tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2106815346229702986.post5434778595967939410..comments2024-03-21T00:17:37.281-07:00Comments on sherapop's salon de parfum: The Question of Vintage 2: The Moral of the Mystery Scent Vial Trial and Related RuminationsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2106815346229702986.post-25913567088748545392012-02-22T08:41:55.931-08:002012-02-22T08:41:55.931-08:00In this part of your post, and especially your ans...In this part of your post, and especially your answer to question #1, I think that we may part ways somewhat. I am not at all convinced that referring to something as "vintage" Mitsouko or whatever perfume is under discussion, picks out a particular perfume. <br /><br />It seems to me that every single stage in the degradation of a vintage perfume is going to smell differently. This means that depending upon how two aliquots from the very same vat were cared for, they may smell like entirely different perfumes.<br /><br />In your discussion of why the Mystery Scent Vial Trial of Youth Dew did not smell to you like Youth Dew--because you use the bath oil--you seemed to be gravitating toward or at least sympathetic with my view, but you stopped short. <br /><br />In your answer to question #1, above, I see that you really do not agree with me. In my view, the lesson of the Mystery Scent Vial Trial was that two "vintage" samples of "the same" perfume may smell entirely different, and so it doesn't make sense to say that we are talking about the same thing. <br /><br />Halston was the example which made the case most persuasively, to my mind. With Youth Dew, I had tried "vintage" and the sample was reformulated, so there was no surprise in the fact tha they smelled differently. Conversely, with Emeraude, I had only smelled the reformulation, but the Mystery Scent Vial Trial was of vintage. Again, no surprise, really, that they did not smell alike, since they are totally different perfumes.<br /><br />The key case was Halston: both my Halston edc and the Halston edc used in the Mystery Scent Vial Trial were "vintage". Yet THEY smelled like completely different perfumes! This case demonstrates, it seems to me, that the label "vintage Halston" (or substitute any other perfume) need not refer to the same thing at all. <br /><br />How many different "vintage Halstons" exist? In theory, an uncountably large number, since every time slice and every set of environmental conditions to which any aliquot has been subjected is going to generate a different perfume. Sometimes the variations will be small; other times, they will be huge. <br /><br />This seems to imply that when people engage in discussions about "vintage Halston" they may not be talking to each other at all, because they are referring to completely different objects in the world!<br /><br />Memoryofscent brought up a corroborative example in a comment on The Question of Vintage 1 (which I meant to include in the original post, but I must have got sidetracked by my doubly embedded excursus...which you so deftly side-stepped, I note (-:). <br /><br />In memoryofscent's experience, different "vintage" samples and bottles smelled entirely different, thus demonstrating the same skeptical thesis, it seems to me.sherapophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14116821928196122529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2106815346229702986.post-82479359060747752142012-02-22T08:20:50.113-08:002012-02-22T08:20:50.113-08:00Excellent, this is what I have been waiting for, G...Excellent, this is what I have been waiting for, Gypsy Parfumista: a defense of the entire vintage operation. You have persuasively explained the mindset, I think, of vintage lovers in your post.<br /><br />At the same time, you are not blinded to the problems which arise naturally with vintage perfumes. I love your example of "swap meets under the blazing sun." Yes, that is a huge source of my skepticism--not swap meets, in particular, but the general lack of information about how any vintage perfume was cared for. <br /><br />My suspicion is that lots of them have been passed from swap meet to swap meet to garage sale to garage sale, BEFORE ending up on e-bay or in the decanters' dark, cool, storage rooms. By then, of course, the a lot of damage has already been done.