Hello Ashley, I think the biggest disappointment for me in perfumery is over the the longevity of how fragrances last on skin. This seems to be an issue when perfume houses make the fragrances weaker with reformulations, but continue to charge high prices for a lesser product. It seems to be a big problem when niche perfume houses are purchased by bigger companies. I have no problem with fragrance having a mix of natural and synthetic aroma chemicals, especially when it comes to some of the environmental issues surrounding certain fragrance ingredients. I just want my fragrance to last 8 hours or longer and be able to smell it without burying my nose in my arm. Those are my thoughts about it. - Jenn
Change is inevitable, trying to hold on to things will only cause distress and unhappiness, nothing from the past was better, was only different, you can interpret them as better but is your interpretation and yours alone, I have perfumes from the 30's, 40's, 50's from my mother, do they smell better? nope, the smell different, they smell the way they supposed to be the best for the time they were made, We have to embrace change and smell new things, enjoy perfumes in the here and now, to me perfumes are an experience not a possession, when they're gone they're gone, but at least I had the chance to experience them. Thank you Ashley!!!
I always hear from older people that a drop of chanel no5 or chanel no19 made miracles for days … and now you can bath in it anyway will last no more than 4-5 hours and thats the sadly true … reformulations are guilty here I guess And I think when people often tell that in past everything was better they mean that the performance and persistence was a lot better
This video has such uplifting insights. The fragrances that survived or influenced others were the best of the best, so lamenting the loss of a "golden age" is a misconception about the history of perfumery. Fragrance trends change over time, so it's okay to appreciate great vintage compositions and contributions but not want to wear them today. Mixed media fragrance compositions can smell better in ways that could never be achieved in the past. I love your refreshing perspectives, Ashley. You often contribute commentary that is sorely missing on RU-vid. Thank you so much.
You raise excellent points that are worthy of full deliberation. It is certainly correct that the palette of synthetically molecules has increased dramatically, offering the composer of a fragrance the ability to drive the base and the mid to exactly what is needed to make a perfume creation adhere exactly to the brief and/ or to the perfumer's imagination.... I think what many people really mean when they say that perfumery has gone "downhill" since the 70's or 80's may be based on a variety of factors: 1) IFRA has changed the amounts that can be used in perfumes based on allergy data. Many men loved the ultra-heavy oakmoss, or deer musk and real civet that was used in many scents that now have to be recreated via synthetics due to these regulation changes. 2) Tastes have changed over the oast 40 years. Most young men do not like the powerhouses of the 1980's exactly because they smell like their father's and grandfather's fragrances. 3) Many people always glorify what they know and what brought comfort to them and they do not like to change that aspect of personal products, i.e. they identify deeply with a certain fragrance as it gives them the above comfort. 4) There are a lot of people who claim superior knowledge basis "vintage" formulations of scents, dissing the newer creations and necessary reformulations without being able to factually back up these claims...basically out of a sense of (fake) snobbery.... 5) Our olfactory sense may change over time. 6) Marketing and the way that fragrances are brought to their target demographic makes a huge difference versus 40 years ago. 7) Extremely tight fragrance development briefs based on deriving as much profit out of a new scent as possible are driving countless perfumers to despair over being handcuffed in their creativity.... 8) Sometimes just too much iso e super and ambroxan use to meet cost points. Your most brilliant and valid point really is that the vintage scents were the very best of the best, standing out from a sea of sometimes totally horrendous formulations and scents that could literally curl your toenails ... and make you want to heave.
It truly has the quality is not the same. I even remember growing up as a kid when my mother bought a cologne for me it would last days. It didn’t matter whether is was eau de toilette of eau de parfum. I do understand to an extent that many ingredients have been band and removed.
Thank you SO much for this perspective. Some things I had never ever heard discussed like the survivorship bias. But I’ve wondered about taking it a step further. What happens when synthetics become revered at the same levels as naturals, an almost worshipping and honoring. Would we not see a whole new olfactory palate open up? Why are we still so tied to reference to the natural world, is it not possible to create something totally without reference with new combinations of synthetics? Is it because our way of describing fragrances will always reference naturals no matter how removed they actually are?
