NUCLEAR Fragrances! What the heck is in Fragrances that.......

[SixCats]

Hi all,

Pray tell, what the heck is it in NUCLEAR Fragrances that allows the scent/notes to last so long ? I ask this question because (as we all know) certain Fragrances have very short lived performance (such as 4711 by Muelhens Original Eau de Cologne).

While I enjoy the scent of 4711 (mostly worn post Shave) the lovely scent is all but gone in about five minutes time.

One the other Hand, the recent arrival of my bottle of Mancera "Red Tobacco" is what I call a "NUCLEAR" Fragrance! WHOA! Only ONE (perhaps two) "small" sprays of "Red Tobacco" is needed at best. Even two sprays of "Red Tobacco" can be overwhelming!

"Red Tobacco" is not only super powerful but will still smell strong on my Skin the next day! Mind you, this observation is coming from "Yours Truly" SixCats! "The Black Hole of Fragrances". Aside from "Red Tobacco", one of my other super long lasting Fragrance is Christian Dior "Eau Sauvage Parfum" 2012. I find "Eau Sauvage Parfum" (which I adore) also need but one or two sprays.

So, what's the deal ? What is the "MAGICAL" ingredient that makes certain Fragrances totally "NUCLEAR" while so many other (very nice Fragrances) short lived (or even poor) performers ? Sadly, I find that many of my L'Artisan Fragrances are too short lived (albeit excellent smelling).

SixCats! aka Tom in Maine

 

[FOXHOUND]

Using Mancera Red Tobacco and a fragrance I own, Initio Parfums Prives Oud For Greatness as examples, I do notice that both of these strong fragrances that project well (push) contain Saffron and Agarwood (Oud). I'm sure the concentrations/ratios of those particular notes along with the other notes in the fragrances are key to their longevity & projection. Of course there are countless other "strong" fragrances that push just as much or more and have altogether different notes in the makeup of the fragrance, so there's that too. Members here that actually make fragrances could probably give you a better explanation of all that.

 

[hednic]

I'm no expert, but my guess it depends on several things: one's skin, the concentration of the fragrance and the mix of certain notes.

 

[SixCats]

I'm no expert, but my guess it depends on several things: one's skin, the concentration of the fragrance and the mix of certain notes.

Hi hednic,

Well Sir, of course I realize the concentration of any given Fragrance will make a big difference (i.e. Edt vs. Parfum) for example however, I'm wondering if there might be a certain "magical" chemical/notes added to some Fragrances that just make them "pop!" I too am far from an expert on these matters.

SixCats!

 

[hednic]

Hi hednic,

Well Sir, of course I realize the concentration of any given Fragrance will make a big difference (i.e. Edt vs. Parfum) for example however, I'm wondering if there might be a certain "magical" chemical/notes added to some Fragrances that just make them "pop!" I too am far from an expert on these matters.

SixCats!

Perhaps one of Basenotes experienced perfumers in the Fragrace DIY Forum might know.

 

[AndyL]

Hi hednic,

Well Sir, of course I realize the concentration of any given Fragrance will make a big difference (i.e. Edt vs. Parfum) for example however, I'm wondering if there might be a certain "magical" chemical/notes added to some Fragrances that just make them "pop!" I too am far from an expert on these matters.

SixCats!

Concentration may be a factor indeed, but more doesn't necessarily mean nuclear. I have several perfume / extrait concentration that just sit flat on my skin with zero projection. They'll wake up when moving around, providing decent sillage though.

 

[The Cologne Cabinet]

Modern aroma chemicals are responsible for the "nuclear" projection and longevity. Amberwood, Ambroxan, Amber....these are large synthetic molecules that linger in the air way longer than their natural counterparts. They also cause the user to go nose blind faster, which is why you will typically find people who wear these to over-spray, thus making their nuclear fragrance even more potent!

 

[SixCats]

Modern aroma chemicals are responsible for the "nuclear" projection and longevity. Amberwood, Ambroxan, Amber....these are large synthetic molecules that linger in the air way longer than their natural counterparts. They also cause the user to go nose blind faster, which is why you will typically find people who wear these to over-spray, thus making their nuclear fragrance even more potent!

