying that Olivier and the heads of business operations sat down one day around a big oak table and had a conversation like this:


"okay, moving onto that fragrance that smells like root beer. seriously, Olivier??"

"it's a LEATHER, goddamnit. a sweet one!"

"okay, okay. well let's start brainstorming... Okay I got it. How about we say that we made it for King George back in.... i don't know... 1781? we'll say that he really liked the gloves that Grandpa Creed made for him, and wanted a fragrance to match."

"are you serious?"

"no no, this will work. we'll throw in a minuscule detail that people would never imagine that we just made up here.... like... okay, let's say that he liked to rest his chin on his hand while wearing the gloves just to be able to smell the leather."

"fine. what do we call it?"

"why, Royal English Leather, of course!"


maybe i'm a bit naive, or too trusting. but there's a difference between embellishing and what some people are accusing Creed of, which is COMPLETELY FABRICATING THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THEIR COMPANY. I mean, even if they were crazy enough to conjure up extraordinary details like that, they would also have to be incomprehensibly STUPID, knowing that if the truth got out, that their whole company would go to shit.


BTW - i'm not talking about the celebrity-connections. i could care less about that. that's just a sales tactic from the 90's that they have gotten away from. i'm sure all of that is 50/50 true/false.

But, making up story after detailed story about their history, is just a big pill to swallow.

all that said, REL smells awesome and even if it were all BS, i would still wear it and love it. i don't buy these frags for the history blurb, i buy them because they are superior works of perfumery. I am far less concerned about the "truth" of this house than others (some of whom are absolutely obsessed by it, to remain nameless). but i stand by my assertion that what you are accusing them of is borderline psychotic.

 

[ChuckW]

Those old bottles are great fun to look at! The older I get, the more I enjoy vintage stuff. Do I have to own it? Nope, but it's still fun to gawk at.

 

[morrison74]

..but i stand by my assertion that what you are accusing them of is borderline psychotic.

Maybe that can be a new fragrance for their 2013 lineup....Royal Borderline Psychotic

 

[Kevin Guyer]

If you are going to change your mind about a Creed fragrance based on whether its history is fake, exaggerated or true, then you really never liked the fragrance to start with.
I honestly like their creation: Jasmin Imperatrice Eugenie, not because it was allegedly created for Napoleon III's wife, but for its audacious and charming bombast of jasmin, rose, sandalwood and vanilla.
For me, the historical truth, or lack of it, does not diminish the experience of liking a fragrance. But I completely understand and respect people who demand historical accuracy and expect a level of transparency in the companies they choose to do business with.
Olivier Creed invented the present Creed fragrance brand as an aspirational, luxury product. He had a business plan, and it works for people who shop at high end stores like Neiman Marcus, Saks, etc. The US seems to be their biggest market, with the downturn in aspirational spending, it will be interesting to see how the brand fares.
Sorry if I went a bit off topic.

 

[Topsail]

Maybe that can be a new fragrance for their 2013 lineup....Royal Borderline Psychotic

LOL.... i hear it will have their signature ambergris base, mixed with "guano" (batshit).

 

[Topsail]

If you are going to change your mind about a Creed fragrance based on whether its history is fake, exaggerated or true, then you really never liked the fragrance to start with..

TRUTH.

/thread

 

[hardlynoticeable]

Topsail, you seem really worked up by something, I dunno. Chill up, man, life is short ( ;

This is such a friendly forum, try to fit in lol.

 

[Topsail]

Topsail, you seem really worked up by something, I dunno. Chill up, man, life is short ( ;

This is such a friendly forum, try to fit in lol.

Enough with the act, dude. Your very first post was "hi, i'm new here" and then you went right into bashing Windsor(!?!?) Haha... you couldn't even control yourself on your first post! You should have faked being sane first, then slowly start back into your obsession with Creed.

Then you went straight into a thread about Creed's history (here) and are starting up again, using different language/writing style to disguise the fact that you are indeed Addict, trying to get around your recent ban.

IP address check anyone?

 

[MikeNY]

Enough with the act, dude. Your very first post was "hi, i'm new here" and then you went right into bashing Windsor(!?!?) Haha... you couldn't even control yourself on your first post! You should have faked being sane first, then slowly start back into your obsession with Creed.

Then you went straight into a thread about Creed's history (here) and are starting up again, using different language/writing style to disguise the fact that you are indeed Addict, trying to get around your recent ban.

IP address check anyone?

Topsail is right on target. My thoughts 100% as soon as I read hardlynoticeable's first post.

