What is close in effect to Methyl Jasmonate?

[RomanB]

Hello. What are the alternatives to Methyl Jasmonate to use in a jasmine absolute type base? Methyl jasmonate is very cost inefficient and honestly doesn’t project from skin in typical use quantities, so I wonder if there are better, more cost-effective alternatives to it?

 

[David Ruskin]

May I suggest that, before you discard methyl jasmonate, you try it in a compound or two. Make a simple floral fragrance then compare one sample with and one without. Methyl jasmonate is not that exciting on its own, it's what it does to a fragrance that counts.

If you insist on ignoring it, the obvious replacement is Hedione.

 

[RomanB]

May I suggest that, before you discard methyl jasmonate, you try it in a compound or two. Make a simple floral fragrance then compare one sample with and one without. Methyl jasmonate is not that exciting on its own, it's what it does to a fragrance that counts.

If you insist on ignoring it, the obvious replacement is Hedione.

Dear David, thank you. Not that I am discarding it, but it is very expensive. I can pay that much for damascones or irone, but they are diffusive in minute quantities, and a sample of methyl jasmonate is orders of magnitude more subtle.

Some ingredients are rather disappointing. Like farnesol - yes, it is interesting on a smelling strip, but has no projection from skin.

 

[David Ruskin]

Whenever you test an ingredient on its own, on a smelling strip, and you find it disappointing, please ask yourself why others have found it useful. Individual ingredients aren't always power houses, but they may have a profound effect on a mixture of other ingredients, a perfume. Farnesol is a key component in the Headspace of Lily of the Valley. I agree, on its own, it is not spectacular, but in a Muguet base its effect is profound. Diffusion or projection isn't everything. Sometimes the effect an ingredient can have on other materials is what is important.

 

[RomanB]

Whenever you test an ingredient on its own, on a smelling strip, and you find it disappointing, please ask yourself why others have found it useful. Individual ingredients aren't always power houses, but they may have a profound effect on a mixture of other ingredients, a perfume. Farnesol is a key component in the Headspace of Lily of the Valley. I agree, on its own, it is not spectacular, but in a Muguet base its effect is profound. Diffusion or projection isn't everything. Sometimes the effect an ingredient can have on other materials is what is important.

I am very skeptical about why others find some ingredients useful, unless convinced by strong evidence or experiments. All sorts of false motives could be present: to justify humongous prices, to blindly copy gc/ms data, for mere sophistication, to judge by paper strips and not after application on skin…

I have a lot of real historical formulas and try from time to time mix them, in learning purposes. What was considered great a hundred years ago seldom raises questions: who even wore it? Often they smell nicely on a paper strip, but do not project from skin, or have very short tenacity. Or the sillage is primitive. But they were praised by many.

Hedione’s problem is that it is instantly recognizable by wearers. If there was no Hedione in Chanel №5, people feel it in modern versions and incessantly rant about its addition.

 

[mnitabach]

Whenever you test an ingredient on its own, on a smelling strip, and you find it disappointing, please ask yourself why others have found it useful. Individual ingredients aren't always power houses, but they may have a profound effect on a mixture of other ingredients, a perfume. Farnesol is a key component in the Headspace of Lily of the Valley. I agree, on its own, it is not spectacular, but in a Muguet base its effect is profound. Diffusion or projection isn't everything. Sometimes the effect an ingredient can have on other materials is what is important.

PREACH!

 

[David Ruskin]

I am very skeptical about why others find some ingredients useful, unless convinced by strong evidence or experiments. All sorts of false motives could be present: to justify humongous prices, to blindly copy gc/ms data, for mere sophistication, to judge by paper strips and not after application on skin…

I have a lot of real historical formulas and try from time to time mix them, in learning purposes. What was considered great a hundred years ago seldom raises questions: who even wore it? Often they smell nicely on a paper strip, but do not project from skin, or have very short tenacity. Or the sillage is primitive. But they were praised by many.

Hedione’s problem is that it is instantly recognizable by wearers. If there was no Hedione in Chanel №5, people feel it in modern versions and incessantly rant about its addition.

Oh Roman. Do you honestly think I have any financial motive for writing what I did? If you are convinced that you are right and do not want to experiment to find out the truth then I give up with you. Go your own way, do your own thing. I don't care one way or another. I will not tolerate such an arrogant attitude. Enough.

 

[ScentAle]

I don't know well how to say, but I find it soft yes but very rich. If his cost was different, I would use more and in more perfumes. There is something that i like so much in methyl jasmonate.
Like the luxury version of Hedione, fuller. I use that instead than Hedione sometimes.

Anyway I think that for create a very good perfume, high level, for say often not less than 40 materials, is very important to have also that high quality mild notes, that all together can make the difference from good to very good. In this, and not only, I think that is very important to use materials like example methyl jasmonate (or better zeppin) or other high purity ac's that one after other, they can be one of the key for the higher and recognizable smell quality, also if in single smelling some of that is very mild, too clean, and nothing that let say you wow, but in the global there is a big difference.

 

[RomanB]

Oh Roman. Do you honestly think I have any financial motive for writing what I did? If you are convinced that you are right and do not want to experiment to find out the truth then I give up with you. Go your own way, do your own thing. I don't care one way or another. I will not tolerate such an arrogant attitude. Enough.

Not you, but there are people on this forum who do so.

 

[PeeWee678]

Could Jasmal or Dihydrojasmone be possible alternatives?
I'm not familar with Methyl jasmonate so I don't have an opinion, just asking...

 

[Capybaron]

Could Jasmal or Dihydrojasmone be possible alternatives?
I'm not familar with Methyl jasmonate so I don't have an opinion, just asking...

Sadly not. Jasmal has a far more mushroomy note, Dihydrojasmone goes more into the celery-nutty note; Hard to describe.

The closest material i´ve found so far which can be compared to Methly Jasmonate is Hedione, at least to my nose. But by closest =/= close. They are very much their own thing.

 

[ScentAle]

Could Jasmal or Dihydrojasmone be possible alternatives?
I'm not familar with Methyl jasmonate so I don't have an opinion, just asking...

Maybe Hedione + small touch of jasmolactone can be nearer than Hedione solo, for that subtle underfruity note of methyl jasmonate.