How to tame a sa(u)vage...

The news hit me with the same severity they hit me everytime I hear that a legendary fragrance must be modernly reinterpreted, no matter what. This time it was Eau Sauvage's turn. As a silent watcher who has seen tenths of magnificent fragrances destroyed for no apparent reason, I thought I knew beforehand all the "arguments" that Dior was going to use. I was wrong. This time the shameless ridicule blew every fuse I had still unblown.

Here is how Dior explains the reasons of launching Eau Sauvage Cologne in its press release:

"…Born as a symbol of renewal, Eau Sauvage appears in 1966, sweeping away everything old. This unexpected, unprecedented fragrance embodies the image of the restless youth—bright, bustling, finding his own way. Since then, Eau Sauvage gained the status of the great classics.

His courage has turned into an absolute standard. Permanently popular for every new generation it impresses. Today, it seeks to conquer again a modern young people.

2015: Eau Sauvage starts a new revolution. The new version of the fragrance—cologne is born. Stunningly spectacular, so different. Invincible ... Eau Sauvage Cologne, rebellious heritage.

How to create a new interpretation of a legend? Carefully but deliberately breaking down the foundations. With reverence, but with an audacity. Fresh and bright fragrance Eau Sauvage Cologne astonishes. Its timeless elegance is easily recognizable, but features a new face and new nuances. Instantaneous, exciting, undoubted charm. A new modern cologne that goes beyond fashion trends and seasons. New youth of legendary composition ..."

You know what? I'm sick and tired of all these bollocks, and please pardon my French, cause I can't pardon theirs. I may be just one out of millions of possible buyers, and surely Dior won't go bankrupt if I decide that I had enough of their drivel. But that doesn't mean that I'm going to shut up and swallow every piece of pompous trash they're throwing my way. I won't comment on the obvious syntax and conceptual errors, although they flourish in the text and are easily spotted, even by someone like me who is not a native English speaker. But I can't cope with the abundance of non-linguistic nonsense in it.

So...

"…Born as a symbol of renewal, Eau Sauvage appears in 1966, sweeping away everything old. This unexpected, unprecedented fragrance..."

Hmm, not exactly...Rochas' Moustache, Chanel pour Monsieur and Monsieur de Givenchy preceded Eau Sauvage by 19, 11 and 7 years respectively, and they smelled a lot like it, more or less.

"Today, it seeks to conquer again a modern young people."

Wrong! It's only you, seeking to conquer the apogee of your bank accounts and not giving a damn about tainting the "status of the great classics" of Eau Sauvage.

"2015: Eau Sauvage starts a new revolution."

Why? Did the old one become a boring status quo or get stagnated and thus it needed to be overthrown?

"Stunningly spectacular, so different. Invincible ..."

You forgot "so modest" after "so different".

"How to create a new interpretation of a legend?"

By not creating it perhaps?

"Carefully but deliberately breaking down the foundations."

I hope it collapses on you.

"Fresh and bright fragrance Eau Sauvage Cologne astonishes."

Who?

"Its timeless elegance is easily recognizable, but features a new face and new nuances."

Unless "timeless" refers to Eau Sauvage, there's no chance of a fragrance being "timeless" in anything before it's launched. And how can it be "easily recognizable" when it has almost nothing in common with the fragrance it supposedly came from?

"A new modern cologne that goes beyond fashion trends and seasons."

I have to admit that this one sent me rolling on the floor laughing? Really Dior? Not interested in fashion trends? But then, remembering that Dior has launched only 150 fragrances since 2000, I lowered my head in shame, thinking that there's not even the slightest chance that the people running Dior would be interested in following fashion trends. Why would they? Does this moderate production give the right to anyone to accuse Dior of being a follower of fashion trends? I don't think so.

"New youth of legendary composition ..."

I give up...

But as if the press release was not enough, Dior continues joking in their site.

"Yesterday you were introduced to the new Eau Sauvage Cologne, a fresh and spirited fragrance embodied by Alain Delon."

Right...A new, fresh and spirited fragrance embodied by an octogenarian...Of whom they used a picture of "Les Aventuriers", filmed in 1967, when he was 32. And in any case, what has Alain Delon got to do with all these blabber about rebelliousness and revolutions? From what I know the guy has bodyguards since the late '60s and his political views were always flirting with the far-right side of the politics spectrum. I'm by no means judging him, I'm just saying. Oh, and he's filthy rich too. Not exactly a rebellious attitude, right?

And if my memory serves me well, an eau de cologne concentration contains roughly half the aromatic compounds of an eau de toilette. Does that mean that Eau Sauvage Cologne will come at half the price of Eau Sauvage Eau de Toilette? Wait and see...

But silly talk aside, lets see in what way Eau Sauvage Cologne honours the tradition of Eau Sauvage, and how much reverence it holds about it. Of course a field test would be the most accurate and appropriate way to compare the two scents, but some details are way too blatant to be ignored.

