Vintage Perfume Hunting: A Wild Goose Chase of No Practical Purpose (?)
Columns

by Elena Vosnaki
( 163 comments )

🚨 This article is archived and available in its entirety for free for registered members only. Please login or register to read more.

Are you a collector laying down good money on vintage perfumes? Put your wallet and credit card down right now! You're probably wasting precious time and money. Now that I have caught your attention, dear reader, let's investigate why hawking over online auctions for mystifying bottles with dark liquids and tattered boxes may be a doubtful if entertaining hobby rather than an investment or an art lesson, as you might have originally thought. I fully anticipate the controversy which such an argument might raise, but isn't dialectics at the heart of every intellectual investigation? If perfume is more than just a weapon of seduction or a moment of unadulterated pleasure, then it can surely withstand the scrutiny of a cerebral deconstruction.

To take things at the top, the belief, held close to the heart like an initiation ritual of a secret cult, that perfume acts like wine, while allergens guidelines to restrictions of perfumery ingredients are out there to efface every scented masterpiece of yore (partly true), is at the core of vintage hunting. A large number of perfume collectors exasperated by discontinuation or horrible reformulations of commercial perfumes turned themselves to older bottles of things they knew and loved. But the original syllogism is faulty on relying on both its tangents and I set out to prove it.

First of all, as any wino worth their salt will tell you, only people who have absolutely no idea about wine go on about how wine is "better with age." Obviously not all wines are fit for maturing in the bottle or in their oak barrel, or else the Nouveau Beaujolais would be the scam of the century. And our salads would be vinegar-less too. Not only that, wines require specific attributes for them to attain greatness and that is only eligible for a specific time window beyond which decline is inevitable. Keep a great bottle of wine for too long and, like the anti-hero in Sideways finds out, the opportunity of stupendous greatness may irrevocably pass you by. But what is perhaps more important is that fragrance isn't necessarily wine-like to begin with. The arbitrary correlation between perfume and wine was made when the (artificial) necessity for perfume critiquing came to being in the early 2000s.

Perfume was a new field for establishing authority, after witnessing the rise of an audience that discussed fragrance on online boards at great length, and therefore creating a paracosm of business positions peripheral to the actual manufacturing of perfume, yet detached from the distribution and advertising channels or the established beauty editorials (which were—and continue to be—largely thinly veiled ploys of advertising), seemed like a really sound idea. The return of an allegedly "fed up with perfume" critic, as per own admission, to perfume critiquing in order to fund his increased family is a case in point.

Devising a scale comparable to Robert Parker's rating system was especially important for the fledging work of the perfume critic back when it all gained moentum. It was historically first implemented in the New York Times when Chandler Burr came on (August 2006), fresh from his publishing success The Emperor Of Scent and his New Yorker piece about the creation of Un Jardin sur le Nil by perfumer Jean Claude Ellena.

It made sense too, because Parker offers independent reviews and The New York Times column, originally called "Scent Strip" and later on renamed "Scent Notes," founded its success on offering, exactly, an independent consumer's guide to fine fragrances. This was different from magazine editorials from the get-go; perfumes were regularly given one star or, the seal of mediocrity, 2 stars.

Since Burr is a writer (a good one) and he often went on tangents that nudged at the arts to drive home his core philosophy (indeed his mission was and continues to be that perfumery should be elevated to the status of any other art form; valid if perhaps far-fetched), the peril of losing the "long story short" focus loomed large. And brevity of message is at the heart of all American business; after all, publishing is business too! Therefore the star-spangled marking of perfumes which NYT implemented served a two-fold purpose: an easy, code-able, eye-catching message as direct as a blow to the cojones and also a seal of authenticity via indirect reflection of the widely esteemed wine ranking system.

The Emperor Of Scent The Perfect Scent

Perfume however continues to be undeciphered enough, for anyone beyond those who actually produce it, since all subsequent "critics" after Burr adopted the 5-star markings, vastly less nuanced and more "formulaic" than the 100-point scale that Parker and most wine critics use! One could argue that film critics use the same 5-star ranking system and it serves them just fine, cinema undoubtedly being one of the fine arts, yet there's one stumbling block behind this argument: film critique has a long and honorable tradition behind it, what with its "Cahiers du Cinema" and its thousands of avenues of expression in a pleiad of media for at least a century; perfume critique (especially in English) is NEW.

In all this clamor, it's easy to lose sight of how the industry (and indeed the nature of fragrance itself) works. Most fragrance professionals are opposed to vintage perfume stashing, clearly not because of some devious scheme to have you buying more new perfume (there are plenty of marketing and advertising opportunities for that!) but because it implies a sort of malpractice. Some of the most meticulous professionals even chronicle the passage of time in specific terms.

Jeffrey Dame, an industry figure for 34 years and counting and president of one of the most carefully curated niche perfume distribution companies in the USA, Hypoluxe, puts it plainly (also dispelling the myth that you can somehow "pinpoint" which version of a scent you own, going by the packaging alone): "There is really no way to know what percentage of vintage scents have mixed and matched old boxes and labels with various newer scent updates. Just know that packaging carries on for years. I will say that scent is a living thing, and the character of the smell changes over time. A scent made within the past year will be brighter in top notes, a scent 2-3 years old is mellower, as everything melds together. A scent 4-5 years old starts to lose character, and can often be turning bad. Anything over 5 years old is highly suspect for quality, and anything 8 years old is dreck and turned. Buying any fragrance on Ebay over 10 years old tells you nothing, as you either end up with fragrance which is completely unwearable, or even if it is wearable, bears no relation to the original scent when it was first made. Fragrance goes bad. Fewer brands were introduced back in the eighties and nineties, and if a brand aged too long in the warehouse, it was destroyed, and no longer sold (usually past 5 years). In today's modern perfumery world, so many brands are launched and pushed through the market that you end up with brands sitting around in secondary market wholesalers for years and years and years, and reaching the consumer in all sorts of poor states." [1]

It's enough to buy an old Eau de Cologne, the name denoting not concentration but rather the time-honored recipe for a citrus and herbs concoction that is traditionally beloved around Southern Europe, to know that some essences can't survive no matter how well you preserve something. Citrus notes go first and sometimes herbs lose their piquancy. Spices can go flat. Flowers can sour. Jasmine gains a bright tangerine hue with the passage of time, vanilla becomes brown, some resins and balsams as the alcohol evaporates slowly turn again into their primordial sticky goo consistency that makes them so mystical. It's not easy to keep track.

Youth Dew by Lauder looks medicinal brown even when freshly brewed, but it can be menacingly black when old. Then again, the company's perfectly contemporary Private Collection Amber Ylang Ylang gains a similarly disturbing "blackness" with the passage of only a couple of years, so clearly there are no hard and fast rules. It's also a fallacy to consider that only fragrances of an inferior quality (or the reverse, those rich in natural essences) deteriorate; it's a bit more complex than that.

A member of an international board of perfumephiles puts another aspect of the lure of vintage in these words: "Many vintage scents to me are like a time capsule of the era in which they debuted and so, to sniff one is to be taken back…in a good way." [2] Anyone with a history-loving bone in their body (and I'm obviously one of them by both nature and nurture, i.e. formal studies) can sympathize with this view, but ultimately it's an ILLUSION.

Frederic Malle of Editions de Parfums, one of the patron saints of niche perfume (certainly the one who gave popular prominence to perfumers as "auteurs" around 2000) has been critical of the vintage mania of collectors ever since. Chuckling under his well-tailored sleeve, he dispels the myth that you will be able to smell the perfumes as they wεre intended to smell by their creators. Plus, you can never be sure what you're buying, especially since many sellers aren't experienced enough themselves to describe the smell accurately for you. The problem with buying from an online auction site is you may be buying vinegar-smelling or nail-polish-remover-smelling juice and you can only find out when you end up testing the perfume yourself. Flea markets aren't a much surer bet, because the mere process of transfering things around and exposing them to light poses a risk to the content, although testing can happen on the spot. Maybe estate sales, antique shops or buying off reputable collectors who know what they're selling is the least risky proposition, but not a widely available one.

And sometimes one can't be safe even with contemporary perfumes! "I have had one perfume fall apart, unfortunately it was one of my favorites (Frapin 1697), I have later heard from the perfumer, Bertrand Duchaufour, that this is not uncommon with this particular perfume, and he blames the davana essential oil in it, which has a tendency for instability." [3]

But considering (even entertaining the thought) that something can withstand the passage of that most destructive force of them all, time, is at its core vastly ROMANTIC. Much like the 19th-century European Romantics discovered again the lure of the ancient and medieval world and meticulously resurrected all its awe at the spontaneity of things, the impromptu, and of untrammeled nature, people with romantic aspersions hunt for the pearl amidst the swines. As one perfume collector put it: "Vintage scents represent a time when perfumery was an art, not just means to make a huge profit by slapping a celebrity name on yet another fruity floral that will be discontinued in a few years."[2]

Romanticism also championed the legitimization of the imagination of the individual as a critical authority (the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" axiom), modern romantics opposing the industrialization of perfume and its increasing "sterility"champion their own individual critical perception. Maybe it was that last part that was so seductive to both the collector and the fledging critic: if everyone is entitled to their individual assessment on a par with everyone else regardless of expertise ("perfume is subjective") then there can be no critical dismissal of vintage and there is no adherence to any classical notion of form in art. One can claim ANYTHING and if enough people come to believe it, it becomes "fact." Hence the "glamazon" appeal of vintage in all its forms and declinations, the calling card of bygone envy for something only the connoisseur can appreciate.

The issue of allergens and perfume restrictions implemented by regulatory bodies, such as the International Fragrance Association (IFRA) have played a significant part in vintage perfume hunting, true. But the thing is so many times the difference is not really perceptible because of the reformulation itself (in some cases meticulous attention is given by people vastly equipped to substitute with great agility), but because of the time lapse between a freshly produced bottle and an aged one: molecules are in a continuous dialogue in the bottle and they tend to react.

Dame to the rescue once more to explain how it all works: "In modern manufacturing the scent oil is mixed with alcohol and sits for under a week, usually 2-3 days and then it is chilled, filtered and typically filled into the bottles. Fragrance which has just been made is much more 'toppy,' very bright and clear with evident top notes and pitched much higher. This is evident from time of manufacture up to a month or two when the scent settles down a little and the top notes descend into the scent, the edges smooth over and it all melds together. The mellowing and melding continues on for many months, becoming richer and richer—and different. Depending on the scent, from six months to a year it settles into norm and stays this way for 18 months to 30 months, when the character changes as time goes on." [4]

Many perfume collectors agree that there are detrimental changes in the vintage bottles they amass. They talk about "bruised top notes," "an opening that reminds me of nail polish remover," a whole section of the formula being "missing" (the aldehydes, the vanilla, etc.). Still, they buy them. Is this folly? As one artisanal perfumer and perfume fanatic puts it, Giovanni Sammarco, "I tried to understand this, but it’s very difficult for me. It’s a trend and like many trends there isn’t a real reason behind it. But you can’t think that a perfume bottled 40 years ago is the same today. It’s not possible. Sometimes I read: 'Wow,I have a new vintage, it’s terrible for 30 minutes then it’s very nice.' Why spend a lot of money to wear a perfume [that's] terrible for 30 minutes?" [5]

Excellent question!

Sometimes vintage collectors go as far as saying that they actually prefer the perfume that way. "A half-full splash bottle of Chanel No.5 eau de toilette from (I think) the 60s-70s has a gorgeous soft roundness that my new spray bottle doesn't. It may just be that the old stuff has lost some of its bracing, aldehydic top notes, but if that's the case, well, I prefer it that way." [2] This pronouncement from another collector puts the seal on the peculiar contradiction of adherence to authenticity and a "manufactured" pliability of the formula to one's own particular needs.

Perhaps the answer is again one of romantic adventure, as admitted by a seasoned fumehead: "There is nothing quite as exciting as the thrill of the chase which involves research, time and timing." [2] Vintage hunting validates the hunter, even if the chase isn't fruitful or turns out into less than anticipated.

It would be extremely tempting to consider that perfume lovers have been brain-washed en masse by pushers of vintage juice, who want to make a quick buck on what had laid dusty in their back cupboards for decades and which they tentatively started selling as memorabilia or crystal collectibles before realizing people were after the contents as well. Indeed since there are cases of vintage fraud (infamous ones on Ebay and elsewhere) and small-case businesses operating exactly on the premise of "vintage" goodness with continuously escalating prices on "old juice," then the natural laws of the market suggests that since there's offer, there's got to be demand.

But I'm afraid that people aren't as stupid as all that, though they are highly suggestible and this is where the responsibility of the perfume writer comes into play. It is the experience of many seasoned perfume dabblers that at least a few of the perfumes that have been kept in good conditions (away from light and heat, maybe told fairy tales to lull them to sleep) and which were by nature fit for "maturing" withstood the passage of time rather well. You see, some orientals and some chypres, thankfully possess such a chemical structure and such preponderance of heavy, less volatile, sticky materials that they might withstand the passage of a few decades without turning their smile into The Joker's. This may be true for Shalimar for instance, but it can't be for Diorissimo, no matter how you cut it. To think otherwise is akin to believing that there is a magic cure for slimming or hair loss: market baloney.

Ref:

[1] Jeffrey Dame From Pyrgos interview
[2] Perfume of Life board
[3] Birgit Olfactorias Travels
[4] Jeffrey Dame on Perfume of Life
[5] Giovanni Sammarco blog

Columns

Elena Vosnaki Editor, Writer & Translator

Elena Vosnaki is a historian, archaeologist and fragrance author. She has written for Fragrantica since 2009. Vosnaki has worked as the Perfume History Curator for the Milan EXPO 2015, and as a guest lecturer at the Athens School of Fine Arts. She is the founder & editor of Perfume Shrine, one of the most respected independent online publications on scent. Her writing has been twice shortlisted in FIFI Editorial Excellence Awards and is extensively quoted by authors. Interviews regarding Vosnaki's unique status as perfume historian & writer appear in VOGUE Hellas, ICON Magazine and Queen.gr.

News Comments

Write your comment

moonfish67 05/10/22 21:51

well, perfumes turn off due to many reasons.
I've smelled some spoiled Jardin du Mediterranee Hermes of last year (I blame light and heat) and a wonderful, perfect, heart-beating Eau de Guerlain that was made in the very first batch :)

you just take your side in the debate.

if you're selling your freshly made perfumes (like Jeffrey Dame, Frederic Malle) or chasing new brands to find a new unknown gem - you're on the new side.
if you're looking for perfume history and digging the perfumery roots - you're on the vintage side.

and AFAIK there's no rule that you cannot enjoy both sides.

Butterball 05/09/22 19:30

I"m proud of my investment in my vintage perfume collection, and I"m certainly not being tricked. My nose doesn't lie. I would actually point out that the modern mainstream fragrance industry is up to some trickery. OF course it's a gamble to buy vintage. But if you buy from a reputable seller who knows their stuff, there's barely any risk. Buying vintage is not a goose chase. I was born in '89, and the fragrances I"m interested in were created before my time. So for me, it's a beautiful adventure into the perfumes of yesteryear. I love history and antiques in general. I"m not ashamed of my taste.

Anamandy 02/03/22 19:58

Oh, there's so much I disagree with in this article. Where to begin? How about, there are a lot of brand new, many niche, perfumes that have lousy top notes to begin with, (some smell downright foul), so I don't consider spoiled top notes a detriment.