<br /><br />You also frankly acknowledge what vintage lovers and detractors have often reported: these perfumes, as natural products which therefore naturally degrade over time, either lose their top notes or they turn slightly (or very...) sour and off-putting. <br /><br />The difference between someone like you (a vintage lover, albeit a circumspect one...) and someone like Guusje, who eloquently explained in a comment on The Question of Vintage 1 why she eschews "old" perfumes in general, is that you think that the drydown is worth the wait, while vintage detractors are more interested in the overall experience. If it starts out gross, then it is in some ways... gross!sherapophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14116821928196122529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2106815346229702986.post-18284012443433116312012-02-22T08:09:32.918-08:002012-02-22T08:09:32.918-08:00Greetings, Gypsyparfumista! Thank goodness you hav...Greetings, Gypsyparfumista! Thank goodness you have the gumption to dive into my chaotic ramblings and impart some order to this discussion!<br /><br />I love your working definition of "vintage", and I do think that you are speaking for vintage-lovers here when you say, in effect, that "real perfume" has a sort of depth and complexity which all of the reformulations--in effect, watered-down muzak versions of classics--lack.<br /><br />The mystery in all of this is: What in the world is going on?<br /><br />How can so many perfume houses have been taken over by accountants and industrial chemists who fail altogether to grasp the beauty of vrai parfum--or else they just don't care? Why would someone go into the perfume business if they did not love perfume?<br /><br />Perhaps the answer to that question is contained within itself. <br /><br />Keyword: BUSINESS...sherapophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14116821928196122529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2106815346229702986.post-19655604826639269962012-02-21T10:05:25.900-08:002012-02-21T10:05:25.900-08:00In closing, I would like to say:
In answer to you...In closing, I would like to say:<br /><br />In answer to your two questions, Shera Pop, I would venture this:<br /><br />1) They are (or should be) smelling the same things if they know (beyond reasonable doubt) that what they are smelling is INDEED a vintage scent version (was it well kept is another story) of what they are sniffing. I can be numbered among those who prefer the VINTAGE Dioressence EDC to the more modern EDT. I also prefer the vintage Diorella to the more recent one(s). Don't get me started on the whole "Miss Dior" duplicity debacle either! *giggles wickedly*<br /><br />2) As with any FAVORITE anything I think it says YOU LOVE IT and would prefer to wear it over anything else. Mitsy (as we call Mitsouko in some circles) is gorgeous, especially the vintage...at least I think so; despite, it being called (by one of my dearest fragfriends) "the most depressing scent ever". I would say that Mitsy is indeed a classic (whether vintage or modern) and signified someone who liked earthy oriental scents in general. <br /><br />I am loathe to pick a "favorite" perfume; as I am someone who wears whatever happens to strike my fancy at any given time or intrigue me in the least. I say D&G BY Man is my signature because if I had a 50 or 100 ml bottle I would wear it AT LEAST once *maybe twice* a week.<br /><br />Unfortunately, I had a large bottle, gave it away (thinking I could replace it for the same $20), found it discontinued and now cannot afford to pay the "gougers" on eBay who know what they have and extort people who love it without mercy. I might add that it was discontinued in under ten years AFTER of its release BECAUSE NO ONE WAS BUYING IT! Now (that you can't get it readily or easily) EVERYONE wants it and the scalpers are laughing all the way to the bank! *sighs sadly*<br /><br />Vintage (as defined above by Oxford) is pretty right on, and as far as vintophiles go: I "get" where they are coming from (for the most part, like nichophiles) but consider myself an omniphile *I love evrything...pretty much!*. <br /><br />Older does not always mean better, but it does mean (especially for me as I grow older) something that harkens back to a by-gone time (of which the 90s, I guess now, could be included *giggle*) and is something more "ballsy" and "in your face" than today's perfume releases are. Think iron fist in velvet glove here...like *the early versions* of Pour Monsieur by CHANEL.<br /><br />Smell swell all! *hugs*Gypsy Parfumistanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2106815346229702986.post-54217060347215786892012-02-21T09:58:03.549-08:002012-02-21T09:58:03.549-08:00{PART TWO}