Eau Sauvage had 18 notes included in its composition. Eau Sauvage Cologne has 8. Do you know how many of them are common in both fragrances? Two...Vetiver and bergamot.

Based on this kind of logic, Azzaro's Decibel could be launched as Azzaro pour Homme Cologne, because it actually has three (50% more) notes common with Azzaro pour Homme. Or why not call Givenchy's Play Intense Givenchy Gentleman Cologne, since it also has three notes common with Givenchy Gentleman?

What really makes me furious, is not the cataclysm of hastily made fragrances launched in machine guns' rate of fire. It's the fact that they're trying to push them on us by using pretentious and verbose bubbles in unneeded press releases and similar fanfares. Did any of you ask Dior why they launched a direct insult to Eau Sauvage and had the nerve to name it after it? I didn't.

But let's also have a look at the oeuvre of the luminary responsible for Eau Sauvage's rejuvenation.

It's Francois Demachy. Monsieur Demachy's picture should accompany the "workaholic" entry in every encyclopaedia. Or be under "perfume machine", if such a term was included. You see, creating 101 fragrances from 2005 to 2015, with 80 of them made for Dior, is something that must have helped perfumery's diversity a lot. An awful lot. It seems that his exhausting rate of spitting out "new" fragrances granted him the privilege to be Eau Sauvage's saviour. Or slayer...

Let's also see how Dior itself describes him.

"Since Miss Dior in 1947, Dior has collaborated with some of the greatest perfumers in the world. Today Dior has its own Perfumer-Creator, Francois Demachy. The Dior signature: high-quality, unique and timeless fragrances."

Aye, I'm sure that all of Monsieur Demachy's creations are definitely unique. To the same degree that two 10kgr buckets of black paint are unique, when one of them has one drop of white paint mixed in it and the other one has two. I also have no doubt that his creations will withstand the test of time and become timeless. I don't know, perhaps it's the absence of "ex" between "Dior" and "signature" that bothers me a little...

"Dior Perfumer-Creator since 2006, Francois Demachy embodies the expertise and great creativity of Dior perfumes. Francois Demachy grew up in Grasse, the cradle of perfumery. It was there that he learned about the raw materials and alchemical mysteries of perfumery. In the land of flowers,he developed an unconditional love of fine materials, the secret of wonderful perfumes. The guarantor of Dior's olfactory expertise, Francois Demachy has privileged relationships with the producers who supply the Maison. These exceptional ingredients form the signature of his creations. An art lover and refined aesthete, Fracois Demachy perpetuates the heritage of Christian Dior with rigor and creativity."

First of all, turning Francois to Fracois in two lines, doesn't seem to keep up very much with his "refined aesthete" qualities. Since we're talking about Dior's official site and not about some stupid Greek writing in English in a German site, misspelling your own Perfumer-Creator's name is not just another typo.

Second, the fact that he created 22 fragrances for other houses after 2006, looks like Dior doesn't have that much of "its own Perfumer-Creator". And third, this "rigor" is exactly what I felt (pathologically speaking) when I read that another classic had undergone a "modern interpretation". Oh, and taking into consideration the rate in which Monsieur Demachy creates, I guess these "exceptional ingredients" must arrive at Dior's in 50 tons tank trucks. Last but not least, launching 150 fragrances in 15 years, while previously you've launched only 22 in 53, is not exactly perpetuating the heritage of Christian Dior. It's rather dancing on it, with cash overflowing from every pocket.

Had enough? How about some more big fat lies?

"The bottle designed by Pierre Camin in 1966 has not changed since its creation—something unheard of in the perfume world."

Oh yes?

It seems that the sages in Dior don't consider any of the above as inhabitants of the perfume world. And why should they? They're all virtually unknown fragrances which are probably worn by no more than a few dozens of people worldwide.

And what exactly are these?...

Maybe I need a pair of new glasses due to getting old, but they don't seem to cope with the "has not changed since its creation" boasts.

I don't know if all these are a matter of being ignorant of the house's history or simply ignorant. Some people say that sciolism is worse than ignorance, and I think I agree with them. But if neither sciolism nor ignorance is the case, then what's left is the worst case scenario. That the people in Dior are liars. Or swindlers. Or both. Simple as that. And despite all of the above being an insult to our intelligence, they're still not our biggest problem. For I think that the biggest problem is that the only ones lamenting for every "modern interpretation" disaster are not the ones one would expect to be, cause I've never heard of anyone in a perfume house talking about how much (s)he misses a '70s or '80s formulation of the crying shame the fragrance has eventually become. No, the only bewailers are always us, the brainless (according to all these nice Mesdames et Messieurs) consumers, who are considered as having an IQ equal to Eau Sauvage Cologne's concentration...