(Laymen question) Do damascones tend to dissipate in strength over time?

Dane

Well-known member
Jan 9, 2002
Hi all - visiting from the perfume boards.

So lately I've been collecting Grojsman fragrances. As you know, in addition to her "hug me" accord (which according to a book I own is roughly equal parts Hedione, methyl ionone, iso e, and galaxolide), she also used damascones to impart the peachiness and and radiance.

So my question - do these dissipate in strength overtime? I find myself often searching the blotter...it's as if the damascones either cover up the base of the perfume - or - I've gone anosmic.

Can anyone help solve the mystery?

ps - I have other perfumes like Rush and Chinatown which I believe also use damascones and there's no issue there.

pps - no I don't have covid
 

pkiler

Basenotes Plus
Basenotes Plus
Dec 5, 2007
Hi, Welcome to the creator's forum!

Well, there may be a miss on the wording and concept.
Damascones are mostly smelled in the tops, to middle, and smell sharp, like sharp apples, or rosey type things. Not really peachy. And they are very restricted, but also very strong. Not too much is used in a scent, and if too strong, can make a scent a bit harsh, often
But Lactones are easily peachy, and live in the base up to middle, depending upon dosage. Peachy type are never harsh, but soft. Other lactones are more coconutty. Bringing "Peach" up more in the heart, even to the tops, is more the job of fruity and juicy materials, than the lactones.

So, the answer to the question that you have kind of depends upon where in the scent that you want to smell?

If you really are talking about Damascones, it is likely that because of recent IFRA restrictions, that they are severely reduced in newer scents. And so, they may be harder to smell because of these limitations...

Maybe that helps, or maybe that just opens up more questions for you,
Fragrantly Yours,
PK
 

Dane

Well-known member
Jan 9, 2002
Hi, Welcome to the creator's forum!

Well, there may be a miss on the wording and concept.
Damascones are mostly smelled in the tops, to middle, and smell sharp, like sharp apples, or rosey type things. Not really peachy. And they are very restricted, but also very strong. Not too much is used in a scent, and if too strong, can male a scent a bit harsh, often
But Lactones are easily peachy, and live in the base up to middle, depending upon dosage. Peachy type are never harsh, but soft. Other lactones are more coconutty. Bringing "Peach" up more in the heart, even to the tops, is more the job of fruity and juicy materials, than the lactones.

So, the answer to the question that you have kind of depends upon where in the scent that you want to smell?

If you really are talking about Damascones, it is likely that because of recent IFRA restrictions, that they are severely reduced in newer scents. And so, they may be harder to smell because of these limitations...

Maybe that helps, or maybe that just opens up more questions for you,
Fragrantly Yours,
PK
Thanks for the insightful info.

I thought it was damascones - but I could easily be wrong.

The perfumes in question are Trésor, and Diamonds & Rubies. I feels like the current formulation of each lacks the creaminess and radiance they once had.
 

pkiler

Basenotes Plus
Basenotes Plus
Dec 5, 2007
Looking over three older formulas for Tresor, the gamma-undecalactone (peachy lactone) stays constant at 2%.
The three formulas have two each of three Damascones also, Alpha Damascone, Beta Damascone, and Delta Damascone. All, just about the same dosage per version of the formula. Some are at 0.1%, some at 0.3% and highest was delta in one formula at 0.5%. All of these dosages are now beyond the limits of current limitations for fragrances, unfortunately, as damascones are extremely useful raw materials.

I can't really say what current formulations look like without a GCMS of them.

Hope that helps...

PK
 

Dane

Well-known member
Jan 9, 2002
Looking over three older formulas for Tresor, the gamma-undecalactone (peachy lactone) stays constant at 2%.
The three formulas have two each of three Damascones also, Alpha Damascone, Beta Damascone, and Delta Damascone. All, just about the same dosage per version of the formula. Some are at 0.1%, some at 0.3% and highest was delta in one formula at 0.5%. All of these dosages are now beyond the limits of current limitations for fragrances, unfortunately, as damascones are extremely useful raw materials.