Vintage, by definition, is as follows:...{PART TWO}<br /><br />Vintage, by definition, is as follows: <br /><br />From my Illustrated Oxford University Dictionary (that I picked up for a DOLLAR at a yard sale...best BUCK I ever spent!) VINTAGE (not pertaining to wine) is defined as: (adj)1-of high quality, esp. from the past or characteristic of the best period of a person's *or Houses* work 2-of a past season. THAT is a definition I believe we, as parfumistas, can "work" with. *winks*<br /><br />It is true that when I smelled Vial 4 (in the same mystery sample challenge) I was SURE it was Estee Lauder; but, (to me) it was NOT the Youth Dew I know (and happen to LOVE) as I use the BATH OIL as pure parfum would be used-dabbed (or slathered) as need or mood dictates. The edp used in the "challenge" was nowhere near as thick or "earthy" as mine is/was. Again it is possible that though they may have come from the same batch one was kept safely in the back of the armoire and the other sat out (on a dressing table or bathroom counter *for some portion of its life* and changed, albeit subtly). <br /><br />DECANTING, in and of itself, can cause the juice *usually sealed until spraying* to come into contact with the air and thus begin to oxidize or "break down". I do not claim to understand all of the intricacies; but, common sense tells ME that if you keep them cool and in the dark they will smell better than the things I have seen (and smelled) at swap meets that have been under a blazing sun for God knows how many years and stored in someone's shed, when not being hawked, exposing them to extremes of heat and cold (depending on geographic area). <br /><br />I have many vintages (including some from the 50s and 60s) that were lovingly kept by the original owners, and secondary owners *if any* and this leads us to a question of provenance. Do you know when it was actually made, where it was, how it was stored, and what you are really getting? I only get "vintages" I own are from the owners and I try to get as much information as possible BEFORE PURCHASING! My DIOR Dioressence eau de cologne (in the houndstooth box and label) smells WAY better than its modern analogue (to my nose anyway). As does the LALIQUE bottle L'Air du Temps edt splash I got Mother for Christmas this past year. Vintage does NOT always mean better...but it usually does mean heavier, more quality ingredients and more OOMPH (I love that onomatopoeia) than current releases and those from the last few years do.<br /><br />Many Yves Rocher vintages that I own smell downright nasty from the bottle (like they have soured or turned and the aldehydes have breathed their last breath) BUT when they hit the skin...they still bloom wonderfully and smell way better than most do today (for real)! I am not a vintage-o-phile, per se, but I do appreciate the construction of a magnificent perfume and am happy to say I have many in my collection. In 99.999996785& of specific perfumes...they do smell better, at least to me. Better meaning more projection and lifespan, more depth and complexity and less wan in general.Gypsy Parfumistanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2106815346229702986.post-77325345890577127082012-02-21T09:12:08.215-08:002012-02-21T09:12:08.215-08:00Well, Shera Pop, that was some posting! Perhaps I ...Well, Shera Pop, that was some posting! Perhaps I need to try switching Peet's with my Level 5 Seattle's Best (which I am sad to say I am out of, and drinking 2/3 Level 5 with a scoop of House Blend!) as you are really on a roll! I apologize for not making it to the very first "A Question of Vintage" post and shall try *time and caffeine levels allowing* to sound off!<br /><br />First and foremost, I agree with what you were saying about eBay and am leaning towards believing that "three housewives with pipettes" urban legend. I have purchased a few "vintage" (defined by me as older formula/usually discontinued/pre-IFRA meddling) perfumes from there. So far...so good. I DO always buy from those who have 97-100% positive feedback (no one is ever happy all the time!) and who ship quickly. I did, however, when offered my much coveted LE PARFUM set for in excess of a grand...balk! *shudders*<br /><br />Vintage to me simply means "older", and perhaps (usually since the IFRA got involved) richer versions. Usually that "v" word means original or older than 25 years...I am astounded that DIOR Homme Intense (released in 2007, wasn't it?) has already been reformulated and now, in 2011, those bottles are being labelled VINTAGE!! I consider vintage things like IMARI (yes, it's Avon...I know!) from the 80s. Today it is a far cry from what it was then...no oomph, no balmy incensiness, not grandeur. Rare Sapphires (gorgeous grapefruit, lily of the valley and vetiver scent) discontinued in the early aughties; while Rare Gold and Rare Pearls (fiddly dee dee), in the modern reformulations *pedestrian compared to my vintages*, continue to sell thousands of bottles. (?!?!?!)<br /><br />What vintage means, to me, is more of a "real perfume" type of smell and not the watered-down-to-within-an-inch-of-its-scent-life "perfume by numbers" that is so ubiquitous these days. Something gorgeous, that's dripping in civet and heady swirls of REAL oakmoss (not that tree moss crap) rich with flowers spices and woods and something that smells like it should and did when no one (actually) appreciated it.<br /><br />*takes breath, prepares for Part 2*Gypsy Parfumistanoreply@blogger.com