Your Perfume Hot Takes

@Ringtale Exactly. Trends come and go and that has always happened in the fragrance industry when they want to sell more perfumes for the mainstream crowd, however there are always perfumes and noses that don't follow the trends so I'm sure everybody will find something that they'll like from any era of fragrances if they take a look on outside the most popular releases too in case they don't like the current mainstream trends. A huge variety of tons of different perfumes are now more accessible than ever which is an awesome thing. ☺️

Another one for me: 

I'm not shitting on designer scents, but they are not for me. They are almost always in a range of "meh" to good, but nothing blows me away. 

On the other side, I love niche scents and almost exclusively sample them now. They generally provide me with a much more interesting scent profile, even if I think they are bad, I can respect the creativity. They are just more "fun" to experience, good and bad. 

On the topic of reformulations...

My hot take is I think a) reformulations happen less often than the Internet would lead you to believe, and b) when reformulations do happen, the IFRA is kind of just used as a scapegoat, and the real reason is cost-cutting measures.

@Killsocket I think what you're saying is actually a very common and trendy opinion nowadays. All I have seen lately is people complaining about designers or cheaper fragrances and praising niche. I personally couldn't tell any difference. There are very unique niches, very unique designers and very unique cheapies. Then there are very disappointing niches, very disappointing designers and very disappointing cheapies. If doing a huge blind sniffing of unknown 1,000 niches, 1,000 designers and 1,000 cheapies, I'm sure most people couldn't tell to which category they would put them. I think it's all like emperor's new clothes - people think all niche is fancier and more unique just because it costs more and because they haven't tested enough underrated and unknown designers and cheapies. That's my hot take. 😄

@Lempi I don't think designers are bad or can't be good. It's just my experience. There is a safeness to them I dislike and that even does lead into certain niche brands. I think like Creed or Parfums de Marly ride that safe line too. You are right, this isn't much of a hot take, though. 

Curious, what are some of the more unique designers I could maybe sample that could float my boat? I would love to try some!  When I say designer, I mean stuff like Dior, Versace, and Ralph Lauren which nothing from them excites me, but I am not saying they are bad or poor. I generally do like Tom Ford which is more luxury designer (right?).  When I think niche, I think Rogue Perfumery and Parfums de Nicolai and I think there is a big difference between these brands and Dior, Versace, and Ralph Lauren. 

I think you should try something from Guerlain maybe. Like Mitsouko Eau de Parfum Or Jicky Eau de Parfum. Nothing 'safe' about those in my opinion .

I'd suggest looking at the higher end of the designer lines, like Chanel's Les Exclusifs, Guerlain's L'Art & L'Matiere line, Dior's Privee line, or YSL's Le Vestiaire line.

While my collection tends to fall on the niche side of the spectrum, I find niche is a poor concept that doesn't accurately explain what we are trying to describe. I see design houses that have in house perfumers, or independent houses that create their own fragrances differently than "niche" houses that rely on companies like Firminech or IFF to create their fragrances. This is not to say that one is better than the other. It's just that designating one niche and another a designer is not helpful.

For example, Guerlain is not considered niche because along with fragrances they produce cosmetics. Diptyque, on the other hand is considered niche, even though they produce candles, soaps, home decor goods, and tools associated with candles (and probably more). Both produce good fragrances. Designating one niche and the other a designer is not useful (interesting, my understanding is that Diptyque started as a design house, and they were not originally producing perfumes).

Sorry. That's my rant.

The differentiation between "niche" and "designer" is completely pointless and should be abandoned. 

Person A can draw. Person B can draw AND play a musical instrument. Both enter an unspecified theoretical drawing competition. Their victory or defeat is in no way related to their additional skillsets or lack thereof. It depends on how good they are at drawing. 

I am aware that I am oversimplifying things, but my point stands. And it's the same with perfumes. It makes no difference what else whoever created them is good at. They are either good at what they do or they are not. 

Typically, the best fragrance from a house is USUALLY regarded as being the most mass appealing.

No, we cannot talk in absolutes which is not what I'm doing. I am stating popularity does not equate to the fragrance being the best.

Green Irish Tweed has a very familiar DNA which has been around for decades now. You can find it in the popular Cool Water Eau de Toilette. Familiarity can inflate popularity. I, for one, do not think Aventus nor Green Irish Tweed are better than Royal Oud.