Out of all the vintages I own, I've only had one bottle that was rotten all the way through. Actually, it was an inexpensive scent from the early '90s. I can't say the same about new, modern bottles I've purchased. A few of them, including one from someone contributing to this article, had to be trashed because it went bad. And it was only a few years old and kept in a cabinet no less.

Luca Turin himself said in his book on perfumes that perfumes last indefinitely if kept well. He acknowledges that the top notes may be shot, but the essence of the perfume is still there. Personally, I think even a deteriorated fragrance from the past is much better than a lot of what is manufactured today.

On Youtube there is a video of buyers going to India to purchase essentials oils. Some of these essential oils in bottles (actually huge jugs) that are over 100 years old or more. These buyers bring back what they purchase to sell to perfumers around the world. I believe Russian Adam is one such customer. He uses a lot of these vintage essential oils in his compositions.

Speaking of vintage essential oils, I just won an auction for a vintage bottle of Joy parfum, and it smells as fresh as the day it was bottled. Clearly, the quality of materials used in the past had something to do with why most vintage fragrances survived and smell more wonderful to me than most anything that is (mostly synthetic) produced today.

So no, I don't think purchasing vintages perfumes is a wild goose chase, especially when I am sitting here writing this surrounded by a cloud of vintage First parfum. And, even in its present state, it is more beautiful to me than many of the more expensive modern scents I own.

Carpe Noctem 02/03/22 07:14

Well, I don't think vintage hunting is misguided or wrong. It's fun, and yes, possibly romantic. I also don't see it as a trend because those come and go. I know there are quoted experts in the article but I have bought a few bottles of Dioressence that I wore in the 80's and there is nothing off about them.

Before I buy on Mercari or eBay, I contact the sellers and ask them how it smells. If they can't tell me or evade the question, I just don't buy. I've gotten my fair share of bad nail polish perfumes, which is why I always ask now. That said-now most of my vintage perfume buying on auction sites are limited to small bottles and samples.

I also lucked out and got a small vial of Coque d'Or Guerlain from 1937. I wasn't too excited because I thought "how good could it be"? Well, it was nothing short of AMAZING!! I could smell the different flowers and it smelled so fresh. I instantly wanted an entire bottle but the cost is exorbitant! Nevertheless, that small vial brought me such happiness and joy and it will probably stay the highlight of my vintage collecting experiences!

I think we should live and let live-let the collectors of vintage perfumes do their thing and modern lovers do theirs.

IsSheNotFragrant 01/29/22 14:20

I am reformed vintage hunter. Elena is right. The chase is so often a manifestation of an attachment to the past, a memory, a wonderful time in youth and an attempt to revisit or recreate the feelings associated with the fragrance. The attempt is usually doomed because memory is unreliable, as uncomfortable as that is to accept. I have sniffed and sometimes purchased vintages and been shocked to discover that, whilst I recognised them from yesteryear, they almost never smell as good as I remember them. Some smelled pretty bad in fact. Time distorts. Tastes change and fragrances are a product of time and place. I know that whilst Givenchy 3 was fantastic 30 years ago, if I smelled it now, I probably wouldnt like it so much and that I actually prefer my current crop of frags. Our tastes are partly shaped by changes and trends in fragrance. The penny really dropped a few years ago. I was convinced that I needed to hunt down an earlier formulation of Coco M'selle; that the current one was a sub-standard imitation. Then one day in the department store I passed a woman wearing Coco M'selle and it smelled fantastic. I realised in that moment that I was wrong and and that I should forever give up the silly preoccupation with old perfume; and I did. That said, it is hardly surprising that there is a vintage market given the increasingly poor quality and overpriced product being pumped out by many houses and yes, IFRA has got something to do with it. Moreover, that the perfume of 30+ years ago was a vastly superior product is indisputable.

TillyWave 01/28/22 03:15

I don't buy vintage as much as I have in the past, but I'm so glad to have a lifetime supply of 90s Samsara.

They really don't make them like they used to.

swedishmilk15 01/27/22 18:51

My vintage obsession started with a bottle of Avon Elusive bought at a flea market. As someone who loves antique and vintage clothing and housewares, it was only a matter of time before fragrances entered my collection. My first bottle was purchased purely from an aesthetic standpoint: I just thought it would look lovely on my vanity with some other vintage containers. But when I got that baby home and gave it a sniff, a whole world opened to me. I realized that not only did this stuff smell fantastic (and clued me in to my love for Chypres), it also meant I'd probably be wearing a scent that no one around me would be wearing, or even recognize. There is huge appeal there (and also a big reason I love vintage clothing.) Giving something old a second life? Imagining the story that led to my finding it? The hours spent researching my treasure that have sent me down a fabulously fragrant rabbit hole? To me it's all a joy. If I like it and haven't gone broke to obtain it, I see no harm. Same goes for fragrance.

I'm generally not making these purchases because I'm scared of reformulations. It's more about discovery. I couldn't imagine a more pleasurable way to learn about the history of perfumery and train my nose, even if a scent doesn't retain all of its notes, or at worst, has spoiled over time. I suspect the majority of vintage frag collectors are aware of the risks.

Sounds like the upper echelon of the perfume world are BIG MAD about it. I think that's actually sad. "Don't worry about experiencing the rich and glorious history of perfumery, leave that to the Osmothèque!"

They can have the thousands of new fragrances coming on the market each year. So many modern fragrances smell like a boring department store perfume counter. And the ones that don't are often ones I can't afford. I love the hunt for my thrifty old gems, long live the odors of my ancestors!

ceeceelee 07/05/21 20:12

I have several bottles of Shalimar from the '80's and '90's, I don't think they've aged well. The top notes are gone, the only exception is my husbands aunts extrait and I'm not sure it had that big citrus opening anyway. I keep it for the Baccarat bottle. But man you can smell the leather (I assume it's leather). All of my vintage stuff is from MIL's and GMIL's. They put in original boxes with receipts and cards if they were gifts. I have an old bottle of Chanel (not sure if EdT or EdP off the top of my head) that is huge. It's a clear bottle with gold script of vines or floral's or something, the lid is metal and ribbed. I don't care for too many no.5's anymore except the body cream, which I adore. I have a mini of no.19, it has changed but I only have a few drops anyway. My mom received a Coty box set of three on her wedding day in '65, with a couple creme perfumes (L'aimant? and another one, didn't like either) but we both wore the Emeraude on our wedding days many, many years apart, that's a gorgeous perfume to this day, but again just a few drops remain. We moved around a lot bc of my dads job, so it wasn't stored perfectly but the little bit of Emeraude is still very pretty. The rest heavy orientals, Opium and Cinnabar. Both smell amazing. I have an old and I mean old '70's Tabu cologne, gorgeous. So gorgeous I didn't know not to just splash myself to perdition and back, very little left but I enjoyed the heck outta that. But that's all that were good. Both of my MIL and her mom put them in their boxes, stuck the cards under them or receipt in them and put them in the pool house fridge where the cokes were kept. The fridge the was old but used to keep the sodas cool until they were wanted in the big house. Probably every kid in America knew where to sneak a coke, lol. But they didn't care for light frags so I don't have any other anecdotal evidence other than that. Those were the deeper fumes, and boy they are still spicy today. I wear them, all except the 5, maybe it's me and I just don't care for it or it has changed a bit. It's sentimental, though, Nanny was an amazing lady. Regardless, I'm enjoying the rest. Sounds like I'm doing the right thing by wearing while the wearing is good.

Jacobean Lily 07/05/21 15:45

There can be no certainties about perfume, given they're volatile.
The way we interpret sensory experience - and express that experience - is variable and unique, so in addition to the volatility equation, we're unlikely to agree on what the same perfume smells like, let alone what age constitutes a perfume's peak.
Some of my favourite, swoon-making perfumes are vintage: Balahe, Mariella Burani, Dune, Miss Dior, Dioressence, Jolie Madame, Y, Givechy III, Cabochard, Magie Noire, de Scherrer, nearly all of the Jean Patous.
It's not a matter of new vs old or a question of catching a perfume at it's best.
Collecting perfume is all about exploration, sensory experience, the vibrancy of being curious and the life-enriching discovery of one fascinating thing leading to another.
If vintage perfume is taken out of the equation, there is a contraction in the vastness of beauty on Planet Earth whereas if vintage is included and appreciated, there is an expansive explosion and vast pleasures awaiting my discovery.
Fearing the occasional unpleasant surprise is about as contractive and self-limiting as it gets and not at all recommended.

thangr250 01/18/21 19:35

that was funnier than the "leave britney alone " vid
that seems more like a desperate moove to make some of the biders stop bidding on a gem in order to have a chance to snatch it , and as this , its a better read than a rant with nice words ... lol whatver the case is

do all these mentioned dudes ponder over anything artistic or is just on frags ?? do they laugh on dudes collecting brochures with faded collors ? somes fetch millions of dollars , do they laugh about vintage cars with lost power outputs ? some burn finds were half a chassis and two wheels ...

the article itself describes the scamming nature of nowdays perfume making and yet wonders why somes spit it @ the face ???

Corpsefire 01/16/21 15:46

So I should throw away all the Guerlain PdT I have because according to this amazing article they should all now smell like nail polish remover?

Using Frederic Malle as a reference point when they're admitting to doing reformulation over their scents to prove that new variations of scents are the same as the initial ones?

Cool story.

theLady 01/16/21 00:19

What a load of tosh. Sorry, but Jeffrey Dame is not absolutely correct. Actually, no, I'm not sorry at all! I'm sorry for anyone who reads this article and takes it for gospel.

The fact is that I have successfully purchased many vintage perfumes that smell beautiful, with top notes intact, and which smell wonderful from start to finish, aldehydes included. The thrill is second to none in my perfume experience - opening a 50 year old or older bottle and smelling aldehydes as fresh and sharp as something you'd purchase today.

Have I purchased vintage perfumes which were defunct and belonged in the bin? Absolutely. But to say that vintages are all garbage is utter, utter rot, and Dame and anyone else who says this should just be ashamed of themselves, or educate themselves. Why do I sense that Dame, who has his own line, might be saying this in order to turn people away from spending money on old perfumes instead of his own?

It is not just the Noses who can smell really well; but us perfume lovers and purchasers who can as well, we can detect reformulations, much has been written about it. Why can't we also detect intact vintage perfumes?

Purchasing and pursuing vintages is a unique pleasure that I'm so glad I discovered. I just uncracked a gorgeous bottle of vintage Joy pure parfum by M. Jean Patou. The roses are amazing. There was no evaporation in the bottle, no sour notes, nothing off about it. Is it different than when it was bottled? Perhaps. Do I care? No. Is it a stunning perfume? Absolutely.

moonfish67 11/08/20 23:11

I do keep collecting vintage perfumes, in order to touch the times I never lived in.
well, some vintage perfumes went wrong but I really enjoy the rare things like Cuir de Russie Guerlain, Lasso Jean Patou etc :) And I'm happy to get a small stock of Joy and 1000 by Jean Patou - new and vintage - just to be sure.

kristenboris1997 11/08/20 19:24

It makes sense to me that Orientals can withstand the test of time. I own many perfume oils, a lot of them from either India or from the Middle East. These do tend to keep well. They don't seem to go off and nor do they lose their scent. I will happily stick to these (no pun intended, stick, stickness.....).

jero 11/08/20 16:08

fragrance for me is soul lives in a bottle, surely I can play bottles after new bottles, but what for? if I can see my dad in an exact VINTAGE one why not to keep one-and-the-only it well. it depands on how much you would pay and much more is about the priceless.

I know one day I'll be gone as well, maybe all my bottles will be thrown away like expired trash, like this article and the commercial want it happen, I still wish someone on the earth would keep good-in-condition them well like I used to.

only a VINTAGE Jaguar is caped in wood, today's fast fashion just can no longer present it in this expensive way, not to mention the quality of ingridents. that's why I believe a VINTAGE and only the decent is worth than a king's ransom as well as it's priceless...;) PS for the essencial oil, all of them only one in my collection went empty, totally, it's Lemon, this shocked me and tells the story. for fragrances the citrus is more about the synthetic then it's another story.

Aeris 11/04/20 13:47

I am sitting here literally crying tears of happiness over the scent of a “vintage” 90s Mugler Angel perfume I ordered. It’s genuine. I know this scent like the back of my hand. It is surreal to have this version back, because the current reformulation lost its magic and spiritual qualities. I was about to write that I strongly disagree on your article, until I got to the last paragraph where you said Orientals can withstand several decades. Yes! My lovely 90s Angel (a gourmand Oriental) is as delicious now in 2020 as I remember it many moons ago. So vintage hunters rejoice if you happen to be a Oriental lover.

Lowertownie 09/03/18 09:39

I have had lots of success with buying vintage. For me it's like buying antiques, I just love owning history. If you can wear it then that's a major plus. I scored on a 60 year old bottle of white shoulders that smells completely intact, yet a 40 year old arpege extract had lost a lot of its umpth. I have rules about how much I will spend and which sellers I trust. If your carful and your not investing too much it's really quite a thrill to buy vintages.

guerlainfreak 09/03/18 06:43

There r lots of facts in this article. It was hard to read, because it was written very academically. The description of cerebral dissection is spot on.
I have my fair share of wins and losses with vintage buying. Yes, some have smelled decent, and some have smelled turned. Money well spent, money down the drain. And yet, the whole notion of vintage buying to me is essentially the same for all perfume buying. We buy perfumes because it makes us feel great. So, we buy vintages because they are associated with memories that, at some point, made us feel great. Or we buy vintages because we want to capture some idealized past that we believe, through a scent journey, will bring us back to that “happy place”. Or plain and simple, we want to be cool and connoisseurs. Again, we want to feel good, or better, or above, you name it.
And that is the part this article misses. It attempts to rationalize feelings, moods with facts. Facts are facts. But the heart has a mind of its own.

SolangeN 01/14/18 11:01

"there is the great invention of L'Osmotheque, the perfume museum, where all old perfumes are made from scratch from the original formulae supplied by the firms themselves (some are circulating at large for buyers in the insiders industry too)..."

This is a remarkable statement which merits further investigative reporting.

The spectacle of the same people who illegalize quality luxuries for plebeians secretly gobbling them up for themselves evokes earlier European eras EU bureaucrats claim to be transcending.

Like the time plebes weren't allowed to wear purple...or own weapons...or eat cake.

Let's see an expose on how the EU is banning oakmoss...while importing another problem that will make future generations of Europeans wish their biggest concern in life was a rash.

LadyIva 01/14/18 04:01

So many interesting opinions and experiences here! To me, perfumes are consumer goods, whose sole purpose is to make their users smell nice. I do understand the appeal of vintage fragrances (heck I remember all too well what Dior Poison and J'adore used to smell like twenty years ago - their current reformulations are pale shadows of those beauties), but it's no use crying over spilled milk, as new fragrances are released daily. Not to mention some practical considerations: for example, I live in a country with prohibitively high customs tariffs and postal costs that can turn blind buys and even swaps into punishingly expensive mistakes. Hence my only option is to test ‘in person’ fragrances that I'm interested in and then buy what I like.

Sabretoothkitten 01/13/18 14:11

I just bought Avon Soft MUSK from around 1973, I wasn't sure exactly what to expect but it turned out pretty horrible. I can't detect any MUSK or floral notes at its bad...! Lol.
After washing off the top notes i did smell a powdery undertone which was probably nice at one point in time. Does anybody know if Avon s new formula is similar to the ild( non rancid) one?