 

[MikeNY]

edit - double post

 

[Jazznpool]

One of the things I like about the Creed house is that they are not beholden to a board of directors. They are not beholden to the USA or any other Creed distributor either. Since Olivier is still completely in charge but slowly turning over the reins to Erwin, they have complete artisitic liberty in creating fragrances the way they want to and when they want to. This freedom is bolstered by the fact that Creed is already very successful and not hard up for the next dollar. I appreciate that Creed has a legacy of producing high quality fragrances with the best of ingredients and that theme (and not ONLY profit) is central to their mission.

Martin

 

[MOONB]

^^^ while the posting history does look mighty suspicious, I'd be reticent to brand hardlynoticeable as Addict in disguise until I see the behavior revert directly into Addict's. as it stands right now, hardlynoticeable is getting the benefit of the doubt from me as a new member poking around the BN forums with no ill intentions. keep in mind that if he is Addict, then he'll either have to revert (perhaps after becoming a basenotes plus member?) or simply remain the somewhat jovial "new" character that he is - neither course of action would serve Addict well.

now, about the Creed history - Kevin made an excellent point. Look, if you're the kind of person who expects total transparency from the companies you do business with, don't even approach Creed. The company is anything but transparent. They won't even disclose who their perfumers are - you expect them to get into it over their history? Little to no chance. But focus on the fragrance, and the history would be secondary if you find yourself enjoying what you smell. I for one could care less how old the manufacturer of Original Vetiver is. Whether it's a 30 year upstart or a wizened 300 yr-old firm, the stuff they pour into those green faded glass bottles still smells like heaven.

One of the things I like about the Creed house is that they are not beholden to a board of directors. They are not beholden to the USA or any other Creed distributor either. Since Olivier is still completely in charge but slowly turning over the reins to Erwin, they have complete artisitic liberty in creating fragrances the way they want to and when they want to. This freedom is bolstered by the fact that Creed is already very successful and not hard up for the next dollar. I appreciate that Creed has a legacy of producing high quality fragrances with the best of ingredients and that theme (and not ONLY profit) is central to their mission.

Martin

YES! The primary reason Creed's business model appeals to me. They're a rare breed of independent and family-owned operation.

 

[Bigsly]

I've never cared about such claims in any context, so I just sampled some Creed frags over the last few years and was only concerned about the actual scent. However, if you make a claim about something your company did a couple hundred years ago, some people are going to ask how you came to that conclusion, unless there are public records, old newspapers, etc., that can verify it. Thus, while I agree that making up all these claims appears unlikely, one has to wonder why they can't produce some evidence for any claim that pertains to a frag circa 1950 or earlier.

 

[MOONB]

I would be surprised if Creed could provide such evidence. Privately-commissioned fragrances don't offer much in the way of traces, particularly where European gentry are concerned. Are you talking about sales receipts?

 

[jrd4t]

Topsail et al, let's give the Addict thing a rest. Bring concerns to mods rather than airing publicly. Please keep the rest of this thread on topic.

 

[Bigsly]

"Are you talking about sales receipts?"

That's just one possibility. There are so many. How about any living human being who was involved in some way in making, packaging, shipping, etc. any Creed frag from around 1960 or earlier? Or did Oliver do ever last thing himself? How old is this guy? How about an old bottle? Were they all discarded and none ever showed up anywhere, such as in a country auction? Does this company file taxes? Think about the voluminous records for all kinds of things that go back hundreds of years. There's even quite a bit from ancient Egypt !

 

[MOONB]

at the same time, there's no evidence that they DIDN'T make fragrances either.

it is quite possible that they made fragrances all along, but just started selling them to the public around 1970.

here's the thing i can't get over with this Creed conspiracy stuff: if you believe that they were just tailors up until 1970, then you are saying that ALL the copy on their website... all the stories and claims that are still next to every fragrance on www.creedboutique.com... you are claiming that they are 100% fiction?

that would take balls. not just balls, but GIANT HUGE CAJONES. I mean, you are saying that Olivier and the heads of business operations sat down one day around a big oak table and had a conversation like this:


"okay, moving onto that fragrance that smells like root beer. seriously, Olivier??"

"it's a LEATHER, goddamnit. a sweet one!"

"okay, okay. well let's start brainstorming... Okay I got it. How about we say that we made it for King George back in.... i don't know... 1781? we'll say that he really liked the gloves that Grandpa Creed made for him, and wanted a fragrance to match."

"are you serious?"

"no no, this will work. we'll throw in a minuscule detail that people would never imagine that we just made up here.... like... okay, let's say that he liked to rest his chin on his hand while wearing the gloves just to be able to smell the leather."

"fine. what do we call it?"

"why, Royal English Leather, of course!"


maybe i'm a bit naive, or too trusting. but there's a difference between embellishing and what some people are accusing Creed of, which is COMPLETELY FABRICATING THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THEIR COMPANY. I mean, even if they were crazy enough to conjure up extraordinary details like that, they would also have to be incomprehensibly STUPID, knowing that if the truth got out, that their whole company would go to shit.