This is actually perfect (above). I've tried to describe this to folks before, and this is literally the best I've seen, and thanks. I'm all about analogies lol.

Separately, on to my hot takes.

1. Agree w/Ursaw, Niche vs. Designer...pointless.

2. A lot of people know smell is subjective, but I don't that the public at large, and in fact, a good amount of the fragrance community know just how MUCH subjectiveness is involved. Our noses have like 400ish different types of olfactory receptor genes out of a group of about 800ish. The combo of which of these receptors function properly differs from person to person...and these genes vary A LOT between person to person. So, you might lack a receptor I have, or vice versa (and not just 1, but many receptors). For example, I'm in no way impressed by Imagination but it's very clear I'm missing something that others are not as this shit is popular as heck.

Just to play devils advocate for the purposes of discussion.... 

Person A dedicates their life to the art of drawing and has made numerous masterpieces while Person B just happens to be good at drawing while having an ability to also play a musical instrument so they do both. 

They both could win the theoretical drawing contest, but if I am buying drawing art, I'm more likely to support Person A. Because I don't care about contests (mass appeal), I want art that isn't bound by creative limits to win contests. 

I think fragrance--like every creative field--is experiencing a massive pushback from neo-conservatives who need to force their worldview onto everything.  For instance, I see so many fragrance reviews lately that are insistent on assigning a gender to a scent (typically "This is MANLY scent for MEN and it's DEFINITELY MASCULINE") and it adds no value to fragrance appreciation at all, it's just a ridiculous grasping at obsolete, inflexible, conservative value judgements.  I've watched it develop over the last decade with infiltration from gamer bros who brought their trad values and their epic beast mode toxic everything and it's really snowballed. 

I see what you're trying to get at, but I don't think that this negates my initial point? You could exchange the theoretical drawing contest with any other theoretical scenario where you would have to choose between two artists. But sure, let's go with the "I want to order an artwork" scenario you proposed. 

You have $200 and you want to commission an artist. For the purposes of this theoretical scenario, you have a choice between two people: 

Person A is all about drawing. They dedicated their life to it, they spend 10 hours each day behind the canvas, they're a master of their craft and for $200 they'll make you a masterpiece that your grandchildren will fight over once you die. 

Person B likes to draw in their free time and over the years got pretty good at it. They have a day job and a life outside of this hobby, but if you pay them $200 – sure, they'll sit down and draw you a pretty anime girl with big, uh, personality and a simple background. 

In this situation, the answer is pretty simple. Unless for some reason you desperately want that anime girl – you'll commission Person A. 

But what if it's a choice between two other people?

Person A is all about drawing. They want to become a professional artist when they grow up, so they're spending every day behind the canvas. They still have a long way to go, but for $200? They'll draw anything. It will look janky, the anatomy will be off, and the composition – weird and flat. They will do their best, but they're self taught and are yet to discover that shadows on the painting look much better if you paint them with colors instead of pure black, so "their best" will objectively be pretty mediocre, especially for your hard earned $200.

Person B likes to draw. They've had lot of different creative hobbies that they've mastered over the years, and once they picked up drawing, they quickly got pretty good at it. They may not be perfect, and they may struggle with unfamiliar concepts (so please don't ask them to draw giant robots!) but they have a solid understanding of human anatomy and color theory, and their curiosity and life experience made them very good at coming up with interesting scenarios and dynamic compositions. For your $200 they'll be willing to do their best, and while the result may not be Louvre-worthy, you will feel happy every time you look at the wall you've hung it on. 

In this situation, who will you commission? I'm willing to bet that (unless you're really into giant robots) you will choose Person B. 

Because at the end of the day it doesn't matter what got them into drawing. Or how long have they been doing it. Or if they're also good at anything else. What matters is the end result. And that end result will vary wildly from person to person regardless of which category they technically fall into. 

Interesting discussion and analogy. There's one problem. You're talking about individual artists. When discussing designer and niche, except for the independent perfumers, you're often talking about the same artists creating both. The noses, or the companies they work for, compete for briefs from both design houses and niche houses. So, you find Francis Kurkdjian creating fragrances as the in-house perfumer for Dior, while at the same time creating fragrances for his own house. This year, Alberto Morillas created Light Blue Eau de Toilette and Acqua di Giò Elixir, both designer fragrances, while also creating Ylang Mixer for Mizensir (his own house) and Masters Signature that would be considered niche.