Betsywoolbright 05/23/17 01:53

Like Flowers-in-the-Springtime, I have a bottle of vintage Dune. It is impeccable. The perfume itself is just a "like" but I can smell the quality all day long. Even the aldehydes and florals still smell great.
I have a couple partials of vintage Opium, too. I know one is not from 1977, and I'm not sure about the other. I think one is pre-1990, however, and it smells perfect to me.
I have 3 bottles of Blv Notte pour Femme and they all smell pretty much the same. All are from different years; one is from 2005.
In my limited experience with vintages (anything discontinued, or older than 10 years, or made before a reformulation, regardless of age) I have not had a bad experience.
I don't participate in the craziness, but I do typically prefer the older formulas, because I think of them as more authentic (and bad reformulations as "fakes").

FruitDiet 05/22/17 19:47

I have long been skeptical of the vintage trend and think that in many cases an unreasonable hysteria about reformulation forms. I try to remain in the present simply because it is so painful to fall in love with something that is no longer available. My one big exception with vintage is Magie Noire. Even though I think the current stuff is one of the best reformulations on the market and own several bottles of it, the smell that emits from certain old bottles--the ones with the orange stripes--is so strange and otherworldly that I do collect them in an attempt to preserve that smell in my memory for as long as possible. I do not even know if this is how Magie Noire smelled when it came out, but it transports me to Egypt and the pyramids every time I smell it. On the other hand, Angel does not preserve well at all. I have bought several old bottles that smelled flat and off, and think one gets a much more accurate idea of Angel from fresh samples. Just get a new one.

muncierobson 05/01/17 13:53

I have stated buying 'vintage' editions (tho only of last 20-30 years) - poison, opium, joy etc.

So far so good, the current poison EDT is just an echo on the 1990s edition (and even perhaps that's not the original formula?).

I did find top notes on a vintage 'air du temps' smelled off but the drydown was amazing.

There's a lot of discussion (and perhaps paranoia/conspiracy theories) about reformulations.

I'm certain angel edp has been dabbled with, tho I got a fair amount of negative comments about my thoughts on that!

IMHO vintage fragrances take longer to develop and are more potent.

I don't want to part with £300 for a bottle of midnight poison but I guess that's basic supply and demand!

(Counts pennies)

flowers-in-the-springtime 05/01/17 04:18

I wear a lot of vintage and have to say that some turn and some don't. All my collection of vintages smell wonderful especially Dune by Christian Dior, who made a reform of the original which smells like nerve gas.
I agree with another reviewer that proper storage is imperative and all my collection are stored in boxes within dark cool closets.

Victoria Regia 04/30/17 20:55

I couldn't agree more. Perfume goes bad! I am a chemist and worked with perfumers for years and I agree with several points in this article.

LuluSaintly 04/30/17 13:14

We don't agree on this one at all. :) I love the depth and complexity of vintage fragrances and find that only the (vastly more expensive) niche brands come anywhere close to them. For me, vintage fragrance, like vintage fashion, is a great way to indulge a taste for quality at a low price point. My personal experience, also, is that vintage fragrances age very well, provided they are kept boxed. About 35 of my frags are vintage and they are some of the best perfumes I own. Obviously, I don't bother buying the last black dregs of almost-empty bottles. If you buy (preferably unopened) bottles still in the box, there's a good chance they'll be in good condition. Miniatures that were given away with purchase are another excellent source - often chucked in the back of a drawer and never opened at all. I decant splash bottles into modern glass sprays and put any leftovers in the wine cellar. As to whether I'm smelling the original, genuine article or not, I couldn't care less - the question is, is it beautiful? With my lovely old Carons, Worths and Grès perfumes, the answer is very much 'yes'.

Elena Vosnaki 04/03/17 01:25

@moppety27

there is the great invention of L'Osmotheque, the perfume museum, where all old perfumes are made from scratch from the original formulae supplied by the firms themselves (some are circulating at large for buyers in the insiders industry too) and with the utmost care to use ingredients same as before (since they're not meant to be worn the IFRA regulations are of no consequence and no effect). This is a pretty reliable way to find out how something vintage smelled without running the risk of coming across a spoiled bottle! :)

Guerlain also used this method for their historical perfume workshops starting a few years back and the smell results were STAGGERINGLY different than what most people knew from buying perfumes off Ebay. There is testimonial circulating online on that contradiction between the two experiences.
I find this telling. Don't you?

Besides anyone with chemistry knowledge knows that ingredients continue to interact within the formula. Patchouli or Schiff's bases (orange blossom)/jasmine are great examples.

madonnatella 04/02/17 06:48

I am afraid I disagree about the "turning" exponentially bad when the acquired perfume has gotten older. at least I luckily could buy (gradually) six 3.4 oz flacons of the hysteric yet sublime perfume "Gale Hayman. Beverley Hills" (1990) on Ebay and Amazon and neither has turned. I remember so well as that this perfume came out when "Twin Peaks" started in the Netherlands and somehow the mysticism of both phenomenons is headily intertwined in my subconsciousness. perhaps it are the tonnes of civet used to at least give a pungent conservant but in my experience this (very, very heavy and bewitching) perfume is changed in NOTHING.

SuzanneS 04/01/17 11:06

The day perfumers can use these thin aroma chrmicals to produce something of depth, richnesd and complexity without costing hundreds of dollars will be the day I stop hunting for vintage. The synthetics do not trigger my *eyes roll back in my head in bliss* phenomena because its artifical..smelling a plastic flower. So until then.. Hello pre ifra 2003 frags.

Andreab969 04/01/17 10:52

I read your columns all the time and learn so much (I'm a newbie to perfume collecting). This column - Thank YOU so much! Relieved me of the burden of trying to learn how to buy vintage frags. It's a weight off my shoulders! I am happy with the (large) collection I've amassed - perfume is like aromatherapy to me! and I no longer feel I have to chase vintage frags. You are magnificent ! Thanks for all of your columns on fragrantica.

BloomPerfume 04/01/17 08:43

neo-vintage exists. These would be perfumes made with vintage materials, according to classic rules and in vintage concentrations. Ambergris, top quality floral absolutes in extrait strengths.
.vero.profumo., Bogue, Nikkos-Oskol all produce wonderfully vintage smelling perfumes.

rp6969 04/01/17 05:35

Thank you, Elena! One of the most fascinating and engaging articles on scent I have read. Beautifully written and gorgeously illustrated.

Annabear 04/01/17 01:49

Very interesting article which led me to your informative and enjoyable blog. However, Elena, if you truly believed that the hunt for vintage perfumes is unrequited due to the ravages of time, the elements, storage, then how can you so confidently review (in your blog) so many fragrances that are long gone? For example, your excellent description of Diorling and other classics which haven't been around since the '60s. Unless of course you have a secret source that allows you to experience and review the fragrance exactly as its creator intended (and I would be green with envy)! Thank you again for the article.

Catlady 7 02/10/17 04:58

I love anything vintage and vintage perfumes smell so much better than these mass produced ones you buy in main stream shops but that's just me, they do go off after time and being a car bot and vintage market addict like me I've bought old perfumes in their bottles and had to chuck away the perfume as its gone off and I just keep the old bottle.

I look for vintage inspired perfumes, I love powdery Irisy and balsamic perfumes.

ClairaNoir 12/18/16 09:58

Going from personal experience, I disagree with many points made in this article; my older vintages such as Shalimar and My Sin (Late '20s - Early '30s) smell just as divine as my younger vintages like Coco and Poison Esprit (Late '80s - Early '90s). It is accurate to conclude that the top notes may not be as strong as they once were, but to say they are dreck and turned is far from true; I much prefer the older incarnations of certain perfumes.

Kayse 12/18/16 08:28

Elena,

I love this article and everything I've read from you.

.....Hopefully this article will help me live in the beauty of the moment and quit hoarding L'instant like a crazy person.

orsetta 12/18/16 03:35

oh ;) so today again a reminder on FB from Fragrantica of this patronising piece... ( and I am not a passionate vintage hunter myself)

just re-reading the first para: 'let's investigate why hawking over online auctions for mystifying bottles with dark liquids and tattered boxes may be a doubtful if entertaining hobby rather than an investment or an art lesson, as you might have originally thought'

lol, yes, it's a hobby!!!
so please live and let live !

Florista 02/15/16 14:22

If nothing else, this article does offer a plausible explanation as to why the Serge Lutens Ambre Sultan that I ordered off of a discount site doesn't smell nearly as vivid as the bottle I purchased in Paris prior to it. That particular perfume has been around nearly 16 years and I can only imagine my second bottle sat on a shelf in a warehouse for atleast 5 of those years.

SuzanneS 02/15/16 12:09

Oh yes.. Sign me up for the thin, no bodied ,synthetic new stuff any day ..new has to be better right?! I'll do that as soon as the perfum companies start making better quality stuff and start to smell like their vintage or close to it as possible counterparts.

moodypaws 01/26/16 23:59

I don't know what Shalimar Extrait smelt like 50 years ago, but what I can tell you is that when I opened a sealed bottle from the 1970s (possibly late 60s), for the first time ever I was able to clearly identify bergamot - yes, top note bergamot - in this perfume!

Of course, half empty bottles, badly stored, etc. are likely to contain spoilt juice, but that's common sense.

So I say let's shop wisely and enjoy a lost masterpiece when we can.

Bigsly 01/26/16 15:02

Even if you had not interest in scent, it would be worth it simply in financial terms! Most of the ebay sellers I buy from are obviously "pickers" who go to yard/garage/estate sales (judging from the other stuff they sell). They are probably doing quite well with their "vintage hunting." Most people who have complained about vintage prices don't ever seem to mention what the "chemical soup" designers are currently selling at dept. stores - isn't that a good point of comparison for most people? I'd rather "hunt" for something like vintage Jacomo de Jacomo (still not that expensive; usually quite a bit less than designer prices) than buy just about all the current designers at the dept. store, even if the prices were the same. However, if you must have something like Egoiste Cologne Concentree, you're probably going to have to pay at least a few times more than current designer prices. And I certainly think it's that much better - does anyone really believe that some day soon ECC will be selling for around $50? If it did, I'd buy all of them immediately, and I think a whole bunch of other people would too! But if you don't want to vintage hunt, that's fine - these are just smells, after all. You can buy some decent ones at the dollar store.

I just wrote up a blog post on this subject, specifically what one might call "spoilage paranoia" (especially considering how so many are claiming that highly synthetic scents in sealed spray bottles are "going off" quickly). In one case a person said a Creed bottle spoiled while it was in a Creed boutique! Another said he thought his original Jazz bottle was spoiled because it smelled too good (still not sure what he was thinking). I don't know how many others have my experience, which is a few hundred or more bottles around 20 years old or older since 2008. Other than a few (and I mean like 2, 3, or 4) that had top notes that seemed wrong, all the others had very pleasant drydowns - much better than "chemical soup" designers, that's for sure. I have been getting some bottles from people who claimed spoilage but so far, the scents are fine, not even bad top notes. We vintage hunters know the great bargains we get, but unfortunately word has spread and prices on ebay have risen sharply lately, so I'm just glad I bought almost all the vintage I wanted before that happened !

ClippyluvsMU 01/26/16 14:30

Interesting.

Thought 1: I agree that vintages may be a money leap. I agree that scents change/condense.

Thought 2: It's the tone this is written in that gets in the way of reading this as merely an informative piece. (Perhaps if the writing were just informative, less patronizing- no need to flex that degree here; just write a solid article. It never comes off just well-educated; it comes across as educated snobbery... I digress).
Thought 3: I have several vintages; from low to high end. I buy them because many of the ingredients in my favs are no longer obtainable, and in two cases, the perfumes are dis-con'd, leaving no other way to obtain it. Only one low-end purchase smells a bit off. I still bought it (in person) because it smells nice diffusing on the cabinet and I like the bottle as decor.
Thought 4: One interesting thought was about the idea of perfumers making more modern compositions is one of keeping up with what is new--like fashion. To that, I must say, is it possible that should perfume been untouched from the ways they had been made in the past, with the ingredients from same, as they still mostly exist, there would be nothing else to know? So "smelling like a Shalimar stink bomb", would be exactly what one would wish and be familiar(?)-perhaps not, but it would be one of many choices, and a choice in its INTENDED form.
That is what is lamented most here, IMHO; the blatant disregard for the idea that there are people who, while accustomed to change with living, are upset/angry/sad that a part of their lives (and scent is a huge part of our lives, if we wear it or not), have been deemed as not worth production, and cheap frag pushed as good enough with full knowledge that it is not and at the same or higher prices.
Thought 5: I find it interesting that one is supposed to take the word of any perfumer who uses about the equal of $30 of grocery ingredients and sells it as niche for $300 because it's in a pretty bottle.
Thought 6:I want to slap each every perfumer who does that.

Happy hunting and sniffing to each of you.

SadieBluesLady 01/25/16 19:12

faugh!

It is bad enough that ignorant SA's promote the notion that new bottles of scent will go bad within a few years of purchase . . . it bothers me to have similar sentiments reappearing in main page articles on here at least once a year.

ParfumAmour 01/24/16 05:28

Perfume is made of magic, and magic never dies.

Mary-Jayne 01/24/16 01:45

wow, I wrote a bloomin' dissertation there, sorry about that!! More than 10p worth, I gave you value for money (possibly), here, you can have my £1.10 worth!!!

Mary-Jayne 01/24/16 01:43

Well, there are some interesting starting points for a good discussion within this article, so here's my 10p worth before I read the other comments and become potentially influenced by the arguments and discourse of others. of course I will read them after, but I like to write down my thoughts first.

I find it interesting that the opinions sought (or rather the opinions shared, we don't necessarily know for example that 50 other interviewees stated a case for vintage but we are reading only the anti comments etc) all come out against vintages in one way or another, yet all have to some extent a vested interest in perpetuating the new is good vintage bad message.

For example Frederic Malle has spoken in other interviews that he specifically does not create perfumes to last, that they are designed to be worn new and not preserved, he has stated that his scents are not to be stored away because they will not keep, and should be used (- and then repurchased?)
But it seems to me, well, of course he would say that. He is after all the owner of a brand of expensive perfumes, if he tells us that vintages are great, don't bother with the newer stuff and besides there is no rush to buy his (inset name) right now because you can buy it in a year or 2 or 5...well then he is diminishing his own market share isn't he.
Similarly, if he tells people "my perfumes are good for 36 months" then he'd have us throw out any unfinished bottles at 35 months and 3 weeks, ready to order anew. So does that mean he is creating a product with inbuilt failure? Like that we see in many electronic goods that are designed to fail after about 3 - 5 years, just after the warranty expires, so that we go out and buy the latest tech?
Should we then be emailing the company prior to purchase to enquire as to the batch number and the specific date of manufacture, in order to know exactly how long we may enjoy our product? Should we refuse to purchase any item that was made more than 6 months prior, in order to get the most from it, or request a 66% discount for a new bottle with a batch from 2 years ago? How do I know, if making a purchase from a department store, that I am not buying a product with only 1 month left before the magical 36months elapses, after which point the bottle will, upon the stroke of midnight, undergo an incredible transformation from a bottle of pleasant smelling scent to a piece of trash?