BTW - i'm not talking about the celebrity-connections. i could care less about that. that's just a sales tactic from the 90's that they have gotten away from. i'm sure all of that is 50/50 true/false.

But, making up story after detailed story about their history, is just a big pill to swallow.

all that said, REL smells awesome and even if it were all BS, i would still wear it and love it. i don't buy these frags for the history blurb, i buy them because they are superior works of perfumery. I am far less concerned about the "truth" of this house than others (some of whom are absolutely obsessed by it, to remain nameless). but i stand by my assertion that what you are accusing them of is borderline psychotic.

I have to respond to this - it's a good argument that deserves some extra attention as far I'm concerned.

The issue with Creed bottles is a physical matter only. We're talking about the Creed personnel unveiling vintage, 100 year-old + glass bottles, all dusty and grey, and full of blackened perfume. The sort of stuff we see from Chanel and Guerlain. That would be nice. It's easy to sit around and say that it's something Creed should be able to do - it's quite another thing when you actually think about it, take your own hubris out of the equation, and consider just what you're asking for.

In requiring Creed to produce vintage bottles, you're asking a tailoring and perfumery firm to produce privately-commissioned bottles of perfume - dating back to the 1760s mind you - that were created by Creed employees from generations many times removed. We're going back at least seven generations here, possibly more. How many people have keepsakes from their great, great, great, great, great-grandparents? Even in matters of business, after multiple world wars, family tragedy and in-fighting, the likelihood that the latest generation will have material evidence, unscathed by the years, of privately-commissioned (and therefore extremely limited) fragrances is pretty clearly slim to none. What would survive the years? The formulas for making these fragrances. And if you think the company would turn those over, you're either born yesterday, or you have quite a bit of personal hubris. Let's be realistic here. So the issue at stake in this argument is whether or not the house of Creed would turn over it's own formulas to quell customer doubts about its historical legitimacy. Kind of a catch-22. I could be wrong, but I really don't think anyone on basenotes expects Creed to do that. But it does seem there are members who think bottles from the 1700s, 1800s, and early 1900s would have survived intact for presentation today. That fails to take into account that these were not, unlike Guerlains or Chanels, mass-produced fragrances. Once you factor in the problem of multiple generations losing physical evidence (either through direct sales, or intentionally), the requirement to produce vintage bottles doesn't seem all that realistic.

As Topsail regards their print copy from the creed boutique website - he makes a good point. One could question the wisdom of linking one's scents to famous royalty from hundreds of years past. But to say that they're fabricating their history word for word, and just doing it to boost sales - I can tell you that neither England nor France would allow a company like that to survive for long in their midst. These countries are bound to recognize the royal warrants that the company has preserved, as being documentation of the authenticity of the house, and I can promise you that in England, the royal clientele would not only commission Creed fragrances privately (comprising a fraction of the hundreds of scents that Creed produces privately and are never seen by the general public), but would do so with tastes geared toward the traditions of their forebears. Today's Prince William might have a Creed that is similar to that worn by his father, grandfather, and great-grandfather. But the notion that the copy is fake is unprovable, and unlikely. There would be too much to loose, not much to gain. Multi-million dollar businesses like Creed don't take those kinds of risks.

"Are you talking about sales receipts?"

That's just one possibility. There are so many. How about any living human being who was involved in some way in making, packaging, shipping, etc. any Creed frag from around 1960 or earlier? Or did Oliver do ever last thing himself? How old is this guy? How about an old bottle? Were they all discarded and none ever showed up anywhere, such as in a country auction? Does this company file taxes? Think about the voluminous records for all kinds of things that go back hundreds of years. There's even quite a bit from ancient Egypt !

Sorry bigsly, didn't mean to leave you out there. Just saw your post.

I'm trying to take myself out of the mindset that one approaches mega companies like YSL, Guerlain, and Chanel with. Unlike those companies, Creed is vulnerable. While its competitors enjoy massive stock portfolios and public sector legal muscle, Creed is continuously perched as the small bird in a nest of eagles. Their biggest fear is comprised of two words: corporate buyout.

It strikes me that the opacity of Creed is in large part due to self-protective interests. Unlike Chanel, Creed doesn't have much extra cash to spend on lawyers. Their (upwardly-estimated) annual income of $70 million goes heavily into paying for raw materials, large quantities of aromachemicals, packaging costs, manufacturing costs, and salary expenses. In the scheme of things, even with this kind of profit, they're not playing with big chips. Finances are tight. So in keeping with the usual prerogative of niche luxury brands, Olivier and Erwin have probably decided that less is more. The less they open up about their state of affairs, which would cover everything from what they're putting in the top notes of Silver Mountain Water these days, to details of their long history, to allowing employees and/or former employees to pipe up about what they know, the better off they are. With their history marking headlines as a positive thing, they've taken a sort of political stance: that of commercial offense. Let the controversy serve them, and not the other way around. But if Creed starts getting into question-answering, personnel leaks, tax filings, royal receipts, then it's playing defense, which opens it up to lawsuits, bad publicity, and unwanted distractions from the product itself. Kind of a pandora's box effect, with their current course of action, i.e. opacity over transparency, being the lesser of two evils.