This is such an interesting topic! I'm happy you make that point, both about naturals and about fragrances made today. I would love more videos like this, allthough I appreciate all your videos, no matter 😍💐💗
I think you went off tangent with this question, at least the way I interpret it. The decline due to reformulation isn't necessarily about naturals vs. synthetics since fragrances that from the very first incarnation were not 100% natural have been criticized for poorer quality in subsequent releases and the company refuses to admit they've been reformulated. You also didn't talk about how IFRA regulations have caused the change. Finally, there are very expensive synthetic ingredients, not just natural ingredients which maybe you should talk about. And there is a perception of what is quality itself, is it longevity, or complexity. 100% naturals generally don't have the longevity of synthetics but have more complexity. For the every day consumer, longevity is seen as quality but for some to whom complexity is more important, that can be reduced with synthetic combinations that are cheap, "cheap" being the operative word, you can do "expensive" with synthetics. Luca Turin who is very pro-synthetics has said if you want to smell a fresh picked rose scent, you have to do it with synthetics and not possible with distilled roses but synthetic roses cannot compete with the complexity of real roses that while more fleeting would be way too expensive to duplicate in synthetics after analyzing all the molecules; And not worth it for mass sales purposes to the common nose who wouldn't detect such complexity anyway. So this whole watered down reformulations applies to both natural and synthetic fragrances.
What a unique & exceptional idea for a video…just outstanding!!…so here are my two cents, having worn all the iconic concoctions from the 70s, 80s, & 90s as they were being released at the time, and currently very much up to date with the latest releases from the likes of Roja, Frederick Male, & Xerjoff…I do subscribe to the notion that raw materials & ingredients are better today partly as a result of molecule structure, etc, and the scent profiles that I’ve had the chance to experience say in the past 10 years, especially with the incorporation of oud, ambergris, etc. in western perfumery have been jaw dropping, I truly believe that the juggernauts & power houses of bygone eras were a result of more integrity in the art of perfume creation. You see, the powerhouses were not owened by big conglomerates back in the day, which let’s face it are in it only & exclusively for the money & the bottom line, thus a new release was so potent, long lasting, and all encompssing that it did not need any flankers. Now, in all fairness & in the interest of full disclosure we have to factor in the role that IFRA regulations have played in perfume creation since around 2010 in the form of restrictions, impediments & challenges. That being said, many perfumes from times goneby, case in point the 90s are still pretty much relevant today after 30 years. Again, kudos for the video Ashley & keep up the good work!!✌️
Great video thanks.. I only recall in my lifetime big ones from 1980s so it's really informative to hear about how and why there are so many new ones continually coming out. We tend to have 'rose tinted' spectacles on the past probably more so with fragrance that after all is linked to emotions we remember. Keep them coming really enjoyed that vid
I think the best would be about 30% naturals and 70% aroma chemicals. The only issue i have with modern perfumery is that it seems some houses water down their popular fragrances as a cash grab. We experienced this with Creed Aventus and this cost a lot of trust in the industry. Maybe more transparency would be helpful. e.g. why did Parfums de Marly and Initio changed the formular, eg Side Effect from 76% to now 80% alc. Is it because of IFRA regulations or did they water down the fragrances. There are many speculations and it would be better to explain the customers this issue.
Ashley, thanks for doing this thought-provoking video. You are one of the STAR fragrance reviewers. Your insight on fragrances is unparalleled on RU-vid. I can not wait for you to start creating fragrances. I look forward to seeing you credited as the perfumer for new and exciting releases in the future.
A very sound point, but I feel like the depth of oakmoss from vintage perfumery is hard to replicate in current formulas. And that's just one example. While the perfume industry is constantly evolving, restrictions and the use of cheap synthetics for more profit is problematic not just for vintage junkies but also perfume enthusiasts as a whole. Still, I can't deny that we have more interesting options now than ever. Be it mixed media or mostly/ all naturals or synthetics. Looking forward to what you and other younger perfumers bring to the table in the future :)
I personally don’t know how parfumés were performing long time ago but I think that many parfumés today do not last long . Very expensive parfumés, but the longevity and silage are very weak. I would love parfumés with more natural extracts, parfumés without harsh chemicals like parabens, phthalates …I would love parfumés to last least four hours and string silage… I would like some out of box thinking when a parfum is created, more quality then quantity
An official archive of fragrances (or fragrance formulas)! Didn't know about that initiative. Brings to mind Sebastian's idea of building a sort of library with his own private collection, but that's the scents themselves. Is the archiving just the formulas, or the formulas plus the chemical recreations of them, for people or visitors in general to be able to smell them? I'd be interested in quite a few discontinued ones, e.g. the original YSL Opium Parfum for Women, YSL Rive Gauche, Gucci Pour Homme 1 and 2...
I thoroughly enjoyed your videos on these in depth topic about perfumery! You bring up a great point regarding how we tend to reminisce mostly good things of the past (a cognitive bias called rosy retrospection). You also mention about how technology has given us many new ingredients and materials for modern perfumery. With that I wonder, how do you feel about these wonderful additions to your arsenal as a perfumer. Do you feel at all paralyzed in choosing what ingredients you should put into your creation? And how do you or your school helps training you to get used to these ingredients?