I'm sure you can see the similar arguments for the other opinions proferred.
With the critics in particular, their meal ticket comes from the steady stream of new arrivals, new brands, new flankers etc, they need the producers to keep churning out new stuff in order to have something to write about. The general public, the "normal" non perfume obsessed masses, aren't going to buy this paper or that magazine for a review of some scent that came out 5 years ago, or 50 years ago, something they associate with their parents or grandparents - the general consumer wishes to read about fashion, and trends and exciting new things...that is what is selling the vehicles in which these articles are published. The same papers and magazines which will feature expensive advertising campaigns for the latest beauty products from those brands, the ads that help keep such businesses afloat just as the web and e-versions carry ad links and pop ups that scrape our info and help the data people work out just who is clicking through and who is buying, and what else they're looking at and so on. There is a whole shadow industry operating just behind the obvious face with whom we are to believe we are interacting.

As for my own personal feelings around this topic. Well, for the term "vintage" in general - yes this has become something of a fad, vintage is so now dahlink, or maybe so 10 minutes ago seeing as half of everything these days seems to be tagged as "vintage" "retro" "antique" etc, even when clearly nothing of the sort. Take a quick look around ebay or etsy or similar and you will see that every other product in some categories is labelled as vintage. I am perpetually bewildered, amused and frustrated by some of the listings I see - "brand new vintage retro unique hot sexy discontinued hard to find fashion [insert random thing]" seems to be the standard proforma for many sellers. I have even seen listings for "modern vintage 2014 edition of [thing]" before now! In this context the word has become meaningless.

I also feel that there is a common trend towards something becoming infinitely more desirable the instant it becomes unobtainable. That much is just human nature I think, as soon as we are told we can't have something, we want it all the more. It is why diets fail, and why people undergoing relationship therapy are sometimes told they are forbidden from intimate relations in order to add spice, it is why people lust after that celeb, or their colleague, or their spouses sibling...seriously, this works with everything from biscuits to people to perfumes.
So I do think there is definitely an element of this when something becomes discontinued, or there is a supply issue, or a drastic reformulation.
Of course there will also be those who have been saving up for said item and suddenly feeling the pressure to get it now, or those speculating on what they think will increase in value and buying out the remaining stock to dribble into the under supplied market at a price to suit them.
There will also be those who have a sentimental connection to a particular item, who cannot bear to be forever without that item because of the memories it brings vividly to life, for that momentary recreation of a time of joy and happiness and I don't think anyone should begrudge another of that feeling.

As for the vintage perfumes, well for all that the people interviewed in this article tell us that an item is garbage after a few years, I would suggest that there are more than enough examples of perfumes that are not spoiled or turned to disprove that hypothesis. Can every one of those owners of a vintage perfume be wrong? I very much doubt this considering the depth of knowledge that so many people on this very site possess, I cannot believe that they are all part of a mass delusion, wandering around in sour vinegar and not a single one noticing!

I also note that the article discusses the time frame by which new perfumes are produced bottled and shipped out for retail, and states that with modern perfumery it can be a matter of weeks from factory floor to shop floor, yet also states that the character will change over those following months. By the arguments they apply against vintage, surely they are saying that these new scents are "not right" somehow maybe the first 6 months, or after 6 months? I had always believed that "maceration" was an important part of perfumery, that letting it sit and settle was necessary for stability of the scent and the overall product.
We also know that some natural materials degrade faster than others, and that some do improve with time, for example sandalwood and oud. It therefore stands to reason that a certain number of older scents would withstand the test of time based on the materials contained within.

Perhaps what we smell now when using a vintage perfume is not the exact scent that was originally created, perhaps it is, and perhaps for many of us we cannot know one way or another, having not been around and wearing perfume decades before we were born. But my question then would be, if the perfume smells good, and we enjoy it, and it is available and we can afford it, well then why shouldn't we use it? I can see no reasonable argument whatsoever to the contrary. I mean sure you can tell me it is "bad", or it isn't what was originally created and bottled, but good perfume is good perfume, so why can't we enjoy it if it is good to us? It comes across as very paternalistic and patronising, this "we know better than you, we are more educated, more discerning, more cultured than you, and we say it is bad" attitude.

As for the value of something, well an item is worth what someone will pay for it. Sure there may be a margin where the line is blurred, where one person is exploiting the desire of another to push for that few pounds extra, but on the whole, even with a sought after, desirable and rare item, there is a ceiling price, once again I refer to ebay, where the item priced out of the top end will not sell month after month, yet when the price is lowered it sells almost immediately.

I personally have a number of vintage perfumes. One of the key points omitted from the article is that often these days there simply isn't a viable modern alternative to the types of scents produced at certain points historically. Look at how many old school vintage feminines are constructed in such a way that today they would be labelled masculine. Also look at how different so many classic women's vintages are to todays offerings, things like vintage opium, narcisse noir, cialenga, y, bellodgia, le dix, to name but a very small few. For so many scents of old there is simply nothing like that being released now.

For those of us who love some of these scents there is nothing that compares, and so we will go back, and we will take our chances, we will use the knowledge we do have and the experience, and with a bit of common sense, a few choice questions and a little bit of luck we will continue to purchase our beloved vintages and we will rock them and care not one jot what some industry bod thinks of it!

Ferminadaza 01/23/16 12:30

I must admit that I have gotten caught up a bit in the chase for vintage formulas. One element to all of this that the author, as well as the experts with whom she spoke, has overlooked is that many people are comfortable purchasing older versions of perfumes because the idea of a perfume "going bad" conflicts with the very idea of "collecting" perfume.

If this idea gets around in fact, I can't imagine it being very good for venues such as Fragrantica or the perfume industry as a whole. Imagine the thoughts of the average perfume buyer: I am plunking down the equivalent of a major electronic (the price of some niche perfumes) for something that will deteriorate in 2-3 years? Why? Who would sign up for such craziness?

I am sure that the answer to that by various industry insiders would be, "Well, perfume is a luxury."

Yes, so is an Iphone...and I only need one of those.

If perfume simply "goes bad" with little to no provocation in such relatively short order, then common sense would suggest that much like any mid range "luxury" such as an Iphone, I need only purchase that small number which I can readily consume before it breaks or rather, its expiration date.

Uh-oh. With the average designer and perfume house releasing umpteen flankers each year, and the perfume obsessed consumer recently advised that such purchases can easily "go bad", that will translate into a fair amount of excess on the market.

Who will buy it?

Who will talk about them if no one is buying them because quite frankly who NEEDS more than 3-4 bottles of, what is according to this article, a highly perishable good? This is especially true when one takes into consideration the absolutely humongous bottles in which many perfumers are offering their fragrances.

5 ounces of EDP with a shelf life of 4-5 years????

I better start spritzing that stuff on random strangers in addition to myself in order to finish in time.

I think the idea that perfume can possibly age well is central to the habits of the perfume obsessed: how else will we justify many of our expansive collections?

There are people on this and other perfume boards who have well over 300 perfumes in their collection. They're all aging at this very moment. Shall they throw them away at the 3 year mark? The 4 year mark? The 5? 10?

Come now. Where exactly are we drawing this arbitrary line in the sand?

There were after all perfumed unguents found in the tombs of the various pharaohs and ancient Egyptian wealthy which when found, were still fragrant and enjoyable. A good attar can be aged for 100 years or more and still retain it's beauty. Instead of looking at perfume as this good with a hard and fast very finite shelf life, I think that it's all about the composition. Going back to the example of wine that the author used, I can say this. I worked for quite a number of years for a well regarded high end distributor of wines.

No, every wine is not intended to be put away for 20 years or more, however... some are. They are pricier because of the additional skill and bottling efforts required, but they exist.

Bringing this back to perfume, some will not withstand the ravages of time....but some will. Most notably those built upon an iron bulwark of base notes stored well in cool dry and reasonably dark (although the people who shove them away in the deep recesses of some cave in their home are taking it a bit far in my opinion) location.

What does this truly mean? Consideration and good judgement. Instead of saying that it's completely silly to hunt for vintage perfumes, I would suggest that other perfume obsessed people tread slowly and with a fair amount of common sense which originates in a good understanding of both fragrance composition as well as the specific nature of the perfume in which you're interested.

Synthaesthetic 01/22/16 20:37

I don't really consider myself a vintage hunter (harder to avoid real animal ingredients going back far enough), but I do have a few bottles and sample vials. As far as the vintages I've worn enough to form an opinion on:

*Charlie - pretty good though not my favourite notes; never smelled the current formula
*Diorissimo EdT - smells like the aerosol can of LotV air freshener in my bathroom; sorely disappointing compared to the modern EdP that smells like my mother's garden
*Femme Rochas PdT (1980) - mouthwatering, even better than expected; no real modern equivalent to the PdT, which was nectar sent to Earth by aliens
*Givenchy III EdT - pretty good, maybe just slightly stale; never smelled the current formula
*L'Heure Bleue EdP (1998) - weak top notes and has started to turn (it's the colour of extrait despite never having been opened), but still decent drydown with the patisserie element; modern EdP is okay to me, but more medicinal and bready
*Magie Noire EdT (1998) - many reviewers have said it doesn't age well, and mine does lean a little acetone in the top; never smelled the current formula
*Vol de Nuit EdT (1967-70s) - top is faded, otherwise rich and excellent; modern EdT is good on me but has a lighter and easier character that makes me prefer the vintage whether it's 'gone off' or not (it's my pseudo-signature, so I've wracked my brain over it)

Personally, I don't much care about top notes and don't mind if something doesn't 'smell like the original.' I have no idea what my favourites smelled like when they were created, because I wasn't even born yet in most cases. The main thing that really makes a difference to me is real oakmoss, so I'm happy that chypres tend to survive.

My view is this: Chemistry is a reality and nothing is forever, but it can be worth the gamble. Minimize risks of disappointment by buying with reasonable expectations and from reputable sellers. Try to discern if it's been stored properly. Read what others say about how something holds up and sample different vintages if possible. At the end of the day, the deciding factor about vintage is whether we think it smells good or not. And if it's worth the cost, but I've actually paid *less* for my vintage full bottles than I would have for a new one in a regular shop.

So far I've had more good experiences than bad, so I'll keep doing what I'm doing.

THEREALJWIL 01/22/16 01:33

I am a vintage collector and I really disagree with Dame on the fragrance being dreck ... "something that is of very bad quality : trash or rubbish" (thanks to Websters online) after 8 years? Sounds like marketing at its finest really!
I have NUMEROUS vintage scents and yes. ..top notes that are citric in nature are gone in some if not most of 30 year old scents I have or even ones I have that are from the 60's but the scent heart and base are there and yes it is indeed smooth. Not yet bought a sour vintage scent..... this is marketing to get people nervous about keeping old stuff. Buying new is the only remedy ! Okay cool give me all.of.your vintages...I love rubbish and trashy scents
Keep care.of.your bottles and while the citric notes will dissipate over time the rest is perfect.
This is true of the scents of the past but as far as the new stuff that comes out with aroma chemicals, I have no idea of the shelf life.

Gigi The Fashionista 01/21/16 04:33

I collect many vintage fragrances the way I collect priceless antiques and objets d'art as collectible items. And yes I do wear them IN PUBLIC. I wear original formula Bal a Versailles which contains actual civet- that you can smell. I wear the original vintage Quelques Fleurs, L'Heure Bleue, Arpege, Shalimar, Emeraude, Jicky, La Rose Jacqueminot, L'Effleur, Maja, Bandit, Fracas, Miss Dior, Jolie Madame, Jungle Gardenia, Tabu, Femme, L'air Du Temps, Fidji, Chanel No. 5, No. 19, L'interdit, Oh! de London, Caleche Miss Balmain, Y de Yves Saint Laurent, Poison, Opium, Teatro Alla Scala, Azzaro No. 9, Passion, among many many others. If you wear them at the right event, like a perfume party, among people who appreciate what you're wearing, then it's much easier to do. Fragrances are invisible clothing, costumes, and it's like going to a costume party. The first time I wore vintage Opium was at a 70s disco themed party in a jumpsuit. The fragrance was well received and appreciated by other 70's era lovers. So if you go to a 1920's themed party dressed as a flapper you can spritz on that Shalimar Emeraude or Arpege and see if they don't love it. Of course they will. Or if you go to a 1950's themed party, in a poodle skirt, spritz on some of that L'interdit which I feel matches a girly 50's skirt. That being said there are times I wear vintages to work, and do smell of it all day and I don't give a damn whether anyone likes it or not. Of course, that doesn't mean that I only wear vintages. I wear many modern fragrances as well and fragrances that aren't that old. 2000 to 2008 is not old to me, neither is 1990-1999. For me even some 80's fragrances are wearable for today. I have the exact same tastes that women had before I was born. I do it because it's a pleasure. An absolute pleasure. I wear it for myself. I don't wear fragrances for others. Why is it that that people who wearing fragrances in the 1900's 20s 30s 40s 50s never had a problem with smelling the powerful animalic, aldehydes, flowers and woods on others? No one ever said to Gloria Swanson or Joan Crawford "O God don't wear that cologne it's too strong". They LIKED them strong. How else would they know they were wearing perfume? I have never been allergic to fragrances I don't have allergies of any kind. I feel like I don't even belong in the 21st century at all. So I have a Time Machine. I go back in time, the only way I can travel back in time is by wearing vintage fragrances. Vintages can be appreciated and even worn by people who have a true love of fragrances. I do agree with other people that say that reformulations smell nothing like the original but I understand why the frag industry does it. I know that we live in a new age of gourmand scents of vanilla, tonka, cinnamon chocolate, tuber, coffee etc. Sometimes some of that is ok but not all the time. I find my comfort in niche indie fragrances that have more interesting take on fragrances than today's designer labels. Once in a while I find a modern fragrance that I like because I feel that they are putting more thought and depth into it but I do agree that after a while the new ones tend to smell the same and are nothing like the Golden Age of Perfume when one masterpiece after another was released. Fragrance is an art and like art it evolves and changes. Vintages are the classical art pieces the Rembrandt the Fragonards of Fragrances. If you love classic art at the Louvre you should also love fragrances because it's ART. I am so in love with my old perfumes, like La Rose Jacqueminot which dates from 1904 and L'Heure Bleue which dates from 1912 that it is the only way to go back to 1912, and I love going there.

celticelle 01/20/16 11:27

Having become an avid vintage perfume collector for the past couple of years, I disagree very much with many of the opinions expressed in this article, especially by Mr. Dame. I think that they reflect a lack of experience in dealing with vintages, using them and experiencing them, and also seem to be part of the perfume industry trying to mask its own self-sabotage with IFRA restrictions and general cheapening of ingredients.

I have had many of my share of disappointments with perfume gambles on vintage bottles. I'm not denying that at all. A small portion have turned out to be completely unwearable and turned. I also have had many that had "off" top notes, but had mid and base notes that were truly beautiful and made the initial few minutes of wear something that was a mild annoyance.

I can honestly say that delving into vintage collecting has been worth every penny, as those perfumes were far superior in quality to modern ones. They had a depth and complexity that has been unrivaled. They had access to ingredients that are now unavailable, and they chose to use finer oils and in greater abundance. They also used styles of perfume making that are now lost and unobtainable in a modern perfume. For a perfume writer to deny this is simply burying their head in the sand.

And yes, many probably do not smell as they originally did, but they still beat the latest designer versions out on most of the department store shelves to my taste. No, they're not necessarily like a fine bottle of wine. It is analogous with a perfume such as Shalimar, though, in that it does have an ability to age well. But over all, vintage perfumes do tend to hold well much better than modern ones.

To each their own. If you like the style of cheaper made modern scents, go for it. If you want a perfectly fresh smelling bottle of perfume, then buy them. If you want to experiment and take chances and delve into the world of vintages, you may find a beautiful lost fairyland of artistry and quality that isn't being produced anymore.