 

[mtgprox05]

Just saying, this is an incredibly entertaining thread, and surprisingly civil. Nice job boys! And I'm in the camp that could care LESS about their claims. Give me the juice and you keep the marketing blurb, thank you very much!

 

[Bigsly]

Let's move into the "real world" here for a moment. The detractors will likely never be satisfied, whereas the supports will always make up some excuse. And most people know nothing about any of this. That leaves people like me, who know but don't really care that much. If Creed can't produce any evidence whatsoever, I can only conclude that the historical claims are all fake or they are hiding something that would be very damaging to their image. Remember, my point is that there appears to be no evidence of fragrance making before the 1960s, if that early. No one is questioning, to my knowledge, their tailoring pre-1960.

The other problem is that if they did make a few frags for "special" people now and then, why wouldn't they try to increase sales. The idea that you make a frag for perhaps a few people, and then don't make it again until the 1980s or later is laughable. And why don't they simply address these points? Even if they lost all their evidence in a fire in 1959, they could tell us that, but they choose to remain silent, which to me speaks volumes !

 

[MOONB]

Let's move into the "real world" here for a moment. The detractors will likely never be satisfied, whereas the supports will always make up some excuse. And most people know nothing about any of this. That leaves people like me, who know but don't really care that much. If Creed can't produce any evidence whatsoever, I can only conclude that the historical claims are all fake or they are hiding something that would be very damaging to their image. Remember, my point is that there appears to be no evidence of fragrance making before the 1960s, if that early. No one is questioning, to my knowledge, their tailoring pre-1960.

The other problem is that if they did make a few frags for "special" people now and then, why wouldn't they try to increase sales. The idea that you make a frag for perhaps a few people, and then don't make it again until the 1980s or later is laughable. And why don't they simply address these points? Even if they lost all their evidence in a fire in 1959, they could tell us that, but they choose to remain silent, which to me speaks volumes !

Laughable?

The company went public with their perfumery post 1973. Prior to that, all fragrances were private commissions. This means that the same rules that applied to the manufacturing process of the 1760s hold sway all the way up until the 1960s. The clients who received the privately commissioned scents did so under the auspices of privacy. They have the fragrances, and Creed has the formulas. They're not holding out on multiple bottles of some scent they produced for William Holden or Catherine Deneuve. They sold them. To those people. With the explicit understanding between themselves and their clients that these scents would never be released to the public as long as they're alive.

Once the celebrities who commissioned these scents have passed on, and significant time has elapsed, the scents are fair game for the public. Hence their release decades later. As far as I can tell, from the answers that Luis and other reps have given, and the warrants posted on their site, Creed has simply addressed these points.

Regarding increasing profits - up until they abandoned the tailoring end of things, that was their main source of profit - not perfumery. The company was doing fine making clothing, up until times changed and they changed their product line

See my amended posting earlier in this thread above for more.

 

[Topsail]

The company went public with their perfumery post 1973. Prior to that, all fragrances were private commissions. This means that the same rules that applied to the manufacturing process of the 1760s hold sway all the way up until the 1960s. The clients who received the privately commissioned scents did so under the auspices of privacy. They have the fragrances, and Creed has the formulas. They're not holding out on multiple bottles of some scent they produced for William Holden or Catherine Deneuve. They sold them. To those people. With the explicit understanding between themselves and their clients that these scents would never be released to the public as long as they're alive.

excellent posts/thoughts all around, MOONB.

this part in particular i agree with. the frags they made were exclusive creations for rich clientele, and were probably given to such in bottles without even a label on it. hence, there are no "Creed bottles" with fancy labels and boxes to unearth. then, around 1970, they made the decision to "go public", and started making bottles... like the one i just bought. Olivier is clearly the first Creed man to bring a capitalist mindset to the family business.

again, to accuse them of deliberately sitting down and making up all these fairy tales out of thin air in a huge gamble to deceive the entire fragrance business community is such a paranoid conspiracy theory. i'm sure the same people are the ones who doubt the Apollo moon landing. as pointed out, the historians/governments/social scientists of England and France would have called them out on it LOOOOONG ago.

all of these discussions here on Basenotes, led by people like Addict and others who think that they alone are leading the charge to expose the truth about Creed, are in my opinion a case-study on the delusion of people who spend too much time on the internet, including that lengthy yet factually vacuous blog post by the_good_life that is for some reason considered gospel around here.

i also agree that this discussion about Creed's history is by far the most civil and informative one yet, due primarily to the absence of a specific few people. here's to hoping this trend continues...