Thanks TCC,

OK, I had a feeling it would turn out to be "something" along these lines. So, modern Aroma Chemicals eh ? I can't believe how STRONG some of these Colognes that use this approach. I also agree with you that too much could cause the user to go Nose blind and/or (in my case) the first time I used too much "Red Tobacco", I felt rather sick to my Stomach, Headache, just over powering, etc. I just wanted to go home and Shower it off (which did). I concluded that I had made a mistake buying "Red Tobacco" (and a costly one at that). I pretty much thought I would never wear "Red Tobacco" again and stored it away and planned to sell/swap. One month later, I decided I had to test "Red Tobacco" again to see if I had the same negative reaction, however, this time, I sprayed only two short/quick sprays. Ummmm, still SUPER strong however, this wearing of "Red Tobacco" I actually enjoyed. My Wife, NOT a fan! Point being, I guess certain Fragrances using "Aroma Chemicals" had better be sprayed sparingly!
Thanks again TCC.

SixCats!

 

[The Cologne Cabinet]

Thanks TCC,

OK, I had a feeling it would turn out to be "something" along these lines. So, modern Aroma Chemicals eh ? I can't believe how STRONG some of these Colognes that use this approach. I also agree with you that too much could cause the user to go Nose blind and/or (in my case) the first time I used too much "Red Tobacco", I felt rather sick to my Stomach, Headache, just over powering, etc. I just wanted to go home and Shower it off (which did). I concluded that I had made a mistake buying "Red Tobacco" (and a costly one at that). I pretty much thought I would never wear "Red Tobacco" again and stored it away and planned to sell/swap. One month later, I decided I had to test "Red Tobacco" again to see if I had the same negative reaction, however, this time, I sprayed only two short/quick sprays. Ummmm, still SUPER strong however, this wearing of "Red Tobacco" I actually enjoyed. My Wife, NOT a fan! Point being, I guess certain Fragrances using "Aroma Chemicals" had better be sprayed sparingly!
Thanks again TCC.

SixCats!

Understood. If you do run into one of these beasts again, and the wife approves, consider WHERE you apply the juice. For the real strong ones, aim for the lower torso or even behind the knees. This will create more of an "aura around you" when other people smell it and you won't go nose blind either.

 

[StylinLA]

I'm certainly no chemist, but as TCC said, it's likely some of the newer aroma chemicals like ambroxan, etc.

I think it has evolved that way a bit to cater to some of the guys who want a real loud, pounding scent. I like plenty of noticeable scents, so I'm not flat out knocking the frag bros. But some of these new scents go a bit over the top. Red Tobacco is really pronounced for sure.

 

[davidcalgary29]

it's likely some of the newer aroma chemicals like ambroxan, etc.

Definitely ambroxan for me. I recently bought a bottle of Ameer al Oudh Intense Oud, and made the mistake of spraying my skin, instead of my shirt -- I couldn't get it off of me for two days, and even after showering and taking a bath (on separate occasions). Far, far too powerful for my skin (and not to my liking). I gave the bottle away.

 

[WarmJewel]

As @The Cologne Cabinet rightly says it's the modern synthetic chemicals that do it. It's also one of the reasons why in my personal opinion they smell pretty horrible.

I received Mancera Red Tobacco as a free sample and hated it, almost as much as I hate Dior's Sauvage. No coincidence the pair of them are loaded with synthetics.

Older fragrances used natural ingredients to extend their longevity, the skankyish Civet Musk being a typical example.

 

[emtee]

As @The Cologne Cabinet rightly says it's the modern synthetic chemicals that do it. It's also one of the reasons why in my personal opinion they smell pretty horrible.

I received Mancera Red Tobacco as a free sample and hated it, almost as much as I hate Dior's Sauvage. No coincidence the pair of them are loaded with synthetics.

Older fragrances used natural ingredients to extend their longevity, the skankyish Civet Musk being a typical example.