FruitDiet 01/20/16 09:35

Thank you so much for publishing this delightfully galvanizing article. I have long thought the "vintage" trend to be a kind of group hysteria straight out of Ken Russell's The Devils. I have had many old bottles and the fact is the vast majority of perfumes do not keep well past a few years. Many of the more outrageous elements rhapsodized about in older perfumes are just the effects of it having gone bad. The viral communications about which reformulations are acceptable and which are travesties are so fickle; if one person publishes a review saying a perfume is dead it is then regarded as fact. Additionally, I do not like the snobbishness entailed when bloggers and reviewers take great pains to ensure that you know they are *only wearing vintage*, the implication being that anyone who wears fresh perfume is a fool. Stuff like this is what kept me from enjoying Mitsouko for years.

Elena is the most articulate, no-nonsense, all around excellent perfume writer around.

smellagent 01/20/16 08:30

I wonder if some of the discontinued perfume makers went on ebay and saw how much money their frags were going for if they would churn out that juice again? I don't remember ever paying 400.00 for a bottle of kl Lagerfeld back in the eighties. I buy vintage sometimes and I have had bad luck and very good luck. I bought those bottles of KL because it used to be my signature back in the day. I can say that that top notes are no longer crisp in edt or edp. For that I am bummed because that was my favorite part of that frag. But the Magie Noire is just like I remembered it. I think that stuff is indestructible. I used to before I knew about proper storage always keep a bottle of mn in my car through every season and it always smelled good. I have also had great luck with fracas . Maybe instead of lumping everything into a black and white category, we should start a thread and list the vintage frags that hold up and the ones that don't etc...

scarlett.angel 01/19/16 20:46

So glad I read this article (and comments!). While I don't have much experience with vintages, finding out a fragrance I really used to love/want has been discontinued always greatly upsets me, to the point of sometimes wanting to track it down at all costs. This was the case with Midnight Poison. I blindly bought 3 bottles of it (price was good in my defence), and I'm sad to say it's not EXACTLY as I remember it. Blame my skin chemistry, anosmia, or whatever, but I remember it being a lot stronger and lasting longer on skin. It's still a beautiful fragrance, but unfortunately disappears from my bare skin in under 2 hours. Not worth it for me. Today I'm testing a set of new niche fragrances, applied 1 spray to my wrists and it's been going strong for hours. This is just one personal example of course. I would have rather saved the money I spent on MP and bought that dupe fragrance of MP? everyone mentions, with actual sillage and better longevity. Anyway thanks for this article! Will probably save me time and money, or make me think twice about seeking out and blind buying those "elusive vintages" which may not live up to my expectations at all. Sometimes the past is best left behind (fragrance wise anyway). Not to be negative to all the vintage collectors, just my opinon. Peace! :)

lindley 01/19/16 15:12

Excellent article, which sums up a lot of what I suspect. Sometimes the idea of vintage perfumes being more true to their time reminds me of tv and play productions in which genuine cereal boxes and battered books are put on display--actually, new reproductions would better give the sense of their glossy newness at the time.

The bit I am prey to, though, is a fear of loss, the feeling that something is gone (completely or in its original form) and can never be regained. It gives me a panicky feeling that makes vintage buying terribly tempting.

And, you know, peer pressure. When I love a reformulation and I am told constantly that it isn't a patch on the vintage.... well, I'm as vulnerable to that as anyone.

GodKing 01/19/16 13:27

Excellent article along with thoughts and opinions from experts in the field. My take on vintage fragrance? I love them, but there is no way in hell I am going to pay the insane prices people are asking for what is far too often just stale old perfume followed by shame and disappointment.

To me, a used fragrances is just that...a used fragrance that is difficult to judge based on myriad factors. As a rule of a thumb, I will never pay more than full-retail for an unopened vintage bottle. While others may squander their money (it's their money to squander, I suppose) I refuse to feed into this eBay mentality. Typically, I start with the discount/wholesale value and my offer price is reduced by one-half if the bottle is opened...and depreciates quickly depending on the source and other factors.

Anyway, I hope to sniff more vintage fragrance in the coming weeks, months and years...assuming they are reasonably priced, of course.

Lovely36 08/23/15 16:56

Very interesting and informative article. Makes sense. There really is something romantic about thinking we can still smell a perfume that captures a moment in history. I've been drooling over some vintage perfumes online for just that reason. Part of me wishes to be transported to post-war Paris with a vintage Guerlain, for example. But, it makes sense that the passage of time will have worked its trickery. A mix of chemicals, extracts, and herbs would inevitably turn over time. We hang on to our memories through scent, hoping we can relive them in some way. And we find some escapism in idealized moments of history we never lived through. I think, somewhat fittingly, Hemingway's words perfectly sum up our desire for these vintage perfumes to be true to their original scents: "Isn't it pretty to think so."

Angelica 000 08/22/15 16:49

Thank you for a very informative article. I've been disappointed by my vintage buys & have decided to be happy with the memories of my lost loves.Not only will my wallet benefit, but it makes sense to actually enjoy what I have & open my mind to new styles of perfume.

AlaskaWendy 08/22/15 15:23

I have quite a few vintages. Some I've hunted for and stalked feverishly, with bated breath, till the auction ends. I've bought bottles, sight unseen from Ebay, and had some complete disasters, with some cellophane wrapped, unopened bottles, that, when i opened them, there was 3mm of brown sticky material in the bottom of the bottle. But again, I have had successes. I paid 9.99 for a full 100 ml EDC of Chanel No. 5 which was stronger, and at the same time, creamier than my current EDP formulation of same. I assumed the nose-tickling aldehydes had evaporated or something, I don't know the technical reason - I am no nose, i don't possess a chemistry degree, but I'd say this: Top notes in a fragrance are volatile, they are more likely to be the ones that evaporate, turn sour, change, or just completely disappear.

And has already been said - some fragrances have top notes that i dislike, but i buy it anyway, because i love the dry down of it. And from my limited knowledge on the subject, a base note of a fragrance is also known as a fixative?? is this correct? This tells me that it will stay there longer. I also agree that different substances and materials utilised in perfumery have different staling rates, even within the top, heart, and base note categories. I accept that I am taking a chance, and that i may end up with something i throw away. But for me, it's the WHOLE experience. The thrill of the chase, that's been mentioned, it's not just the olfactory aspect. But i agree, this is a thought-provoking and very interesting article, and has certainly evoked some well-written responses, and some emotional ones. Which just shows me, I don't just buy for the smell of it. I buy because i love the entire exciting experience even when i end up with a throwaway.

fire2heart 12/12/14 17:18

I've only bought one vintage perfume that had gone bad. Sadly, it was Shalimar edp. I've bought the cologne version in vintage form that has not gone bad. I'll stick to the current formulation on Shalimar.

I've bought vintage Obsession perfume and it is lovely and just as I remember from the 80's and early 90's. I've not tried the current formulation and am not in a rush to buy it since cinnamon is on the forbidden list.

I bought some reformulated Cinnabar and quickly sold it on eBay. It is nowhere near the juice from my memories in the 1970's and 80's! It was sad and awful smelling!

I have vintage Opium in my hands and will be able to compare it to the new formulation soon. I kind of doubt it'll be even close to the same scent. I will be pleased if it is a nice scent regardless of any reformulation.

miracleborgtech 11/16/14 22:14

Great article and great comments. As a lover of many vintage perfumes, I will have to be one that pursues the rare unspoiled classic scents.

There is no other alternative in many cases except to enter the vintage crap shoot. Reformulations have made our loves unrecognizable. Even running the risk of getting a bottle that has turned, many perfumes are still perfect and smell the way they did when bottled. It is the only way to experience the perfume the way it was intended and remembered - in its' original formulation. I might have to go through a few bottles to find one that is still good, but it is worth the effort for ones I love.

Also - thanks to ms rochambeau for reminding me to use my nips! she is right - no air gets into them, and they smell as good as when they were made.

ularewolf 11/15/14 18:15

This is an interesting article, and one to definitely contribute to some controversy due to the tone of the article, whether or not it was being a bit cheeky.

For me, I haven't experienced the vintage fragrances. You can say I'm the "new generation" of fragrance lovers. I will have to get my nose on a vintage someday, but I want to evoke some light onto some things that weren't mentioned by other people. (at least that I saw)

Although fragrances have been reformulated plenty of times, a lot being due to IFRA restrictions and such, I think another factor in the equation is the point that companies don't want to keep producing "dated" scents. Whether you agree with it or not, fragrances need to be modernized for the current generation that we live in.

Shalimar still has a stigma about it being "old", although I'm in love with even the current EDP formulation, I can imagine how the original was-- but I can also imagine how little it would be sold even if it was the same exact formulation from the 1920's; This is because their targeted market of women, especially in their teens-30's, do not want to smell like "old lady" and it's this way of thinking that makes companies change the fragrance to "fit the times" a bit more.

Gone are the days when orientals and heavy animalic/chypre fragrances were popular, in are the new "fresh" and citrusy, clean, inoffensive fragrances. I don't agree with it either but they are in the end, a business trying to make profit. Just look at all the new designe fragrances released nowadays. Would they make profit from a leather/civet/vanilla skank bomb that is Shalimar? Nope; So it was tamed down, brightened up, remodeled for the 21st century.

I am not into fashion, but fragrances are a cousin to fashion, and it's the same concept. Out with the old, in with the new! But the old can return with a comeback someday.

My other point is that a lot of the vintage collectors loathe and despise synthetics. To an extent I can understand, but it's not necessarily synthetics vs. natural that affects a fragrance entirely, it is the nose behind the fragrance and how well they can blend both naturals and synthetics to make it exude a natural quality still.

Or you can just look at Molecule 01 and how much many people like it, yet it's a single synthetic component mixed into alcohol, that's it! Synthetics are not bad at all, if used correctly. I personally like a mix of naturals with my synthetics, but to each their own.

I have more to say but I'd end up taking the whole page.

TLDR version: Vintages aren't bad, synthetics aren't bad, vintage fragrances are changed not only because of ingredients but to modernize it as well. In the end the most important ingredient is the parfumeur.

Sorendara 11/14/14 17:55

Wow, is there a lot of anger and rudeness in the replies here! I didn't find the article patronizing at all, merely presenting itself as an authority. It may or may not be accurate in that regard, but that doesn't make it patronizing.

I think the article gives very good reasons to think that a vintage perfume won't smell as it originally did. Even if you reject it's larger contention that the vintage market is overhyped and questionable, the observations about how perfume changes over time is worthwhile.

I do think the article is wrong in its implication that vintage perfumes aren't worthwhile, generally. As others here have observed it's still possible to enjoy the scent of a vintage perfume and to prefer it to modern versions, *even if* it no longer smells as it once did. While vintage perfumes aren't for me, I can't see how wearing a vintage perfume because you like the way it smells *now* is any sort of failure.

I am quite skeptical about the claims here that this or that perfume smells "just like it did" 30 years ago, or that they can smell it now and remember what it smelled like decades ago and judge them to be identical. Memory is a great thing, and certainly scent is a very vivid sort of memory, but I have serious trouble believing it is capable of that sort of precision over decades. If you believe in that sort of precision in olfactory memory, have a scan through the reviews of perfumes on here and note how many scents are reviewed as "just like" or even "a dupe of" Flowerbomb, including any number that only barely resemble it! And those are from people who smelled these scents only *at most* a decade apart, and more likely considerably closer together.

PerfumeEmpress 11/14/14 14:57

I appreciate different opinions, but I am a vintage perfume fan and an avowed enemy of scent reformulations. For me one of the worse industrial crimes is the reformulation of classic scents. IMO, there is no justification for it, I don't care what excuse you choose. No, don't bleat "The environment!" or "The children!" at me. It's no good. It's like telling me the Gioconda has to be whitewashed because it offends (your choice of Terminally Sensitive group here). Works of art are not to be tampered with, never mind who complains about them. Personally, being the impenitent cynic I am, I am convinced it's just one more manufacturer scam to use cheaper ingredients in products for which they will charge the earth.

I remember writing a terse letter to Guerlain when they reformulated Mitsouko, which had been my signature scent till then. Of course, they replied with the predictable, tired and tiresome tosh about the environment, blah, blah, blah.

If I could afford it, I would buy all vintage perfumes till the supplies gave out. No, don't worry. I can aford it only in my dreams. And I'm enough of a perfume addict to be willing to give new efforts a try, too. Not to mention the fact that I treat perfume much the same way I treat wine: if I like it, it's good. But there is nothing like an original Mitsouko, Miss Dior, Opium, etc. Never will be. I don't care what the experts say. With all due respect, of course.

ms rochambeau 10/21/14 13:21

Wow! I can't believe that I am just stumbling upon this article. As I read the comments I couldn't help but wonder why anyone hadn't mentioned vintage perfume nips, especially since I just happened to be wearing one of my vintage nips of a perfume called Connoiseur. Then I eventually got to the comment by Lovingthealien and he had already brought up the topic of nips, so I didn't have to. Air cannot get into a sealed nip, so unless the nips have been exposed to light or heat, the perfume inside should be as fresh as the day it was sealed in the nip.

While there are many niche brands today that make some admirable scents, I personally prefer vintage scents to the more contemporary ones, even if the vintages have been slightly altered by time as the vintages are from a time when perfumers were not afraid to make bold statements through scent and women were not afraid to wear them. As far as I'm concerned, most of the offerings from today's commercial perfume industry are insulting to people who actualy pay attention to perfume; its quality and its subtleties. Instead, their only concern is how they can cheaply mass produce a passable product that has mass appeal in order to maximize their profits. It has nothing to do with the beauty, craft or history of perfumery.

Like lovingthealien, Elena's article here, leaves me baffled on where she actually stands on the idea of collecting and appreciating vintage scents. I perceive that this article is suggesting that we not waste our time, while her Perfume Shrine Blog often sings the praises of many vintage scents. Personally, I would take a faded Rembrandt painting over a Jeff Koons done last week, any day.

nananessa 04/11/14 16:07

An informative & interesting piece on a subject that has many aspects to it. So very many great comments posted from vintage lovers, too many to name!

I am about to turn 60 & grew up in a wonderful yet turbulent time in history. We are ALL products of our generation. The era, the culture, "zeitgeist", genetics, memories, feelings, experiences & associations---all of these things play a vital part in what makes us who we are with our unique individual perceptions & preferences. We all know that IMPRINTING the psyche marks us for life. And having grown up during the 60s & 70s when so many freedoms were still intact as to various ingredients used in fragrances & their productions, I long to have the same endorphin releases incited by great manufactured oldies.

A great chapter from one of my favorite books "The Essential Oils Book-Creating Personal Blends For Mind & Body" by Colleen K. Dodt expounds on some interesting points to consider which vintages generally encompass---the actual experience of the brain from genuine scents made from essential oils versus chemical synthetics. Such as: "the French word 'sentir' means 'to smell, to feel.'" as noted by Marcel Lavabre. She goes on "We 'feel' scents rather than logically think about them...We understand it more through associations and images than by analytical processes or data. In the Limbic portion of the brain, emotions and odors are directly linked and have been found to produce some of the same electrical impulses. The limbic system is also called the rhinenecephalon, or 'smell part' of the brain."