 

[Bigsly]

Topsail: I think you need to take some courses in how to examine evidence in way that is consistent with historical scholarship before you make such claims, but then again, as I said, the supporters, like the detractors, will likely not let anything change their minds, which is why such discussions are largely futile. If an eminent historian was to post here and tell us what he or she would consider to be reasonable evidence, would that sway anyone who is already a supporter or detractor?

The problem with Creed is that they have made some very bold claims yet provided no evidence for it. They are the ones who are putting forth a "paranoid conspiracy theory," if anyone is, because they are making the claim. The detractors are just asking for a shred of actual historical evidence. If you think this is inappropriate, why don't you contact some historians at major US universities and ask them what their criteria would be for assessing such claims?

 

[MOONB]

Topsail: I think you need to take some courses in how to examine evidence in way that is consistent with historical scholarship before you make such claims, but then again, as I said, the supporters, like the detractors, will likely not let anything change their minds, which is why such discussions are largely futile. If an eminent historian was to post here and tell us what he or she would consider to be reasonable evidence, would that sway anyone who is already a supporter or detractor?

The problem with Creed is that they have made some very bold claims yet provided no evidence for it. They are the ones who are putting forth a "paranoid conspiracy theory," if anyone is, because they are making the claim. The detractors are just asking for a shred of actual historical evidence. If you think this is inappropriate, why don't you contact some historians at major US universities and ask them what their criteria would be for assessing such claims?

I think the evidence is in the fragrances themselves.

If Olivier Creed had never seriously dealt with perfumery before, and in the late 1960s/early '70s decided to switch the family trade from tailoring to perfumery, where did he get the noses from? Where did the formulas come from? Why has no other house prior to Creed come out with something quite like Orange Spice, or Green Irish Tweed? This stuff doesn't come out of thin air. The criteria for assessing such claims is in the criteria itself - the perfumes.

Examining evidence in ways that are consistent with historical scholarship . . . yikes. I just went through three posts pointing out the obvious here in regards to privately commissioned fragrances. When I attended art history courses at Rutgers, one of the mainstay credos there was "genius comes in stating the obvious." You guys are looking for some sort of smoking gun. I hate to say it, but the proof here is, to quote another phrase, "in the pudding." Or to use the complete saying, "the proof of the pudding is in the eating", or in this case, the sniffing.

 

[silentrich]

Ahhh the Creed fairy tales. Making fragrances for kings and princes and collecting the rare and valuable ingredients in a basket from the farthest reaches of the earth. Ahead of their time and all knowing in the process of producing fine fragrances. Yet in the year 2011 they still can't produce a fragrance that lasts more than 3 hours.They make nice bedtime stories.

 

[Bigsly]

"If Olivier Creed had never seriously dealt with perfumery before, and in the late 1960s/early '70s decided to switch the family trade from tailoring to perfumery, where did he get the noses from?"

Apparently, LT and others think from the same guy who did Cool Water. Somehow, the Creed supporters think that absence of evidence is the strongest evidence there can be! Time for someone to come along and create a Creed cult, because it sure would have the most devout followers of any cult ever created !

 

[mtgprox05]

Ahhh the Creed fairy tales. Making fragrances for kings and princes and collecting the rare and valuable ingredients in a basket from the farthest reaches of the earth. They make nice bedtime stories.

You clearly have not taken the time to read this thread. There have been an incredible wealth of very well thought out arguments from both sides. None of which, resulted to the cliche Basenotes response of "Creed fairy tales".

 

[MOONB]

"If Olivier Creed had never seriously dealt with perfumery before, and in the late 1960s/early '70s decided to switch the family trade from tailoring to perfumery, where did he get the noses from?"

Apparently, LT and others think from the same guy who did Cool Water. Somehow, the Creed supporters think that absence of evidence is the strongest evidence there can be! Time for someone to come along and create a Creed cult, because it sure would have the most devout followers of any cult ever created !

So Pierre Bourdon somehow, despite being wet behind the ears as a perfumer in 1973, instantly churned out selection verte, zeste mandarine pamplemousse, orange spice, and royal english leather. this seems more believable to you?

I think it irks Creed detractor that there are Creed supporters, and vice versa. What I can't understand is how people can make the case so strongly against Creed when there is more evidence that the house has history behind it than not. It seems the detractors can't understand how there can be support without hard "evidence", whatever this is supposed to be. stalemate.