Such a Great video and thank you for sharing your knowledge on this! This has been a topic that has came up a lot in my family over the past year or so since I have started collecting and studying fragrances. Im curious if the concentration of oil was not higher in more vintage fragrances compared to what is sold today. Musk oil lasts so much longer than say the same Musk scent as a EDT and if the company back in the hay day of perfumery as they say used this higher oil concentration in the regular bottles. This was a great video and I sure look forward to learning more from you. Thanks so much!
From my own experience, old perfumes (pre 2000) which happens to still be in production today demonstrably performs lesser and lesser to its previous batches/formulations. My thoughts on this are: 1. I would expect upon any addition/s made to IFRA’s banned/regulated list to immediately impact the scent/performance of any perfumes which uses those recently banned/regulated ingredient/s, especially to noses very familiar to the previous scent containing said banned/regulated ingredients.. 2. From a profit chasing approach, its understandable that perfumes now are consciously made to perform less than they do before on purpose so that more of it would be used to attain the same performance as it did before; therefore emptying the bottle sooner and hence make the purchase of another bottle too also come sooner and more frequent in comparison to if perfumes were designed to perform.. However honestly tho.. ignoring the IFRA bit, I think the more likely reason perfume’s performance are on this continuous decline over time is correlated to the continuous improvement in our sanitisation and waste management. People are cleaner and more hygienic now than they were before. More frequent showers, better soaps/cleansers/shampoos, better performing laundry detergents and washers, better toilet etiquettes, the growing use of scented candles and diffusers, etc all adds up to people smelling less and less bad every decade or so.. this inadvertently makes the use of perfumes to be more for adding flavour to how one presents themselves rather than to be used for concealing bad odours.. so~ naturally there is far less need for perfumes to blast and last today than it would’ve been before.. Knowing this, it then becomes common sense for perfumes made today to perform less.. its performing less by design..
While a truly interesting take, it has zero to do with covering up our body odors in this day and age. You had it right at the start when you said reformulations & cash grab.
@@sweetpeace5 *** TLDR: My further comments on the state of our general hygiene, and growing interest towards clean and aromatic ambiences are indirect causes from societal changes. Though logical, its correlation to the continuous performance degradation of our perfumes is at best just ‘likely’ rather than ‘definitely’. *** Yes, reformulations and business interests are both the guaranteed and direct causes. Hence why I numbered them. I didn’t number the rest. Demand for ‘needs’ will always dictate supply. If the majority continues to need last & blast perfumes, the market will then supply those last & blast perfumes. However we don’t see that being the case today. Though we may want our bottles to last & blast, it’s not a deal breaker if it’s not. The need for it to be has diminished over time. The main reason for this (I believe) is due to our practice and awareness towards better hygiene, sanitation, air-conditioning and the growing trend of levelling up our ambience to not only be clean, but also for it to smell nice!
The 'naturals vs synthetics' is also a myth that needs to be over, I think marketing teams have to do with this in only showing the notes (the info we have as consumers) as naturals, though of course there have been exceptions with more common synths such as Iso E, Hedione and Ambroxan and derivatives. More clear information about what goes in the bottle would benefit (and educate) the consumer.
First of all, thanks for creating this content, I'd like to hear more technical insight from a pro which is almost non-existent in the community. Second I'll agree with you in everything, the pallete AND the genre back then was very limited: femenine perfume for let's say 60 years was an inspiration of either Chypre (Coty) or Floral aldehydic (Nº5), masculines were more or less the same style over and over too. Maybe the complaint goes more in the direction of a over saturated mainstream market (and now 'niche' too) where everyone wants a piece of it and the result is a lack of creativity: for 12 years now we've had the 'blue shower gel' trend in masculines and few are taking risks. But again, people back then didn't complaint about the lack of new styles for years.
Thank you Ashley, yours are very valid points and expressed in a very clear way. I would like to know your opinion on parfum lifespan/expiration. Do fragrances get spoiled after some months?Thank you!
It's all about the cash...everything has been more expensive...the prices are to high and the quality is lower than before. It's not the same, RIP fragrance
Hi Ashley. I really enjoyed this video. It was very informative. Can you please do a video on inexpensive vs expensive colognes. Why are some colognes very expensive and is it because of quality ingredients used? Also, are EDT colognes better suited for a warmer climate vs EDP? 🌹🌹🌹
I have never thought about why classic perfumes in that way. You are thinking deeply. However, there are so many great perfumes that get discontinued today I wonder if they will fade into a forgotten history. Awesome topic
This was a great video Ashley !!! Do you think the fragrance snobs complaining about synthetics drives this narrative? I feel like every fragrance needs a balance of naturals and synthetics to be the best. When I think about the Chemistry of perfumery I’m happy technology has improved. Anyways love your videos! Keep it up! I found you through Sebastian.
