Aromascope

14 Comments

• 1. Flora  |  January 17th, 2007 at 12:56 am

  Good question! One mark of a classic would be that it is an original, unlikely to be mistaken for anything else. By that standard, Chanel No. 5 and Poison both fit. But will anyone be wearing Poison fifty years from now? We have to wait and see. (I have never cared for Chanel No. 5 myself, heretic that I am, so I don’t really understand WHY it has outlasted so many others.)

  I like the classics myself, and I always seem to gravitate toward masterfully composed scents, old or new, and not necessarily those with an “overdose” of anything. I often prefer the seamless elegance of blends where no one note hits you over the head, yet the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Joy, 1000, Moment Supreme and many other Patous come to mind. Rochas Femme (the original) Intoxication by d’Orsay, or Lucien Lelong Indiscret fit the bill as well. If anyone has ever tried the original Odalisque by Nettie Rosenstein – I could not pick out all the notes and tell you everything that was in it to save myself, but it just smelled like “old money” to me, and indefinable impressions are part of the mystery of a great fragrance.

  Among modern perfumes,we have the re-created Josephine by Rance’ with its 200-year old formula that truly stands the test of time, and nothing can touch the original Amouage Gold, which I can only hope will be around in fifty years. Give me those over Chanel No. 5 any day.

• 2. Judith  |  January 17th, 2007 at 7:16 am

  What an interesting idea! I never thought of that! It’s clearly true for some classics, but I wonder whether it really fits all. Mitsouko, for example, seems to fit that description less well than Coty Chypre, and it is also less of a groundbreaker, but it is (IMHO) more of a “classic”–and that, I think, has to do with what Flora pointed to: the elegance of the blend.

• 3. Elle  |  January 17th, 2007 at 7:47 am

  My instinct is to agree w/ him completely. After all, even many scents we don’t find unusual now, were in their time. To me, Joy is still shocking in the incredible knock you down power of the jasmine and rose. And a scent like L’Heure Bleue may not be loud, but it still strikes me as unusual and intense in its powdery density. But, if I back away some from my natural love of gutsy scents, I do recognize that there definitely are classics that don’t have an extreme dose of something. However, I do think they are all distinctive in some way and that what sets them apart from the glut of fruity florals out today is precisely that distinctiveness and the high quality of the ingredients. I think vintage L’Air du Temps does rate as a classic, but the reformulated version out now does not since the ingredients are so inferior.

• 4. March  |  January 17th, 2007 at 8:16 am

  Well, who am I to argue with the great Flechier? But prior to reading your comments I’d already aligned with Flora and Judith — while the classics he names feature an overdose, the classics Flora names don’t (that I’m aware of, anyway) and I thought of Mitsouko right away, like Judith — unless I guess you want to consider the entire scent an overdose

  I’d also argue that “an overdose of an ingredient or accord” tends to make a scent really STRONG (duh) without necessarily producing a classic — the Jessica Simpson Dessert crap, Angel (go ahead, shoot me), Pink Sugar…

• 5. newproducts  |  January 17th, 2007 at 8:29 am

  Flechier makes an interesting point, but I don’t think it applies to all the classics. Flora’s point about how well composed a scent is is also important, but I don’t think all well composed scents are classics, either. I think another factor in whether something becomes a classic is whether it strikes a chord with people that transcends time. So, a scent becomes a classic either because it is very innovative (using an overdose of something or pairing disparate notes, etc.) or because it is well composed AND it strikes a chord with people across generations.

• 6. newproducts  |  January 17th, 2007 at 8:34 am

  Oops, I forgot to add, BTW, that my name is Minsun.