 

[silentrich]

You clearly have not taken the time to read this thread. There have been an incredible wealth of very well thought out arguments from both sides. None of which, resulted to the cliche Basenotes response of "Creed fairy tales".

Sorry I'm a fan of mythbusters.

 

[Kevin Guyer]

Everyone seems to be arguing different arguments here.
One thing that I think it is safe to say is: based on the total lack of physical and historical evidence proving otherwise, Creed has obviously exaggerated/created their perfume making history in order to appear of greater historical importance than they factually are.
I also think that it's all rather laughable, and ultimately of little importance that Creed has done this. Who cares?
I take perfume culture very seriously, therefore I do not take Creed very seriously. Over the years they have done some custom work, for some very exclusive clients, but they have never been innovators.
Their fragrances, with the exception of Green Irish Tweed, which it seems to be accepted was a creation of Pierre Bourdon, have contributed very little to the advancement and innovations of modern perfumery.
They make some nice stuff that sells in the high-end, niche high market.
Can anyone seriously speak in the same breath the names Olivier and Erwin Creed with Francois Coty, Jacques Guerlain, Edmond Roudnitska, Ernest Beaux, Jean Claude Ellena, Maurice Roucel?

 

[zztopp]

So Pierre Bourdon somehow, despite being wet behind the ears as a perfumer in 1973, instantly churned out selection verte, zeste mandarine pamplemousse, orange spice, and royal english leather. this seems more believable to you?

.

Bourdon was still in perfume school during the 70s. Olivier creed has been credited with creating Zeste Mandarin in early 70s.

 

[MOONB]

Bourdon was still in perfume school during the 70s. Olivier creed has been credited with creating Zeste Mandarin in early 70s.

Exactly. I never understood the references to Bourdon in the Creed narrative. Nowhere in their lineup is the hand of Bourdon evident. In YSL's lineup, and in Davidoff's, but not in Creed's. Bourdon's creations always came out after Creed's, as in Orange Spice/Kouros and GIT/Cool Water. Not the other way around. I think it's time to forget about the whole "Bourdon is behind Creed" argument. There's absolutely nothing there.

 

[zztopp]

Everyone seems to be arguing different arguments here.
One thing that I think it is safe to say is: based on the total lack of physical and historical evidence proving otherwise, Creed has obviously exaggerated/created their perfume making history in order to appear of greater historical importance than they factually are.
I also think that it's all rather laughable, and ultimately of little importance that Creed has done this. Who cares?
I take perfume culture very seriously, therefore I do not take Creed very seriously. Over the years they have done some custom work, for some very exclusive clients, but they have never been innovators.
Their fragrances, with the exception of Green Irish Tweed, which it seems to be accepted was a creation of Pierre Bourdon, have contributed nothing to the advancement and innovations of modern perfumery.
They make some nice stuff that sells at the moderate, high end of the market.
The artistry comes from the trained and gifted noses that are constantly innovating for other companies.
Just look at the concept behind Editions Frédérick Malle, and read the names on the bottles :these are the real artists, not Olivier and Erwin Creed.

I respect your direction but coming from a very heavy research background where at times I had to struggle to get recognition and having seen some lazy researchers who would rather rest on their laurels after getting tenure, I give no one a free pass. Yes there have been some great noses in the industry who have done some great work but their resume is also littered with some serious bombs. It is fine to respect past innovations - however I would also like to call out perfumers and/or houses which are just not giving their all. As an example, Guerlain is lauded, but to me they are increasingly become a part of history ala Coty and looks like they will be irrelevant going forward. There's massive disruption going on in the industry right now - the stodgy old houses struggling to keep pace with the Kurkdjians, the Tom Fords, the Romanos, le Labos, and various other noteworthy noses and houses. Creed didn't have a storied perfume past but in the now and future they may well be a fore-runner. Its fine to respect and learn from the past - its a nightmare to be stuck in the past.

Also, even Luca Turin has admitted that both Olivier Creed and Bourdon were listed as GIT's noses (he admitted this after pressed for further info - I suspect even some more details would leak if Michael Edwards was pressed even more). So to keep granting sole authorship of GIT to Bourdon is wrong unless one is hell bent to prove that Olivier Creed can't mix essential oils.

 

[mtgprox05]

Everyone seems to be arguing different arguments here.
One thing that I think it is safe to say is: based on the total lack of physical and historical evidence proving otherwise, Creed has obviously exaggerated/created their perfume making history in order to appear of greater historical importance than they factually are.
I also think that it's all rather laughable, and ultimately of little importance that Creed has done this. Who cares?
I take perfume culture very seriously, therefore I do not take Creed very seriously. Over the years they have done some custom work, for some very exclusive clients, but they have never been innovators.
Their fragrances, with the exception of Green Irish Tweed, which it seems to be accepted was a creation of Pierre Bourdon, have contributed nothing to the advancement and innovations of modern perfumery.
They make some nice stuff that sells at the moderate, high end of the market.
The artistry comes from the trained and gifted noses that are constantly innovating for other companies.
Just look at the concept behind Editions Frédérick Malle, and read the names on the bottles :these are the real artists, not Olivier and Erwin Creed.