Dodt further regarding "Neurochemical Experiences produced by Essential Oils"..."Learned odor responses arouse reactions to certain synthetic or natural scents, like the scent of an ex-lover's perfume or the smell of freshly mowed grass. However, our experience of a pure essential oil is different than a learned odor response. WHEN AN ESSENTIAL OIL IS INHALED, VARIOUS NEUROCHEMICALS ARE RELEASED IN THE BRAIN AND THE INHALER EXPERIENCES A PHYSIOLOGICAL CHANGE IN BODY, MIND, AND SPIRIT." (caps mine) "When lavender is inhaled, for instance, serotonin is released from the raphe nucleus of the brain, producing a calming influence in the body. This effect is altered, however, if the inhaler has had a direct negative experience with lavender." She goes on to explain how learned odor responses can alter or interfere with the biochemical effects of the essential oils. Emotions can even interfere with the responses to certain scents. But then finally...

"Chemical reproductions of pure essential oils don't hold this olfactory magic and are not effective in aromatherapy. They rely solely on learned odor response, not neurochemical release. Chemical reproductions do not have the same biochemical effects as naturally occurring pure essential oils."

Now for one like myself that prefers strong chypres & orientals, that grew up in a time where over-regulation had not robbed us of the great basenotes such as oakmoss & civet (as someone else commented below), & other ingredients, fragrances released today don't generally cause the same interaction with the fragrances of old that the only way I know how to best describe would be a tremendous olfactory-senses-brain orgasm that takes place in the pleasure (/pain) part of the brain. In a nutshell---the fake stuff just doesn't cut it, especially if you are accustomed to the REAL THING. It's like the difference of cooking with artificial vanilla flavoring or real vanilla flavoring. Yes, we remember when fragrances were really great & sadly, the zeitgeist moved on from strong chypres & orientals of back in the day. But we have been IMPRINTED with the real---who wants artificial then? The response is just not the same.

When I was young I generally wore the "new" scents of the day keeping up with my peers like all the others, but for a few greats such as Tabu. I wasn't pursuing vintages. As I've aged my tastes have changed some through the years as I've learned to appreciate scents & aged but some ways still remained true to some like Tabu. The vintages are the greats, generally, in my opinion. I have yet to have a bad experience in my acquisition of the vintages. To each his own! Viva my civet & oakmoss---the real things!

ginawadsworth 04/10/14 23:27

Perfume is a very personal item, and no two people probably smell the same scent from a particular perfume.

Therefore to discuss vintage versus modern is purely subjective. If you like the smell of a specific perfume, made during a certain year and formulation, this is what you want to buy.

I personally like chypre floral scents. I like balsamic overtones. I miss the pre-reformulation Aromatics Elixir on a daily basis. However I have discovered so many other perfumes since I stopped using one perfume only.

Initially I was trying to find a replacement for AE and found it exhausting not being able to find something I really liked. Now I enjoy the journey of each new perfume I try. Gone are the days of constancy of formulation due to increasing manufacturing costs and regulation.

If you want to spend your time and money on vintage, go ahead. If you want the modern, go buy it. Neither is preferably, only that you wear something you love and use your perfume. It will change over time, however subtle the changes, and one day may be a monster in a bottle.

At then end of the day, a little perfume added to your beauty routine on a daily basis, whatever the vintage, adds something to your personal aura, so take advantage of this and give yourself that little treat, and enjoy it.

SorceressOfTheDark 04/10/14 23:05

I have been collecting perfumes for many years. I own many, both new and vintage. My vintages date from as early as the 1950's. They are all absolutely beautiful. I will continue to seek out vintages as I find them to my liking and they become available.
I find the substance and quality of the vintages to far surpass so many of today's fragrances. There are few of today's offerings that can truly compare to yesteryear's creations. And I am willing to pay for the vintages because I enjoy them. As far as their quality, I can attest to their beauty in fragrance. I wear them and enjoy them.
I much prefer my vintages over the copies of the vintages that are made today. I have absolutely no interest in copies of the originals. I'd rather take my chances on the originals, than someone's new interpretation.
Nothing can compare to vintages because of the ingredients used from years gone by. Today's perfumes are not made with the same formulations. Very few are of the same quality and can perform with the same gusto.
Perhaps we of older generations are spoiled. We know, have smelled, have lived and have adored the originals. We are now faced with these insidious new products that calls themselves perfumes. Now, not all of them are bad. Not at all. Some of them are quite good. Some. But I can truly say that what is being produced today is nowhere near the quality of what the perfumers produced in decades gone before them. And that's to be expected. The perfumers today cannot. They do not have the same raw materials. They do not have the same natural materials. They are now working with synthetics and chemicals that are designed to make us believe that we are smelling something. Compositions that are created for far less money yet sold for for more than they should be and still called perfume. At least regulatory agencies will not allow them to call their products "natural". Because they are not. Nor are they as real as we are led to believe. But politics, marketing and capitalism will always win in the end.
I smile at some who disdainfully isolate older or vintage perfumes as fragrances that should be relegated to an age-specific generation. Or, even worse, thrown away. History should never be ignored. It is a platform from which the future is built. If they would only free their senses to experience new olfactory delights they would learn about the true histories of perfume and from there, garner the steps of education needed to truly adore and appreciate all facets of perfumery.
From there, a true appreciation of the history of perfumes can be learned.

Clws 04/10/14 23:04

I really enjoyed this article. I enjoyed its playful and irrerevent tone, its honesty and complete lack of pretention. So much about fragrance can get snotty (or maybe some people can get snotty in their thinly veiled insults about YOUR opinion). This article remineded me that fragrance, "vintage" or new, should merely be an expression of our mood when we apply it to our pressure( ;-) ) points.

Brielle87 04/08/14 20:45

I only wear my vintage scents and they smell lovely.
Personally, I never believed the whole "fresh" thing with fragrance. My mother had a bottle of No5 de Chanel from the 50's (which was never opened) in her drawer, she gave it to me when I was a young girl and it smelt heavenly; nothing turned, nothing off, nothing sour. I guess this taught me early not to believe hyperbole when it comes to the fragrance/cosmetic industry.
When I was an adult I worked in the fragrance/cosmetic industry for over 20 years and I know for a fact that we used to encourage our sales team to remind their clients that they needed to replenish their scents within the year, so as not to use a stale fragrance. I thought this was poppycock (still do) but the companies felt it smart; we also were told to never speak of the tweakings they did to fragrances, better to let the client think her perception of the scent changed. Was it necessary to buy fresh bottles? not at all. Did it boost sales? dramatically, and women believed in the "only wear a fresh bottle of scent, if you have it too long you will be wearing vinegar."
On the other hand, if one does not protect their bottles from light, moisture and heat...then you will have a fine mess. Luckily, most vintage scents were unwanted gifts, kept nicely tucked away in the recesses of a bureau, much like my mother's No5.

lanuitblanche 03/17/14 15:37

Thank you for the great article. It's a good reminder to keep all of these points in mind when buying vintage... I think most vintage collectors are aware that there are risks.

But when I wear a vintage and modern scent of the same name, at the same time on two different wrists, and compare them, almost always, one smells vastly better than the other. And it is always the vintage that smells better. Even with volatile changes in the juice over time, the vintages move me in ways that the modern versions can never move me.

This happens with No.19, Diorissimo (yes, Diorissimo, mentioned in the article!), Narcisse Noir, Zibeline, Cuir de Russie, Bal a Versailles, Shalimar, Jicky, Opium... I have all of these in both vintage and modern formulations, and even while testing blind with the aid of a friend, I always emphatically prefer the vintage.

I can only trust my own nose, after all.

Iva Vendetta 02/25/14 16:42

I purchased the 'copy of" reformulations that Mr. Dame did and it was just perfect. Sadly, they are no longer available (or at least I cannot find them) online except for the Bakir/Maroc offerings from other sites which I don't trust in the least.

I have collected and found many of the original fragrances - chypres seem to maintain their original scent well the best. Arpege and My Sin have held up and they are over 28 and 35 years respectively.What I would not give to find original Le De (Givenchy).

the analogy to wine collecting is appropriate. some of my fragrances are over 40 years and have held up as opposed to the new reforms that use lesser chemical replacements for profit based on name.

The bottom line is it is a catch as catch can sometimes. Just remember to keep it in a separate refrigerator - the only way I've ever found to preserve scent.

jedrzejowskia 02/25/14 04:14

Fabulous article, well researched, well written and on the button :-)

Maeva 02/24/14 10:14

I would also like to thank Zoka and the Fragrantica team for all the efforts they made. I'm happy to see that Fragrantica is a place that can accommodate different points of view and honestly tries to promote respect and a healthy exchange of opinions.

dubairob 02/23/14 20:14

Thank you, Zoka and Fragrantica team. I am most grateful that you have taken the time to investigate these duplicate accounts and have returned the unfairly deleted posts - mine from 20 February included. I am solidly impressed.

Ultimately, I believe that no single article or writer will ever necessarily convince us one way or the other on this issue. The onus is on us to continue to learn and reach our own well-informed, honest and - dare I say - dispassionate yet subjective understanding. That is part of the wonder and challenge of all of this.

Thank you, Frangrantica and genuine fellow travellers, for being part of this journey.....

smauricius 02/23/14 14:46

OMG! I can't believe people are still talking about this article!

Sherihan 02/23/14 14:30

Instead of the charges and accusations, I wish to pay attention to an important point, that is everyone has his own taste and interests .Difference of opinion does not spoil of love and respect. Every person has the right to wear what they want to wear,vintage,Niech ,or designer new perfume, what is not really accepted is the Infringement of opinion . I'm happy to see all these multi different views though. Some of us love vintages, wear them all time,swear by them, some don't wear anything except new from department stores shelves, some(me included) collect vintages but don't want to wear them. If the article flirt with one only of those groups,it doesn't mean the tow others are not correct. And I really felt something was wrong with deleting the comments here,so I hope we all deal with more integrity when expressing our opinions. Now ,after Zoka has said what he said,everything is clear, thank you Zoka for the effort,and thank you Fragrantica for bringing us together to talk, and discuss all those interesting things.

frafrag 02/23/14 13:10

I want to say how much I am sad to read this article arrogant and full of falsehood, I am very strained to understand the meaning of this article, which I received as a link from a friend, who does not thanks for this, because this moment of disappointment is huge for me.
But the question is WHY the author of this article and the site of Fragrantica stir much (below we read the signatures of all authors)?
I assume that the line Fragrantica, is to defend the niche perfumery, and brands that pay the site for its maintenance, which obviously does not want the competition of those perfumes not on the market, they are no longer able to generate profits for those companies.
There are also many childish comments, without preparation on the subject, as voted by people unprepared, I ask you if you have not exceeded the limits of common sense.
The contemporary perfume is a crime to us consumers. And the smell stays perfect vintage if stored well for centuries. Of course, these considerations disturb the market perfumes currently being produced, and those who do not like it, will be deleted.
But the truth is this: the current products are often sick and people buy vintage because it is much better, even if you prefer to sell your perfume or those produced by your occult (and not occult) commercial partners, or "friends" (the crafty friend Moonfish67 knows what i'm saying)...
And "gifts" for Elena and the perfume becomes very good! In her blog, and here...

The Guide, by Luca Turin and Tania Sanchez: "A small number of perfumes seem to take a turn for the worse after a couple of years, but the majority we have collected seem to have no expiration date…A perfume kept in dim light to darkness could last two hundred years. If you're not going to use up your fragrance quickly, save it in the box"!

zoka 02/23/14 12:19

Update: We have removed few duplicate accounts that were used to thumb-down people and we blocked access to the website to them. Many comments that were 'under water' are back again. We will closely monitor posts for manipulation.

Regarding this article it raised a lot of conversation. It's good to hear all your opinions and everybody is free to make own choices. The better we are informed better choices we make. I think that this article is very beneficial for all of us and we should all be aware that all products expire with time. We had testimonies of members who had health issues after using old fragrances, we also have testimonies from people who use their vintages and are very happy with them.

Maeva 02/23/14 05:19

Glad to see you're still here, Dubairob!;) Yes, that's the way it is. In threads as "passionate" as this one the most offensive posts stay, the ones that respectfully disagree must disappear. This is the first time one of my posts is deleted too. And not too far below our deleted posts we could, still can, read a comment like "What a crock of shit if I ever heard some"...

Fragrantica, why don't you have a moderator for these threads, like in real forums, like in the Club here, where the option "Report" is the only way of disallowing a post? One that eliminates posts including offensive language and disrespect towards other people's opinions and welcomes constructive criticism? I love this site, I learnt a lot from it, and I'd like to continue to be proud of being part of this community.

dubairob 02/23/14 04:03

Thank you, Maeva, for your comment. Between this and a private communication I have received from another poster, I understand what has happened. And, to be honest with you, I find it a bit troubling.

Essentially, what I have found out is that the "thumbs-up-and-down" that cause the balloon number to rise and fall on the threads may also cause the post itself to be removed if it receives enough "thumbs-down"....this it seems is what has happened to my post.

Now I find this utterly bizarre. Not only was the post an unemotional and honestly well-balanced attempt to explain the difficulties in coming to objective decisions about fragrances, it was also trying to be as scientifically accurate as possible as a trained chemist (a fact I did not even want to add to my previous post). In short, the only way the post could be so disliked and "thumbed-down" would be if the voter was only concerned about seeing argumentative and unreasoned language - and the simplistic act of "picking a side to fight". These are things I will not do - as a human being first, and as a gentleman second. I am sorry, but I won't take any part of this.

Fragranctica, I would suggest that you rethink your voting strategy because of cases like this. I can perfectly understand the use of balloons to vote popularity, but when it involves posts being removed also, you should realize that this can be used to remove the voice of the most reasonable - and you don't need to know a lot of history to know where those kind of impulses to silence others can end up.

In short, this is first time ever I have had a post of mine removed from any site that I have been active in....and this is over many years in plenty of different forums and topics. I am very surprised.

Best regards (and still here).....

jasminegreentea 02/23/14 03:49

Could not agree with this article at all. Every perfume I own is vintage, 50 plus perfumes. I have only had to return one bottle, mitsouko which had completely gone off, smelt like nail polish remover and was refunded immediately. Have bought for a friend and myself at least 5 bottles of vintage Tabu, 3 bottles from the 50s and only one of these has lost some of the top notes, but give it 20mins and it smells as beautiful as the other bottles. I own 6 bottles of vintage samsara, edp and edt and everyone of them as well as the vintage bottles of body lotion and deodorant smell better than anything that guerlain sell today, the body lotion they sell today bears no resemblance whatsoever to the original formula. My 4 bottles of vintage Joy are stunning, todays version smells like nail polish remover in comparison. The old kidney bottles of Obsession which I own bear no comparison with the awful juice that is sold now. Even my vintage Diorissimo in the old houndstooth check boxes smells glorious and much stronger than todays offering. And as for vintage Magie Noire, well all I can say is go check todays offering with the original formula, no contest in my mind or nose. I could bore you with every perfume that I own, but suffice to say could not agree with this article at all. Surely we buy perfumes because we love the smell be they vintage or otherwise! Also agree with a previous reviewer about the allergy debacle, have never experienced a problem with any of my vintages but when ever I spray one of todays offerings I always have problems with my sinuses and have to wash them off within 20 mins if not sooner. Will continue to buy vintage with the exception of Tom Fords Tobacco Vanille over any of todays offerings, so please no more patronising articles. I agree with Luca Turin on this one, stored correctly and sometimes not the old juice is still far better than anything on the market today.

Maeva 02/23/14 02:07

Yes Dubairob and Sherihan. Our posts were deleted. We didn't share the ideas of the majority and they were wiped out from this thread. I guess we should have bitched about the article and its author like everyone else, but we didn't. Instead, we expressed a different opinion respectfully. We could express sympathy to the article last week (have a look at the first posts), but now that is no longer allowed.This is not really a forum, I'm afraid.