• 7. Marina  |  January 17th, 2007 at 8:46 am

  Very interesting. It certainly applies to the scents he listed, but not to all “classic” perfumes. Take Cuir de Russie, for example. Yes, it makes an accent on leather, but I don’t think there is an overdose of it, it is balanced perfectly by other ingredients. Still, it is a classic. I think a scent has to be interesting and unique to become a classic, but that uniqueness isn’t always achieved by a means of an overdose of anything. Sometimes it is achieved by the most perfect of balances. I also think that, to become a classic, a scent has to have a certain timelessness that transcends trends. Bois des Iles, created in the 1920s, or Miss Dior, created in the 1940s, or any of the classic Guerlains and Caron, are as “relevant” todays as years ago.

• 8. Teri  |  January 17th, 2007 at 12:24 pm

  I’m in full agreement with Minsun and Marina. The very notion of ‘classic’ implies an ability to be appreciated over a range of generations. It works that way with furniture, architectural styles, and, in fact, any of les beaux artes. So why not perfume?

  A single predominant “trademark” note, if you will, makes a fragrance memorable, certainly, but I’m not convinced that this, and this alone, makes it a classic.

• 9. Patty  |  January 17th, 2007 at 4:50 pm

  I suspect a better word is “focus.” Classics tend to have crystal clear focus on what they are, there’s very little that is muddy about them, and/or they usually smell unique. So they may be one or the other, but they can be both too.

  Opium was overkill, but so was Giorgio, and the former is a classic, and the latter is often the punchline to a perfume joke, even though I think it was a perfectly lovely scent in teensy doses.

• 10. tmp00  |  January 17th, 2007 at 4:53 pm

  I don’t know, I sort of think of a classic as being a singular vision that doesn’t compromise, try to be semething it’s not, or try to appeal to everyone. In that vein, Poison is unquestionably a classic, even though I don’t personally like it.

  BTW- I don’t care for Chanel #5 either.

• 11. Tigs  |  January 17th, 2007 at 10:39 pm

  I don’t know if I would define it as what makes a great classic, but I like Luca Turin’s idea (for all art!) of what makes greatness: deliberate damage. He mentions it in his discussion of Opium: the minty bubblegum note striking an off chord. Even in perfectly “blended” abstract scents like No. 5, you have the little bit of odd numbered carbon chains floating around in there, stirring the pot. The indolic side of Joy that has lead some to compare it to urinal pucks, the hairspray cloud over Rush that is so weird, etc. etc. Certainly I think an overdose of an ingredient could be included in this category of damage added for effect; Victoria of BdJ nails it for me when she discusses this quality as the most appealing part of some of the successful Serge Lutens scents, their “exaggerated character”.

• 12. chaya ruchama  |  January 18th, 2007 at 7:05 am

  Exaggeration may create a classic, but blending and balance can sustain one.

  My sad refrain, again:

  Good design is eternal.
  If it’s good now, it will remain so.
  If it’s crap, crap will it remain…

  I’m with Flora, on the oft-maligned Amouage Gold for Women, BTW.
  I’m not sorry I ordered it- after the initial blast, the drydown is woody and gorgeous, at least for us, and it is long-lasting.
  I think it’s classic-worthy.

  Why someone would adore Poison, and hate this, is beyond me. but who the hell am I, anyhoo ?

  Always a fascinating and controversial subject….

• 13. Gaia, the non-blonde  |  January 18th, 2007 at 11:22 pm

  It’s an interesting thought. There has to be something to the theory, but it doesn’t explain everything. It’s not just the boldness of certain ingridients, it’s also a vision, but maybe not just an artistic vision. I think, heretic that I am, that there’s also a marketing vision and intention that make a classic. A perfume house that firmly stands behind the creation, keeps it on the market and makes it available and recognizable. Part of what makes No. 5 a classic is the fact that even my mother-in-law would recognize it- both scent and bottle. Same goes for the big Guerlains and the like. I don’t think the same can be said about Serge Lutens, although in my opinion it’s much more deserving.

• 14. Flora  |  January 20th, 2007 at 5:59 pm

  Chaya, I don’t know who does NOT like Amouage Gold either, as I cannot imagine it. It is so beautiful and opulent. The only reason I don’t wear it regularly is its price, but it is worth every penny. When I get rich (uh-huh!) I shall buy it by the case.