Pretty much how I feel. I don’t mind synthetics being used in moderation to support the fragrance but so many these days have gone way over the top in order to provide that nuclear performance that apparently a lot of people want. It just makes me feel nauseous and there are certain notes that I regularly smell out and about and have to hold my breath!

 

[WarmJewel]

Pretty much how I feel. I don’t mind synthetics being used in moderation to support the fragrance but so many these days have gone way over the top in order to provide that nuclear performance that apparently a lot of people want.

Yep that's it in a nutshell. Nothing wrong with synthetic aroma molecules per se, everything wrong with them when used in large quantities.

 

[slpfrsly]

Well SixCats, I think you've hit the nail on the head by mentioning ingredients. Some aromachemicals are exceptionally strong, others less so. I don't think it's just one thing as much as it is several - the different aromachemicals, and their concentrations and dillutions, are what makes a fragrance nuclear (or not).

Red Tobacco is certainly a 'nuclear' scent.

 

[Misschronicallyfab]

Definitely ambroxan for me. I recently bought a bottle of Ameer al Oudh Intense Oud, and made the mistake of spraying my skin, instead of my shirt -- I couldn't get it off of me for two days, and even after showering and taking a bath (on separate occasions). Far, far too powerful for my skin (and not to my liking). I gave the bottle away.

Yikes, felt that one! I'm one of the really sad fragrance lovers that has perfume eating skin. Rarely have any projection or longevity. But Ameer Al Oudh Intense oud is a whole'nother story (isn't Ambroxan in here). Even on me this stays over 24hrs with only a few sprays.

I accidentally sprayed the first bit (like 1,5 spray) out of the atomiser on the bathrobe I was wearing and for over a week that fabric projected AaOIO like a mofo, I couldn't get away from it 🥴. I'll try the bottle again after spring and summer have ended, but it might be too much for me as well (also because I'm a woman and Ameer overpowered every single other frag I tried to layer it with to sweeten it up.)

Actually... I've had this with pretty much all my Oudh containing fragrances (except for 3 Ard Al Zaafaran fragrances that all use a synthetic Oudh variant that's closer to fruity-woody oudh). Raghba Wood Intense is almost as bad.

 

[L'Homme Blanc Individuel]

Chemicals. Often very harsh chemicals being used in very brutal amounts.

 

[UESNYC]

As @The Cologne Cabinet rightly says it's the modern synthetic chemicals that do it. It's also one of the reasons why in my personal opinion they smell pretty horrible.

I received Mancera Red Tobacco as a free sample and hated it, almost as much as I hate Dior's Sauvage. No coincidence the pair of them are loaded with synthetics.

Older fragrances used natural ingredients to extend their longevity, the skankyish Civet Musk being a typical example.

Synthetics in fragrance ironically all smell the same even if they are different. I visited Santa Maria Novella about five years ago and they still grow many or most things in their own garden. Class act.

 

[SixCats]

Synthetics in fragrance ironically all smell the same even if they are different. I visited Santa Maria Novella about five years ago and they still grow many or most things in their own garden. Class act.

Hi UESNYC, I suspect you are correct that many synthetics in Fragrances do all smell (more or less) the same. I think this is why I attempt to find older/vintage Perfumes and Colognes although I do have a large collection of other Fragrances. Wow, how cool you got to visit Santa Maria Novella! I'd about lose my Mind if I ever stepped Foot into SMN as SMN is one of my very favorite Houses. Two of my TOP FIVE Fragrances are SMN: "Acqua di Cuba" and (the sadly discontinued) "Nostalgia". I'm kicking myself I did not purchase a back up bottle of "Nostalgia". I'm lucky to at least have a mostly full bottle of "Nostalgia". Santa Maria Novella, class act indeed!

SixCats!

 

[Ken_Russell]

On one hand tending to agree with and to second-from a viewpoint added in a very belated way-especially the chemical factor explanation.
But on the other hand also had this record worthy experience in terms of beast mode, nuclear performance mainly-though far from always being a vintage maximalist/purist-also with fragrances prior to current restrictions and/or heavy on oak moss, along with civet and further musky "animalics" and leathery hints.
Although technically this can be reduced mostly if not entirely to chemical factors as well.