Sherihan 02/23/14 01:10

This article is saying the truth. I'm a vintage perfume collector, I collected a big collection,it is beautiful. The only problem is that it is not wearable, it is rancid and I was really sure that this collection was kept in a good,dark,clean place,but it went BAD,99%of it smells awful. Only 3 of a huge collection is nice and I can wear,the others are not. I insisted to wear some of them,the result is I had a sinus problem,that took me to the doctor(I swear). If your experience is deferent,I understand,and it means you are lucky. In general ,an old liquid can be damaged and even a clean water when left for a long time can be damaged and wil eventually be rancid and undrinkable. I'm a vintage lover,I purchase vintages, I will continue that, but not perfumes anymore. And from my long experience ,I'm able to give this piece of advice: (please save your mony for a healthy choice).

dubairob 02/22/14 20:14

Is it just me or does it seem that three days of posts have just now been deleted from this thread?

My last post was - by anybody's reckoning - broadly sympathetic to both sides of the discussion, where I discussed the difficulties of coming to an objective understanding of the issues concerned.

There would obviously be no reason to remove it, so I wonder can this and the others also deleted please be returned....

Fragrantica, I would like to have a response on this, please. I am sure it is just a technical issue...But it needs a response.

Maeva 02/21/14 19:08

I agree with you, Sherihan. I think Elena definitely knows what she's talking about. The fact that she reviews many vintages in her blog doesn't necessarily mean she's being dishonest or hypocritical in any way, and I think it's pointless to attribute any interest to her other than informing us, no matter if this article was intended to be a little incendiary ;)

When I began to expand my collection 3 years ago I had the sad impression that perfumery was falling apart, as if I had moved to live in a house in ruins. Apparently there was no quality in new creations, and most of the good stuff was beyond my reach, so I decided to save money and buy one of those gems from time to time. In the meantime, I kept reading reviews where I was advised to stock up on a particular fragrance I liked, for it had been discontinued and was more and more difficult to find. When I bought a fragrance I usually read I had actually bought a new vintage, and had been lucky to find it because it was no longer in production. So I kind of blamed myself for taking this passion of mine more seriously so late in my life. But then I read an interview with a perfumer, I'm not sure but I think it was B. Duchaufour, saying that ever since he began his career in perfumery this whining about the loss of quality in perfumery and the reformulation of old beauties had been the norm. So I thought that it was maybe the perfume industry (and the forums here!) that was behind my urges to buy this or that discontinued-to-be fragrance and to participate in auctions where the seller’s profit was much greater than my enjoyment of the product. This is a great way for the perfume market to turn old stock into new money, and also to boost this market (in the same way as, by the way, articles like Elena’s boost and re-energize this site...). Selling “obsolete” perfume at such exorbitant prices seems only logical in a world where obsolescence is a commodity, but let’s not forget that if time may add value to a fragrance, it can also deteriorate it.

Some of you vintage collectors cite luck as a key factor to make a successful purchase, so I don't think we should be so categorical about our opinions about buying vintage if it can depend on such an elusive factor. As for me, I have only 5 vintages. I can't afford to buy more. And I'm happy I can't. Three of them do not smell the same as when I first acquired them (and I stored them in perfect condition), now being barely wearable, but the other two smell wonderful. Among the former, my vintage Byzance smells worse than my reformulated one. And my Fille d'Eve has become an entirely different perfume, a musty-skanky concoction without the subtlety and freshness that made it unique back in its day. And I spent a fortune on it. I regret having bought some of my vintages. Does that mean I am against hunting for vintages? No, or at least not 100%. But since my economy is rather tight and buying vintage is a bit of an unknown, I don't think it's worthwhile for me to buy them. However, if you have the money and your passion for the history of perfumery makes the chase even more enjoyable, go for them. I myself won't be trying to buy them any more if I don't find them in a flea market at a more than affordable price.

I'm happy I read your article, Elena. I greatly appreciate your comments on vintages in Perfume Shrine and I'm glad you came to those conclusions. I felt somewhat heretic myself for suspecting the vintage market... Thanks for yet another pleasurable read!

StopHammertime 02/20/14 16:50

This article and all its backlash actually drove me to purchase another bottle of Organza Indecence on ebay, I just paid $50 for half an ounce... LOL just thought some might find that an interesting tidbit :)

dubairob 02/20/14 00:20

I would have to broadly agree with Jodi Battershell (NebraskaLovesScent) here on this issue. I have been checking in on this thread on occasions since the article was published nearly a week ago. It is obvious that such a contentious issue can sometimes generate "more heat than light" as subjective opinions can be held very stongly. To me, I think the most important thing to recognise is that the experience of fragrance is so personal and so dependent on different facets of our understanding that it can be difficult at the best of times to find some commonality of experience. Sense perception, emotion and memory are all touchstones of our appreciation of a fragrance. It is only obvious that when we add the issues of the questionable degree of degradation of the chemical ingredients used and the layers of positive/negative associations that we are on the road to "interpretative hell". In fact, the list of possible variables to consider in even our own shared experiences is so enormous as to pretty much nullify any interpretative value to all of this. There is simply too much going on.

And this brings me to the second point: information and knowledge. As fragrance appreciation is so utterly subjective, the best you can possibly do to gain predictive insights about how good a fragrance is before you even bother to sample it, is by reading sites - like Fragrantica - and reading around and about the reviews, sifting through the information and opinions, and trying to come to some understanding of what the fragrance entails. As we all know, this is not a simple process either - and we can often get it wrong. In that respect, it is so necessary that we value the opinions of others - but (and it is a significant caveat) we must realise that some of the "subjective opinions" of others are shaped by other factors as well. Not least by any professional involvement they may have with the industry. Though that is another complication that is added to an already complicated blend - and we can protest all we want about this - it is something we simply have to live with. Like anything, as we gain further experience and learn to be able to consider some opinions as more "authentic" than others, we step up and improve our knowledge. And that is what we are on this site for. As an aside, one has only to think about the days before such sites as Fragrantica, when it was almost impossible to find out anything whatsoever about a fragrance.....How times have changed so much for the better in that at least! The infamously secretive world of perfumery is at least a little more visible....and - one hopes - more accountable.

To finish - I didn't realize I'd write so much - one can see that the posts below refer to so much in peoples' lives that link them to special fragrances - loved ones, places, events, particular and very special associations - it should be no surprise that so much emotion comes to the fore in such a discussion. But I must say that in broad terms the fragrance community is one which, I am sure others will agree, is tremendously welcoming and considerate - and very respectful of differences of opinion. That should never be understimated when considering the complexity of what we are dealing with.

I wish you all the best on our journey to greater fragrance knowledge. I am sure it will go beyond this article....

NebraskaLovesScent 02/19/14 18:23

@Gallian, thanks for your response.

I made no comments whatsoever regarding Luca Turin, but it appears you inferred something from my comments that is not true. I have, in fact, read his books as well as the book Chandler Burr wrote about him and his work, The Emperor of Scent. I do not currently have any of the books in my personal library, but if Turin made any comparisons regarding the aging of fragrances to fine wine, I guess they were not as important or memorable for me as the rest of the content of his books.

I also have a nose, and a brain that can read and think critically about fragrances, just as all of you do, and those two things, in my opinion, are all that anyone requires to review a fragrance. We can smell a new or vintage fragrance and say if we like it or not. Some of us are better than others at articulating what we were looking for in a scent and did or did not find, but I think all of us get better at that as we have the opportunity to sample more fragrances and learn more about them through sites like Fragrantica.

Perhaps I didn't make clear that my experiences with vintage fragrances have been positive. "Overall, my vintage experiences have been pretty good." I was trying to articulate that our reasons as perfume lovers for seeking a vintage fragrance are varied and valid and that I respect them, and I also shared some of my reasons for seeking a vintage. In other words, I was not in agreement with this article, but I respect Ms. Vosnaki's right to speak her mind on the subject, as well as the opinions of the bloggers and industry professionals she cited in this piece.

If nothing else, all the comments on this topic prove that we perfumistas (and colognoisseurs) are a passionate and intelligent bunch who are interested in the dialogue about the fragrances that bring us so much enjoyment! :-)

NebraskaLovesScent 02/19/14 05:03

Lots of good comments and I'm not sure I have much to add, but I'll chime in, too.

I've never believed perfumes improve with age like wines and I have never heard anyone say that, either. I think most people understand that time alters fragrances to at least some degree.

What I looked for in the vintage perfumes I have purchased are memories of a long-gone perfume that someone dear to me wore, and usually that's what I found. Sometimes I purchased these vintages just to sniff them for the memories, with no intention of actually wearing them as my personal fragrance. Overall, my vintage experiences have been pretty good.

I have done some sampling of vintage scents that I never smelled during the time they were produced, and some of those have not smelled pleasant to me, but I can't confirm if it's because the scents have gone off with time or if they're just fragrances that would never have suited my taste in the first place.

happyscent 02/19/14 03:54

Great review :)

physalis 02/18/14 23:49

So much intrigued...

Well, as far as bloggers, dedicated sites and perfume writers' profits come directly and undirectly from advertisement and sales made by formal perfume market, that's a quite comprehensible message: "keep on buying your new and huge "synthetic juiced" bottles, wear them in a hurry and put them on your garbage as soon as possible.That would be very wise of you consumers to be part of the system".

But I must advert the messengers, be careful, the system can swallow you too.

Oh,and I am really sorry if someone was misunderstood here, but that's the appeal this article has to me.

kalios55 02/18/14 17:11

IMHO, perfumery is chemistry. Depending on the ingredients, the formula may or may not change over time. Certain chemicals are more molecularly stable than others. Chemical reactions occur as they please--who know what and when.

I am not going to assume that every vintage has turned sour just because someone has concluded so. One size does not always fit all.

Miss Alaska 02/18/14 16:07

Thank you!
Thank you for telling me I think perfume ages like wine. I had no idea I believed this.
I also had no idea that vintage hunting validated me-I thought I just enjoyed buying and wearing vintage fragrances.
It is also good to know that "Perfume continues to be undeciphered enough, for anyone beyond those who actually produce it."

Normandy summer 02/18/14 15:35

A helpful counterbalance and an interesting article. Yet sometimes, in their fractured and jumbled states, old perfumes can still carry within them an elusive element which, when the bottle is opened, transports you for a moment to a place/time of particular happiness or simply brings back the time when you first appreciated a wonderful scent.

I don't collect vintage perfumes but the profound disappointment of a bottle of new Vent Vert purchased a year or so ago led me, a la recherche du temps perdu, to buy a a tiny bottle of 70s or 80s Vent Vert on Ebay. And, despite, its declining powers, the opening of the cap brought a blast of pure sharp green happiness. So I guess that whether happiness or disappointment is the outcome of a vintage purchase may depend on which elements still retain a semblance of their original quality and to what degree.

AndreMoreau 02/18/14 09:21

as a vintage lover, I appreciate the provoking article but I would want to evidence there are too many factors to considerate. A 40 years old vintage scent *perfectly* stored could still smell bright and great.

Tapinview 02/18/14 05:10

Oh where to begin...a clearly jaded highly knowledgable scholar writing... yes I can agree that I have spent a few hundred on perfumes that have been spoiled and I have used as fresheners in the smallest room....a Chanel 19 and an Opium come to mind...but I contrast that with my experience with Mitsouko. Decades have passed. I remember with an almost visceral trauma a bottle somewhere around the 2000... It just did not smell right. I thought that I had lost my sense of smell with age. I was so disillusioned I turned to patchouli from the health food shop. Then somehow I fell into the internet perfume community and discovered that so much is 'reformulated'. I hunted ebay and got 'vintage ' Mitsouko. It smells right and proper even if it is twenty or thirty years old. The old stuff is the same glorious and maddingly beautiful as I know from decades ago. Conversely many of the old things just smell old...there is a drab rosey mossy cloying jasmine thing happening in the mid notes that I did not like then and do not like now; likewise stale aldehydes...but I always disliked funky aldehydes (mind you I did not even know an aldehyde from my elbow until I fell into the perfume community). And yet, I am increasingly appreciative of contemporary fragrances that are unabashedly synthetic . As many said it depends on a number of factors...and not just as to whether your nose has adapted with the times...as to the value of a 'vintage' fume.

Mimmi 02/18/14 00:54

I respectfully disagree that this article was clearly articulated. I find it the opposite. I do however get that it is argumented that fragrances have a shorter life because of chemical facts than many fans are aware of. But the argument doesn't stop there. There are a lot of other suggestions, about cults, folly and remedies for hair losses that is very suggestive and emotionally evocative - but clear argumentation it is not. Having re-read this article I still don't understand what point the writer is trying to make about critics, or why film-chritics are brought into the argumentation at all.
Having a lengthy article like this dealing with the chase of vintages and not acknowledging the personal emotional value of old scents for their buyers - and that these might well be aware of the risk that the perfume might have gone off - comes through as arrogant.
It's always good to have some provocative thought thrown in now and then to keep our minds awake. However I disagree that the facts of the article are provoking thought, I find rather the style of argumentation emotionally provocative.

darlingdraven 02/17/14 18:59

I agree, this was an entertaining article. If an article isn't thought provoking then it isn't worth a read. Even if you don't agree with what is written--we will all have differing feelings and interpretations no matter how many times we read it--this article has made me want to learn more about the subject.

zoka 02/17/14 18:22

It's not so simple problem... Elena Vosnaki has one point of view and her point of view is very clearly articulated. I personally doubt bottles with fragrance that are not kept in refrigeration and dark place for decades can preserve original quality.

This article do not try to discuss are old formulas better then todays reformulations.

We maybe should distinguish 'young vintages' from 'really old vintages'... One thing is talking about perfume from 80's or 90's and the other is talking about something 50+ years old.

Talking about vintages we should put it in it's context. It's like talking about collecting stamps. We cannot say most of the stamps in somebody's collection are worthless paper just because post office most probably will not accept them, glue is so old and it would not even stick to the letter. From the other side stamps collectors do not even collect them with intention to put stamp the letter. I think that Elena Vosnaki wanted to discuss about the juice aging and how time is enemy no matter how much we try to keep them. Maybe somebody can like old juice better then fresh but that's not the point of this article.

knit_at_nite 02/17/14 17:33

While I don't have to agree with the article- I thank Fragrantica for printing it. Open discussion about all things perfume is always welcome.

karlovonamesti 02/17/14 16:35

↓↓ straw man argument alert!

Bigsly 02/17/14 15:58

Vintage must be discarded, the sooner the better! And to show what a nice guy I am, I'm willing to take these off your hands, and may even be willing to substitute a "fresh" scent that is made by one of the great companies that only thinks of how they can improve their scents, and never about profit margins! Please, stop buying vintage on ebay, because I want the prices to drop back to the levels of a few years ago (and grab as many bottles for myself as possible). Seriously, anyone need a new bridge? I can sell you a few in the New York City area, at great prices !

aspirina 02/17/14 13:52

Since the good old vintage perfumes are ..getting more and more difficult to obtain...i think a good strategy might be to convince the fans that they are no longer the same quality and ..maybe ..somehow ..the fans could stop buying the precoius vintage scents.

More Apres l'ondee bottles available? no..they are just vanishing! very fast! just see the prices on ebay!

Please stupid people who love vintages..stop right now! believe they all are rotten and stop buying the precious stuff!

I want them too! leave some for me! right now!