Really? I'm pretty sure it's the opposite. Just because they aren't quirky and "different" doesn't mean that they aren't originators. They have a conservative style, but they generally have not followed in others foot steps (at least not until very recently).

 

[MOONB]

I respect your direction but coming from a very heavy research background where at times I had to struggle to get recognition and having seen some lazy researchers who would rather rest on their laurels after getting tenure, I give no one a free pass. Yes there have been some great noses in the industry who have done some great work but their resume is also littered with some serious bombs. It is fine to respect past innovations - however I would also like to call out perfumers and/or houses which are just not giving their all. As an example, Guerlain is lauded, but to me they are increasingly become a part of history ala Coty and looks like they will be irrelevant going forward. There's massive disruption going on in the industry right now - the stodgy old houses struggling to keep pace with the Kurkdjians, the Tom Fords, the Romanos, le Labos, and various other noteworthy noses and houses. Creed didn't have a storied perfume but in the now and future they may well be a fore-runner. Its fine to respect and learn from the past - its a nightmare to be stuck in the past.

Also, even Luca Turin has admitted that both Olivier Creed and Bourdon were listed as GIT's noses. So to keep granting sole authorship of GIT to Bourdon is wrong unless one is hell bent to prove that Olivier Creed can't mix essential oils.

I would add that Green Irish Tweed was groundbreaking and purely innovative for its time, and I think we can safely blame it for spawning the tidal wave of Cool Waters that have since washed up on all shores.

 

[Kevin Guyer]

I would add that Green Irish Tweed was groundbreaking and purely innovative for its time, and I think we can safely blame it for spawning the tidal wave of Cool Waters that have since washed up on all shores.

I have to admit, I'm not a big fan of Bourdon's work, I think the majority of it, including Cool Water, Kouros and his recent French Lover are pure bombast. I have to go undercover now, I think I've actually pissed everyone off now.

 

[Bigsly]

Creed made the claims, not any Bner, so the onus is on them to provide some evidence. If you start talking about what you think is "impossible," then it starts to sound like an episode of "UFO Hunters." My guess is whoever got the frag ball rolling circa 1970 had some old formulas or found a book that contained them, and cranked out the old-style ones, like Angelique Encens, and also used a perfumer to create some "modern" ones (or he did them himself). There is a strange dichotomy in the frags they have made since 1980, and while many things are possible, again, with apparently no evidence, it's up to them to step forward and clear the air.

 

[Jazznpool]

snip, Bigsly sez: it's up to them to step forward and clear the air.

Oh really? I think Creed benefits from the mystery of yesterday. Olivier and Erwin are busy with the business of today, making fragrances. What I am hoping for is the release of more Private Collection fragrances in the future, one's that were bespoke but never released to the public. I'd bet my last dollar that Olivier has composed fragrances for weathy clients in years past that I'd love. That is something I'd like to ask Olivier about when/ if I meet him or Erwin.

Martin

 

[DustB]

Oh heck. I'll stick to the question.

I wish I knew if it was the oldest Creed bottle I've seen. I can't tell if it's older in style to the Oliver Creed edc scent, I think it was called, referenced earlier in this thread. It was in photographs on a thread here a year, two, or even three ago, and the same seller posted to that thread as well. It could have been older, but this shaving lotion scent could have been older too. Wish I could say which was, but I guess they're about contemporaneous looking bottles. Never seen one that looks older than either of these.

I like the designs of the bottles myself. I always like it when houses use a standard bottle design. This one presages a good looking bottle, or many bottles, that were to come. I think.

 

[hirch_duckfinder]

excellent posts/thoughts all around, MOONB.
all of these discussions here on Basenotes, led by people like Addict and others who think that they alone are leading the charge to expose the truth about Creed, are in my opinion a case-study on the delusion of people who spend too much time on the internet, including that lengthy yet factually vacuous blog post by the_good_life that is for some reason considered gospel around here.

i also agree that this discussion about Creed's history is by far the most civil and informative one yet, due primarily to the absence of a specific few people. here's to hoping this trend continues...

To describe the_good_life's blog post the way you did would need some serious justification. He is a professor of history who loves creed perfumes, has been studing perfume history for years, has read many books and conducted much research. He became interested in the history of creed and investigated from the point of view of an admirer of the perfumes, not with a negative agenda. Please could you provide your experience and expertise in determining these matters.

