Yack all you want about its timelessness, its sparkling aldehydes complementing its heavy jasmine, its perfect representation of everything classy. I think it stinks.
Specifically, I think it stinks of a child's inflatable vinyl pool toy that someone spilled cheap fake flowery perfume on and a little nail polish remover. These aldehydes do not "sparkle" as advertised, they smell like what they are, chemicals. The actual real flowery essences are suffocated in the haze of industrial waste that is your sillage. This perfume does not say "Marilyn Monroe", or "New York", or "high class" to me; it shouts the post-war slogan, "Better Living Through Chemistry!"
What's worse, I can't escape it. Knockoff scents appear in every toiletry known to (wo)mankind, usually the ones that are already unwholesomely
chemical: Shampoo, soap, powder, air freshener, baby wipes, and any other consumable imaginable. A cheap knockoff of Chanel #5 is now the default scent of almost all baby shampoo. Next time you pop open a fresh bottle of Johnson & Johnson No More Tears, take a whiff from your bottle of #5 (due to its ubiquity, I'm sure you have some). Notice the similarities? Yes, the baby shampoo is weaker, more wholesome smelling with a bit of baby powder smell thrown in so you think "baby product", but it's still based upon ol' #5!This is not unique to #5. Other "high class" perfumes have their knockoffs in both perfumery and non-perfume consumer goods. Most of the other common high-class-but-now-slumming scents are from Guerlain. Shalimar's classic Oriental scent is background noise for everything that isn't #5. I've smelled Champs-Élysées in women's makeup base, soap, and dishwashing detergent. Mitsuoko is the default greeny-chypre scent for a myriad of knockoffs.
These may have started out meant as exclusive, rarified scents that were copied copied copied into cheapness, but now the current is going the opposite direction. There are ubiquitous, cheap scents that are now marketed and dressed up to be sold as high-class. Large chemical and flavoring companies have stockpiles of scent formulas ready to be dispensed for any new need: Washing powder, deodorant, lip gloss, aftershave. They tinker in their labs, figuring out the new scent spectrum for a production year based on the cheapest ingredients they can currently get (Did you notice this past year was "amber" scents? If I smell any more amber I'm gonna fossilize!)
Does a celebutante need another signature fragrance to market to her teenage fanbase? Present her with any 3 of this year's signature scent inventions, tell her they were developed only for her needs to her specs (hold back the info that one was just used in a mid-market post-sunburn gel). Viola! Instant success! The buyer bought it because it reminded them of something... somewhere...?
THIS is what this column is about. I'm jeering at the Emperor's new clothes, I'm pointing out that the knockoff Gucci handbag you bought on a streetcorner for $10 is not just a copy, but actually *identical* to the $400 one in the fancy store on the next corner. What you're paying $70 for 50ml of you can get cheaper at the drugstore under another name -if it isn't already in your shampoo. I give credit where it's due, if a scent is nice I say so, if it isn't and the marketing says it is, I'll gut it. Claims of exclusivity are not believed. Recycling of older drugstore scents being dressed up as new rare finds will be excoriated. You (and you know who you are) have been warned.
7 comments:
YES thank you. I can't even deal with artificial commercial perfumes anymore!
Absolutely!
It's HIDEOUS, I never could understand its supposed allure.
And the only thing that it's "timeless" about it is its longevity on the skin - which, for a perfume that actually gives me headache AND nausea, isn't a very good thing... (Why did I get it on my skin at all, you ask? By mistake, believe it or not.)
This emperor has no clothes, ladies.
I have never liked Chanel No. 5 and thought I was the only one in the world. I agree with you about its chemical smell. Thanks for a thought-provoking review.
Well said, you’re a very good writer! A joy to read.
But the big question is...and oh so many people slam these things, and yes I’m going to go there...natural perfumes.... are there any good ones? And for that matter, what is natural or less toxic perfume anyway, is there really such a thing, not just mixes of essential oils? Can these natural perfumes compete in the "better living through chemistry" era? Any sources or places to look for "natural" perfume info?
Thank you.
For natural perfumes, try Aveda. Otherwise, look for small niche perfumers, such as Roxana Illuminated Perfume on Etsy.com. Also try: http://naturalperfumers.com/
I'll look into these! I'm on the search so that when I'm wearing perfume I can actually smell good instead of like a department store's perfume department anywhere in America, aka eau de Macy's, Neiman Marcus, or BigChain whatever. Boring! It's not that the big house scents aren't nice, (some of them) it's just, "Oh you went to the perfume counter, smells good," type boring. They're so corporately the same, a very safe and normal drone kind of ok, not really good. It’s like smelling capitalism and conformity as a base in all those scents. So I really appreciate your tips! Peace, Desiree
I agree, No. 5 is overrated. It's really not my favorite Chanel, and it leaves me wondering why people continue to sing its praises. I think - all things considered - Chanel should try to replace it with something more contemporary, more "modern", and simply discontinue No. 5 and its many variations. Perhaps they could relegate it to a "soap" scent and simply sell it in bars for $60 a pop. Just to satisfy their inability to NOT mass produce the fragrance.
Post a Comment