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

[jcrich]

One of the others is Chanel...which houses are the other two?

Nothing implied or suggested.

Anyway, it's a shame that this thread has descended into name-calling, as is the case with all similar threads. It really is a fascinating subject and I enjoy a good verbal punch-up!

Personally, I think that Martin sums it up best.

 

[Kron]

Hilarious, Someone forgot to take their medication this morning ^

 

[Jazznpool]

That is an interesting theory.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to ask someone who was alive and collecting fragrance before 1970's if they knew anything about CREED.

Compared to today, few guys were into fragrance collecting 40 years ago. Infomation about anything was much more difficult to obtain. Creed was not marketed here in the USA at that time until Olivier had his EdT and after-shave distributed here. I have spoken to a gal who sold Creed when it first came to the USA in the early 80's for a brief period (at Nordstrom's). The story is that there was a row between Olivier and Nordstrom's and the whole line, consisting of about 10 scents was pulled and did not return until Laurice had the USA distributorship. The REL in the top photo was purchased in the early 80's in Seattle (that's where the flagship Nordstroms is). IF, I ever get an opportunity to meet and talk with Olivier, Fabienne or Laurice Rhame, I'd like to ask about pre-70's Creed fragrance. I've also wondered why a pre-70's flacon of bespoke Creed fragrance hasn't surfaced as of yet--or even a post 70's flacon of bespoke Creed fragrance. I want to be clear that while the history is interesting as an aside, I'm much more focused on the wearing and enjoying the fragrances of today and tomorrow as far the house of Creed goes.

This has been an enjoyable thread when we've stayed anywhere near the subject. I'm sorry I fed the troll as well.

Martin

 

[the_good_life]

1. Creed
2. Coty?
3. Boss?
4. Roman Catholic Church? No wait....

There's a qualitative difference here, though. The latter three issues have nothing to do with the product. Creed's history is intimately tied up with it's product and brand image and constitutes is major sales pitch, together with the once proudly proclaimed hand-infused essences bit, which if course was pure poppycock as well. While we all agree that serious perfume lovers love a fragrance for its own sake, I believe it's quite obvious that Creed's history schtick was aimed primarily at male American aspirational buyers - and I like the theory that somebody like Ms. Rahme, the US distributor, was actually a primary figure in inventing all this nonsense about Roosevelts and Kennedys wearing Creed perfumes. Let's keep in mind also that Creed tailors had lost much of their lustre since WWII and probably had only a small group of very conservative European clients at that point (contrary to Charles Creed, who was a modernizer, though even he got into financial trouble in the 50s and was saved by his wife's family of wealthy shoe manufacturers)

As to the bespoke issue - there is no positive evidence, as pointed out, and in any event, if these perfumes had been aesthetically relevant you would expect to find some kind of trace of them, bespoke or not, in perfume histories and/or biographcial sources of the rich and famous. As to royalty clientele, let us remember that discretion was neither practiced nor expected, the deal with tailoring and other products often enough being that the nobles wouldn't pay their bills in exchange for the PR they generated for the house ( this nearly ruined Henry Poole of Savile Row in the 19th century). All suppliers of bespoke perfumes to royalty in the 19th century advertised this - Farina, Guerlain, Houibigant etc. pp., just as Creed took care in its 19th. century adverts to mention its royal tailoring connections. Finally, if Creed archives contained any evidence of making bespoke scents for royals, why didn't they put that on their boxes, instead of reproducing the tailoring warrants?

A few scenarios, if you will. All purely speculative, of course. Nothing implied or suggested.

1. A company exaggerates it's past.

2. A company has a right wing looney as it's head.

3. A company benefitted from slave labour in WW2

4. A company has a head with a penchant for under age males.


Which is the lesser transgression?

 

[jcrich]

True, but as we know, there are lies, there are damned lies, and there is advertising.

Anyway, a truly shameful past doesn't stop me from driving a certain make of German car, so an hilariously exaggerated past sure as shit won't stop me from wearing a particular scent. That was then. This is now.

As far as Creed's history is concerned, as the great Kevin Bloody Wilson would say - "DILLIGAF?" LOL

 

[the_good_life]

Anyway, a truly shameful past doesn't stop me from driving a certain make of German car, so an hilariously exaggerated past sure as shit won't stop me from wearing a particular scent. That was then. This is now.

I'm with you there. I like my classic Creeds way too much. But as a historian, well, I can't let the issue rest, plus it's a very interesting aspect of perfume marketing history (nothing new either). I've written elsewhere that if Creed's branding had developed differently, Olivier might now be hailed as one of the founding fathers of niche perfumery.

 

[jcrich]

I'm with you, too, t_g_l.

It's the ones who won't buy Creed on principle because of the dubious historical claims that amuse me. As I've said before, all advertising is lies, Creed just appear to be masters of that dark art!

 

[socalwoman]

I started this thread, and oh how I wish a mod would close it already! LOL.

Okay!!