Your point of view, seems to be based on the fact that you think that it seems unlikely to you that they would have made it all up. The way I see it, essence of intelligence is critical thinking - i.e. questioning what you see/hear/are told, looking for evidence and determing the best working model that you can.

I too am a fan of many of the perfumes. Look at my wardrobe. Smell the Acier Aluminium currently wafting up from my chest. Despite this, in my opinion, their marketing is very misleading to the point of being deceptive. They have use bully tactics too, including having posts removed from this forum because they questioned the authenticity of their claims, while other companies are proud to produce evidence of their history. Order books, receipts for purchase of materials, records of bottles making, location of their laboratories, mentions in histories, old formulae etc. One little piece of evidence...?


The facts: Pierre Bourdon had a significant hand in at least GIT (mid 80's) and later Himalaya (early noughties). So he was involved at least twice across fifteen years. These "millesime" fragrances marked the beginning of the modern house in the 80's and have been instrumental in its growth and success. Olivier Creed does also have an involvement, at least as "artistic director" and very likely in a more hands on role. This is acknowleged by Michael Edwards who has some respect for his work. He is likely the main nose for several creeds and co-nose for others. There are many common accords and notes accross the fragrances which are quite consistent - this suggests that they manufacture from their own perfume bases.

Any serious student of perfumery history who has read some books and gathered information knows that many of the fomulae in current usuage could not have existed at the claimed formulation dates. It is possible (though ulikely going by all other historical evidence of the way perfumery worked in that period) that in the 18th century creed supplied, for example, a perfume named Royal Scottish Lavender (though lavender doesn't grow in scotland...???) with its tayloring goods. Many taylors did supply perfumes - the history of perfumers and leather goods makers is entwined (though this was in France not England where "Chemysts" made perfume). However, it would have to have been so different that it would be similar in name alone, with the exception of having lavender in it.
Creed themselves have been challanged many times but never respond positively.

The fact that they put Royal Warrants earned for clothing on their perfume bottles says it all in my opinion....

 

[the_good_life]

Well, that and the other Olivier bottles are the oldest bottles I have ever seen and I believe we will ever see.
As to the question of how a historian would approach this issue, I think I have outlined it before.

1.The problem is there is no evidence of any kind prior to these bottles. That is evidence in itself for the following:
1.1 Creed did not publicly sell nor advertise its perfumes, assuming they did make them. Since they did advertise their tailoring business, one an safely surmise that the perfume, if it existed, was of minor importance.
1.2. Creed are not relevant to perfume history, since they were not part of the technical, cultural, economic etc. discourse of perfume, contrary to Farina, Houbigant, Guerlain and countless others. They ARE relevant to fashion history.
1.3 The question is raised, why Creed does not employ available perfume-related sources for its marketing, as Farina and other firms do, if they are available in their archives. There is no question that a small family-run company will have preserved exhaustive records, again, the example would be Farina. Charles Creed e.g. could cite his grandfather's pattern for Napoleon III.'s infant son's first coat (1858, raglan sleeve paletot).

2. Creed (& Cumberland) become visible as tailors through sources roughly in the mid-19th century, particularly through their French activity. Their previous history I have not been able to find any traces of. It is thus unlikely that they serviced King George III, much less with a "bespoke" fragrance. On the other hand, it is common practice to lengthen company histories by extending their relevance backwards in time with a bit of ornamental myth. This would require clarification by fashion historians. Somebody please visit the archives in London and simply check up on when the court started relying on the services of the Creeds. It should not be that difficult to find something if you invested a few afternoons .

3. Inferred evidence, i.e. the perfumes. As has been said, many formulas of supposedly old Creeds are anachronistic. Octavian Coifan, who is certainly one of the best perfume historians and analysts around, finds REL to be the leatherized formula of L'Origan. He believes it to be a typical product of the "vintage perfume" renaissance of the late 60s/early 70s. Contrary to moonb's point, a "cuir" of this kind was technically and culturally impossible in the 18th century. The same applies to the datings of Vintage Tabarome (a 1920s style scent also), not to speak of the unofficial but undying Titanic-Erolfa story, or the suspicious imprecisions surrounding the Windsor-rose story. Of course, one can always argue, that formulas were simply massively altered at some later point, but it is equally likely that easily available formula books were used as an inspiration for creating new modern vintage-style perfumes, such as Royal Scottish lavender (1975, according to cale.it).
I personally have no reason to doubt that Olivier Creed is a (self-trained) perfumer - in the same way that Villoresi is, a highly educated, cultured, privileged and well-connected dilettante who, additionally, will not have hesitated to make use of professionals wherever it seemed necessary & useful. I do believe Bourdon is an important figure and certainly not the only one. Someone smart and professional turned L'Origan into REL, no doubt.