I am aware that fragrance today is a mixture of synthetic and natural material but I still seek to find frags that tend to appear to smell natural such as Xerjoff Nio or profumum Roma Orangea. Perhaps ELDO you or someone like you these all smell clean and in my mind natural as opposed to the molecule fragrances that have become popular or Dior sauvage which do smell amazing but are just noticeably synthetic. The only part of perfumery I dislike is that different brands all follow each other to make similar fragrances which I understand but is frustrating when your on a lifetime search for a scent to call your own.
To me the wonder of modern perfumery is the ability to create something beautiful without relying so heavily on natural ingredients. Of course natural ingredients are very important, but I think a lot of people maintain the idea that if a perfume is not extremely high in naturals then it is somehow inferior to one that is. However it's the magic of the perfumer working with a combination of ingredients that makes a great perfume. I've smelled a few all natural/ high in naturals perfumes and I personally haven't been all that impressed. Also, am I correct in saying that many synthetic ingredients can in fact be quite expensive? Thanks so much for this great video I found it very enjoyable 😊
Those were very humorous insights. There are some older fragheads who love challenging fragrances, and they are some of those who make these complaints. Personally, I tend to gravitate towards the newer fragrances on the market, so I never bought into the idea of older being better. There are trends in the market, and I'm excited for the future.
There are many great perfumes that have been introduced in the recent past and are being introduced currently. What I lament is what has happened to most of the older fragrances that are still available today. They are pale versions of what they once were. Watered down shadows of their former selves. The quality of those perfumes has definitely declined. The perfumes that are being released now can be a good as they ever were.
I'm wondering if the companies have deliberately watered down their formulations especially since the 1980's. The EDTs seem so weak these days compared to the old days.
I'd like to see a video on whether you think Now that Francis Kurkdijan is Dior's head perfumer will they let him introduce new lines or reintroduce and modernize long forgotten fragrances in Dior's catalog
I like Creed fragrances because they SMELL natural to me. I know that's controversial and some people don't think so, but to me they typically smell more natural than a lot of others. Not to say they don't also use some synthetics because they have to. Also, I thought coumarin smelled like "dry hay", and the first instance of coumarin being isolated in 1882 was from tonka bean.
Theres a lot of music channels that should watch this. If you hear them tell it, every band was Led Zeppelin and the Beatles. But youre right, we only remember the biggest ones. Do you think its the regulations that has made newer versions toned down? Thinking of ones like Drakkar or Polo Green where they used to much more potent. Not that they smell better or worse, just tamer.
Same with everything eg music from the 60s or 70s or whatever decade. People just mention the same relatively tiny amount of songs from a particular decade and then say it was the best, on the strength of those. They just ignore the thousands and thousands of 'land fill' songs . . .
What do most mean when they say something is high quality. For example, they will say Niche Perfume X has better quality than such n such clone, but in the next breath, say, but this clone gets even better projection & longevity. What then is quality?
Almost all looking back is tinted with sentimentality, good or bad. It’s easy to say those were the days or remember when men and women smelled like adults and not little children with their super sweet fragrances.
There will always be those in any art or craft that always think of the past as the "good old days", but right now is often the best time with the expanded knowledge and willingness to experiment to synthesize the best of the past with modern scientific discoveries.
I think perfumery is in semi good state. But perfume community is horrifying! In my humble opinion, the main point is that perfumers back then put a lot more effort into creating a fragrance. Because they loved what they were doing…
Pity the video is so short. It is nice to have more ingredients at your disposal altho vintage perfumes or perfumes made from 50's to 90's have much more density, are more thick and have more flitting accords that comes and goes. Fashion did in some ways made a mess in perfumery not to say bitter and saying destroy it. Brands should be disclosing if there is really rose, jasmin or oud,.......... in a product or is just un accord and then they charge you for interpretation ( for which you need special skills and knowlege)a looot of money. So many perfumes has become one dimensional - linear, very rarely you get un orchestra of notes coming and going and transforming through out the day. Also a flood of the same perfumes in different packaging and names. I truly detest commercial fragrances, not being a snob, but they all smell the same. Perumes lost longewity, weak projection or only in the first hour after that skin scent, faint silage, after four hours its gone and cost 600 euros. In many ways perfumes has become disapointing, altho you have on your disposal 1000 or more new aromachemicals and naturals, they just dont perform or are very weak and you end up paying for "real gold flakes" in the bottle, which are not at all expensive but you pay for the bottle and the name, we dont realy know if there is uber expensive jasmin or rose in it.We may hope, but there is no guarantee. I must say that there are some gorgeous niche houses that have some great performance, I remember Eccentric molecule 01 when it came out, it was magical, after continues showering it was for three days on my skin on clothes for weeks, what Geza sells now is alcohol with a 5% of what it used to be. It is inulting. I hope to find some creations that brings smile on my face and I dont need to respray it every two hours. We must be optimistic dont we.