I can't really say what current formulations look like without a GCMS of them.

Hope that helps...

PK
That helps tremendously, thank you. Are you aware of approximately when the limits for damascones were reduced?

And you are correct, I should have inquired about lactones, not damascones. I had my terminologies mixed up.
 

pkiler

Basenotes Plus
Basenotes Plus
Dec 5, 2007
That helps tremendously, thank you. Are you aware of approximately when the limits for damascones were reduced?

And you are correct, I should have inquired about lactones, not damascones. I had my terminologies mixed up.
No Worries about getting mixed up... :)

the 50 incessant changes to IFRA stupidity have come over time...
Professional Perfumers all over the world constantly complain about the always moving target of these insipid rules.
They tell me, "How can we make anything good, if the rules change every year?"
 

ourmess

Well-known member
Apr 25, 2018
Self-regulation prevents legal regulation. If it wasn't for IFRA, then there would just be more laws instead. Say thank-you to IFRA. :giggle:
 

FragOz

Active member
Jan 8, 2022
Damascones were already in 2009 restricted in the 44th IFRA Amandment and probably even earlier (did only quick search on beta-damascone at TGSC). Latest info in 49th Amandment. Concentrations of all noted components add up. Category 4 is for fine fragrance, so the given maximum of 0.043% is the maximum for the sum of all mentioned components.

Many fragrances suffer from those limits, as pkiler said. It sort of 'takes the power out of them' especially in rose-like fragrances when it comes to damascones. The same holds for other useful chemicals like Lyral and Lilial. Both of them are restricted by IFRA and also completely prohibited within the European Union (and probably elsewhere).

To my knowledge there are no materials available that can really replace damascones, although some captives exist. Things like Ethyl Safranate are also relatively powerful but no match for damascones. Damascones can place themselves sort of 'on the front row' in a mixture with other powerful materials surrounding them, like ethylvanillin and ambroxide. This property makes them rather unique and difficult to replace.
 

Casper_grassy

Well-known member
May 5, 2020
Self-regulation prevents legal regulation. If it wasn't for IFRA, then there would just be more laws instead. Say thank-you to IFRA. :giggle:
I’m gonna have to completely disagree with this. Only speaking in regards to the US, there are 0 laws enforced that have anything to do with following ifra recommendations. The only thing is listing the 26 allergens from the FDA, if they appear over (sorry I forgot and should check before I post, but won’t lol) either .01% or/through 1%.
I also highly doubt that your health and safety is any part of their intention, I do not know this for a fact but I’m pretty sure profit is paramount to consumers well being.

I also fail to understand how from one amendment to the next do certain molecules restrictions drop 10% and others get raised 1-2%? It really doesn’t make any sense. What kind of shoddy testing are they actually doing? You mean tell me that there is some sort of “herd immunity” to a certain molecule? Between the 48th and 49th amendment? Come on, it’s all bs
 

Dane

Well-known member
Jan 9, 2002
I’m gonna have to completely disagree with this. Only speaking in regards to the US, there are 0 laws enforced that have anything to do with following ifra recommendations. The only thing is listing the 26 allergens from the FDA, if they appear over (sorry I forgot and should check before I post, but won’t lol) either .01% or/through 1%.
I also highly doubt that your health and safety is any part of their intention, I do not know this for a fact but I’m pretty sure profit is paramount to consumers well being.

I also fail to understand how from one amendment to the next do certain molecules restrictions drop 10% and others get raised 1-2%? It really doesn’t make any sense. What kind of shoddy testing are they actually doing? You mean tell me that there is some sort of “herd immunity” to a certain molecule? Between the 48th and 49th amendment? Come on, it’s all bs
I gave up on having an opinion on the IFRA a long time ago. It's only been a defeating journey, and only to get worse.

I wasn't aware that some ingredient allowances were raised, that's interesting.
 

Latest News

Top