In the end, while we as enthusiasts like to discuss fragrances as art, regardless of whether the house is niche, designer, or independent, they all have one thing in common. They're a business that needs to make a profit, or at least break even.

@JSO60 I, uh, think you linked a different perfume there than what you intended?

But that aside. The fact that same artists often work for a variety of different clients, imo, blurs the line between "niche" and "designer" even further. In this scenario, perfumer is the artist, and company that hires him is the commissioner. If an artist is versatile enough to get lots of different kinds of commissions from different buyers – that's great. If an artist finds one specific niche for themselves and sticks to it – that's also great. But both are artists, and what matters to me as a potential buyer is whether I vibe with their personal style. 

So let's work with the assumption that I do like a given artist's overall style. I also love cool landscapes!

Let's say that the versatile artist from our first example above gets a lot of commissions to draw furries, anime girls and giant space robots. But in their spare time they really like painting landscapes. As a landscape enjoyer, I will follow their side blog to stare at pretty landscapes. 

But what if that same versatile artist gets a lot of commissions to draw environmental concept art? And in their spare time they like to relax by painting giant space robots. Then, as a landscape enjoyer, I will follow their main blog and ignore their fun side gig. 

Now let's look at our second artist that found a specific niche and sticks to it. Again, whether I will follow them depends on if I like their personal style and what they're using it for. I will follow a landscape painter. I will be way more picky when choosing between people drawing anime girls. I will not follow an artist who specializes in giant robots. 

Yet again, it doesn't really matter whether someone paid that artist to create an artwork or if they did it for fun in their free time – the only thing that matters is whether I as their follower like the result. 

Also, at least "giant space robots" is a clearly defined niche. When I see it, I say "aha, got it" and move past it in search for my beloved landscapes. What does "niche" tell us when it comes to perfumery? Nothing. 

I think the difference between niche and designer is not just about the perfumer, but about the perfume. Designer perfumes are often produced in larger quantities and thus made out of less exclusive ingredients.

To come back to other artforms: Professional painters make paintings exclusively for clients as well as for the masses; Professional actors perform in plays as well as in commercials.

Here in the Netherlands there has been an arangement (long ago) for professional painters to earn a living by making paintings for public places and such, only because they couldn't live from just making paintings for private clients. Those paintings for public places were less inspired by their artistic goals and thus less exclusive (with more than one edition of the painting ofcourse), but were more inspired by the need to earn a living. That didn't make them less of an artist though, but the paintings were less interesting often. Same goes for niche perfumes versus designer perfumes.

That doesn't mean however that everyone - as a result - favours the more exclusive works of art.

I, for instance, favour some Guerlains over some niche perfumes, even when I recognize the fact that these niche perfumes may be more 'exclusive'.

Imo, "exclusivity" of niche is often just a marketing technique that has no bearing on the actual quality/rarity of the final product. The fact that there is more or less of something doesn't make it any better or worse. The fact that a perfume is made from "all natural resources" doesn't necessarily mean that it's good or more interesting. The fact that something is niche doesn't mean that it's made from any premium materials to begin with.

But more importantly – there is no single agreed upon definition of "niche". To argue about it, we first need to define it. And since "niche" is culturally used as an antithesis of "designer", we will have to clearly define "designer" as well. Because right now the distinction is predominantly vibes-based.

Which is okay! Like anything else, it has the right to exist as a personal opinion. But as a broader definition it makes as much sense as any other marketing buzzword. "This will make you smell rich". "This scent will make you more seductive". "This smell is so rare and exclusive". The way it's structured now, it's just another ploy to make people buy more stuff. 

But this is a discussion that could last for days and take over the whole thread, so maybe it would be better to give it its own space? 

Perfumery, both niche and designer, is about marketing per se ofcourse. Would be interesting to know if designer perfumery generates more money (over all) than niche perfumery or the other way around 🤔

Oh I got another one, people really dont care much about which ocassion you wear something, Im not saying you should wear you vanilla sweet sugary bomb in the full blown summer heat, but people outside of the whole perfume community only really have maybe 1 or 2 perfumes that they use year round and dont question much the ocassion or settings or vibes.