:)

Mellyhelly 02/17/14 13:00

I'm not a vintage expert. Vintage pre-reformulated perfumes became an interest only when the big houses destroyed a few myths and I don't mean very old myths. Early '90s is already kind of vintage. Go figure.
It is possible that perfumes don't become better with age, like NOT ALL wines become better with age. Some wines just need to age.

I think that if vintage perfumes were that bad, no real perfume lover would keep buying them. After a few sad attempts you would give away.
I have bottles from the '80s. Some smell exactly as they used to. Some Others got ruined. No exact science here.
But... let me tell you, I found a Samsara EdT from 1999 (it states so) and it smells beautiful, glorious, powerful, creamy, complex and unmistakably Samsara and unmistakably Mysore creamy sandalwood. No, it's not a "memory" thing as 100% of Guerlains SA insist. We are not stupid and we're used to smell things.
2 sprays are enough to make me for a Whole evening.
It probably sit on that shelf in an old perfumery for ages.

I had many current fresh Samsara EdT and they smell just ok, watered down, soulless, never the same, some with a fake peachy edge, some whitemuskey like TBS. I never know. Every bottle could kill my heart in a different way. Only sure thing: no sandalwood anymore.
Never ever happened before. Current EdP is only a bit better in raw material.
Oh, and about allergies... I'm prone to allergies and never had a single problem with older stuff, not even with pure essential oils. Since synthetics became the rule I developed a lot of strange and different reaction to many new perfumes, from asthma-like to skin rash, even with the "light" ones, if not worse.
When I go back to my kept beauties I have no reaction.

Ciprian 02/17/14 11:56

Fortunately, all the vintage or discontinued fragrances I've bought smell good.

williamvargas 02/17/14 11:14

I have purchased some "vintage" fragrances and do have some of the reformulated frgrances and I think I have made some "bad" buys but I think it may have a lot to do with how they were kept, if you are fortunate to find some vintage fragrances that were kept in proper environments than you can still benefit as I have, I bought one bottle of a vintage paco rabanne that did not smell very good at all but then later found one that was a vintage and it smelled fantastic or similar to what I remember it being like. I compared it to the reformulated version I had.. the vintage I found was superior in every way. I have also found some vintage azzaro and guerlain's derby that smell much better than the newer releases.. I know I am not imagining it. but again it is not a guarantee.. it is a crap shoot I know, but I will continue to test out vintages here and there, but I know I am running out of time.

rue_de_la_roux 02/17/14 11:11

I used to make soap and other toiletries. No perfume, but I used various fragrance oils, both natural, essential oils and synthetic ones to scent my creations. (It was the best part of soap making!) The first thing you learned about scenting things is that citrus is the most unstable of them all and that would include bergamot, orange, and it evaporated from the skin (and products) the fastest. I think fruit notes would be second. Vanilla will darken in anything and turn a white batch of soap into a fugly brown once cured.

Coconut and vanilla can also turn into a disappointing play dough scent during the soap making process (the soap is made at high temps-around 100 degrees, and heats up after it's poured into the molds, so it could be the heat that does it) and ruin the finished soap. I see many comments here about perfumes having a "play dough" note and it makes me think of that.

But most importantly, you need to anchor your scents with notes which will make them last longer in the product and on the skin. These notes are oak moss, patchouli, musk, civet, ambergris (synthetic, of course, who could afford to buy the real?) and vanillas will work too.

What does all this have to do with vintage perfumes? Well, IMO vintage perfumes made with real oak moss and notes that are known to last longer, are going to stand the test of time better than ones made without anchor notes. This also explains why the top notes (citrus and/or fruits) are the first to be damaged, and why contemporary perfumes (fruity florals) have less of a shelf life.

That being said....I have an old, old, old bottle of Shalimar extrait whose top notes smell like nail polish remover but dries down to the most magnificent beauty. I bought this in a lot of old perfumes that also had a keg style bottle of Sous Le Vent extrait, so tells you how old these are, roughly. 40+ maybe 50+ years or older. Even the Sous Le Vent which was only had a tad of the juice remaining in the bottle smelled great. And I have the current version to compare it to and it was indeed SLV.

Will I continue to but vintage perfumes? Hell yeah! I have no allergies to them and they are superior to much of what is offered on the market today. Notice I didn't say "all" of what is offered. They're not all bad but many just don't compare to the vintage juice.

chickenpotpie 02/17/14 10:41

Wearing my vintage Jolie Madam as we speak. Love it. For me, the newest version just doesn't hold a candle to what I'm wearing right now.

Different strokes for different folks. Or should I say, Let them eat cake! LOL

Tomfinx 02/17/14 06:05

I can not thank you for this article, because I find it insulting to my intelligence and that of your readers, this article is full of superficialities and lies.
Chandler Burr is an economist, he does not have much artistic culture, and the NYTimes kicked him because he was not interesting for the readers!Unfortunately, I've read his books and I can confirm that they are full of errors, which anyone can verify (are oceans of errors).
Then Sammarco... WHO? That guy has a degree in law in southern Italy, has never studied perfumery, it is not a perfumer, he's doing fragrances is that anyone can do (this does not make him a perfumer), he had a blog that no one read, why in this article lists of perfect strangers with no real authority on the subject?
If Luca Turin reads this article would tell you to delete it.
Sorry, but this is what I, and many readers think.

odie 02/17/14 05:19

Thanks Elena for this article. I am not a vintage buyer, but came into the age of perfumes only now as still a relatively young woman. I trust that much of this information is entirely correct, some scents do go bad after some time. Chemicals become unstable and organics degrade.

However, the vintage buyer does have a point about these ubiquitous watery "fruity floral" scents some of these obnoxious celebrities are funneling into the markets. The're just plain disappointing! I've smelled several of them and most flop straight to the musk or lack the depth of mid-notes.

Hence, the perfumista in me says "to each his own" I don't think I will be investing much money on vintage because I have sensitive, volatile skin and just can't take that risk. I don't even think my grandmother, who is eighty, has any vintage fragrance.....I should ask her why?

Still, I am curious about fragrance, and I don't want the industry to go too synthetic - its just sad and plain dangerous. To much synthetic scents is bad for ones health. To sum it up, vintage perfumers should be cautious and aware of the drawbacks of purchasing perfumes that are 30 - 40 years old, yet enjoy the chase!

hadassa 02/17/14 02:00

I do believe that perfumes go bad if stored in direct light and heat, and if the formula is not stable in the first place. Citrus, light floral, fruity perfumes go bad sooner, too, even if stored in their boxes. And many good perfumes just change, not necessarily into the "spoilage" direction. I have experienced 10 years old Coco and Allure that smell very different from what they used to. Alas, we are all not exactly the same as we were 10 years ago :)

However, I used to have a bottle of Coco Mademoiselle for almost a decade, and it was stored in a scandalously improper way, and still, the older it became, the better it smelled, really. In fact, it smelled very "brand new" after 10 years, just richer and somehow rounder. Same with L'Instant Magic. I don't like it in its unripe state (I have just purchased a new bottle and have to say that my 8 years old bottle smelled better, however it isn't a reformulation, it's just very "top notes" now, which means astringent citrus all over). I also have Kenzo Flower Le Parfum from 2005, it's a "base notes" perfume and it smells absolutely the same as back in the 2005, I wish it was me who remained so intact, hehe :) I also have Narciso Rodriguez for Her from 2004, again, absolutely the same as it was initially, and exactly the same as from my new bottle of it. I would say that any amber or oriental is more or less safe for at least 10 years, maybe more, if stored with respect. Light zesty perfumes - probably not that safe, but still around 5 years, not 2 or three, in my experience. However, my "light-zesty" Miracle remained 100% the same while stored in direct light from 2007 up to now. I have just finished my bottle and it was like new.

As to the older than 10 years perfumes, my mom has a bottle of Opium pure perfume from the 80s. It is still in mint condition. I bet my olfactory memory is accurate. It smells exactly the same as when she was a very young lady and I was a careless child. Why do I think so? Let me explain: the day we found the old forgotten bottle and I opened it and tried it on my wrist, I instantly recollected many things I had long forgotten. Our old apartment when I was 4 years old, my dress and my shoes, mamma's dress, her haircut, the city we used to live in back then, my dad as a young guy in hip clothes, my neighbors, my kindergarten, all my life as a four to five years old child. My childhood came back to me in that very moment, and it was so real that I almost could touch the things I saw with my inner "eye".

This is why I understand vintage connoisseurs really well, although I don't buy vintages myself.

reborn 02/17/14 01:23

I inherited a bottle of Galimard frisson from my grandma ,who passed away recently.She kept it for 40 years in her wardrobe .The perfume smells divine,there is nothing wrong with it.I cant beleive how this is possible

Flora55 02/16/14 23:24

I am old enough to remember when many of today's "vintage" perfumes were still on the shelves of department stores, and many of them that I own still smell as good as they did then. Of course citrus-based colognes will not hold up over time, but most other perfumes do just fine if they have been stored out of heat and light. I buy vintage perfumes because I love the way they smell, it's that simple, and most of today's perfumes just don't smell as good - not even some of the ones that cost $600 a bottle. I intend to keep right on buying my vintage favorites, especially since the EU and IFRA seem determined to destroy all that's good about the perfume industry and replace the natural materials with synthetics. (If I could get away with it I would just wear pure oakmoss extract sometimes, I love it so!) The idea that all perfumes will be aged and ruined after 5 years is ridiculous. Yes, there are some unstable formulas, but most of the good stuff is made to last. What some people don't understand is that we vintage perfume lovers are very particular - we don't just want any perfumes, we want THOSE perfumes, those special ones, the ones we fell madly in love with, and when they are discontinued, we try to find them wherever they may be so that we will always have them. Some things just can't be duplicated or replaced. It's all about the love.

lovingthealien 02/16/14 23:20

The author has some pretty terrible research skills! Three of the five citations are from the same caustic, utterly bogus source, while the other two are only weakly correlated to the concept of vintage perfumes. One is a comment about a modern perfume going rancid as well as a vintage perfume (as it arrived), while the other is speculation from a perfumer about already rancid vintage fragrances. There is no other available source that will corroborate the "facts" offered by non-perfumer Jeffrey Dame.

Yes, vintage perfume is a pretty bad gamble, but the current prices are not a phenomenon initiated by a few prominent reviewers. The state of the current mainstream market is so bad that the discerning regular consumer is turning to these vintage fragrances on eBay.

Of course fragrances go bad - but sometimes they do not. I would love to send the author a vial of my circa 1960s Arpege (a fragrance notorious for going off) and dare her to tell me the fragrance has degraded in any way.

Better yet, author and reader, buy yourself some cardboard canisters of "Nips" from eBay and experience 50-60 year vintage fragrances in pristine storage conditions. Hermetically-sealed and stored in light-impermeable cardboard containers, they are, in my experience, immune to the effects of age. You be the judge of the longevity of fragrances - don't let a highly biased interest sway you away from vintages - and certainly not into his "Long Lost Perfumes" dreck!

What is particularly confounding is that the author's blog, "The Perfume Shrine," is bar-none the best resource for information on vintage perfumes available on the internet. Her vintage reviews are favorable and spot-on. This is more than just ridiculous - it's confusing.

The introduction about critics is really tactless and bizarre, by the way.

lovingthealien 02/16/14 22:47

Oh god, not this trash again. This was already neatly dismantled on Basenotes once - why is this coming up on Fragrantica? I'm not offended because the content suggests that perfumes can't remain unchanged with time (which is false), but because it implies that someone who invests in superior quality fragrance is somehow being tricked. What a load of trash.

By the way, Jeffrey Dame is the owner of a company that specifically specializes in marketing discontinued fragrances - "Long Lost Perfumes." They are uniformly cheap and horrible by my experience.

jenika 02/16/14 22:30

For this article to be complete, we'd need a third party testimony; cause I see we have niche representatives,we have some bloggers & online discussions, all blaming the mainstream perfumes of turning bad (ah, and calling them "commercial" tz, tz, tz..) So now I'm asking myself: why don't you bring us the opinion of mainstream houses on their vintage perfumes?
I know I'd be interested in finding out what Guerlain's representative think about this matter. Or maybe Chanel's?

dolcethadon 02/16/14 18:57

Most of this article is complete utter nonsense.. I respect the article but it is lies, utter lies! I understand that vintage perfumes may not be 100% of what they were when they were fresh and newly released but from experience they do not "go bad"! Most of my fragrances are from the 90s and they all smell wonderful and just like I remember them.. I even have older vintage juices that smell absolutely gorgeous.. No vinegar or nail polish remover here! I can tell you one thing they do not make "QUALITY" perfume anymore the way these vintage perfumes where made.. The ingredients and design of modern fragrance is inferior.. I have a bit of vintage Gianni Versace for women and let me tell you! My nose has never smelled anything like it! This beauty is so deep rich exotic marvelous and smells gorgeous! It is so old but does not smell off or bad.. I was not born when it came out but my grandmother says it smells exactly the same.. The color darkened but for the most part the smell stayed the same.. Try to find a modern "fresh" perfume that can even come close to the quality of that Gianni Versace, designer or niche, you will not find it! I have so much trouble finding anything worth spending a cent on in macys or sephora because all these modern day fragrances smell so bland, generic, cheap, and like SH** compared to the way they use to make them.. I bet a so called "bad" bottle of vintage juice will outshine a fresh bottle of a modern fragrance.. Perfumery use to be about art and quality, now it is only about MONEY! As you can see Gucci went from producing beautiful exotic woody incense fragranes to producing cheap scents that resemble AXE body spray, because I guess thats the trend! So I would rather buy my old expired juice than cheap modern fresh watered down bland generic garbage!

jeca 02/16/14 17:54

Dear ladies, I just want to remind you that you are ladies and supposed to talk nicely ;o) Isn't this great that Elena has given us all an opportunity to discuss about this 'painful' subject?

Lilah Veil 02/16/14 16:50

A second thought on this article -

Yes, some blends go bad in time, some stay good. And? .... ?

The number of vintages I own have stood the test of time in their old bottles and my skin compared to modern scents that do not stand the test of time on me for 30 minutes, much less 30 or more years. Thank goodness, in all my years of wearing "old" perfume I have yet to experience an allergic reaction. I will gladly risk keeping my oak moss and outlawed musks, etc. than pay a single cent for the "new", "modern" junk called "perfume" these days. Until someone designs a scent that comes close to rivaling even one of my vintages... this is where I stand.

chanelnumerocinq 02/16/14 16:28

Elena is neither a nose or chemist. Her bio says she's a "perfume writer." I like and respect your blog Elena, but to come here with such patronizing tone is ridiculous. Know your audience. This is where dedicated and passionate perfume consumers from around the world come to also be "perfume writers" although in ways less formal. I'm not sure Elena meant to come across as implying that this community of people need to be schooled on what is good and bad in regards to fragrances but that is how it came across. I mean seriously, how would this website exist if we collectively had dysfunctional scent receptors and couldn't tell vinegar from perfume?

You cite some niche noses and a niche distributor - true professionals, and it is very likely that they have sharper noses and may possibly detect these effects of age sooner and more distinctly than we, fair enough. However, it was insisted that these people aren't dismissing vintage for their own marketing purposes and I'm not convinced. Of course expensive niche perfumers and distributors have a vested interest in getting their target market to spend equivalent amounts of money on them and not private sellers of vintage.

I think the best point brought up so far in the comments is that if vintage lovers didn't have such satisfaction with their collections and hunts, why would they keep doing what they do?

vartenouche 02/16/14 16:24

The idea that fragrances are worthless after eight years is absurd, as many of us know through first-hand experience. What do professionals say?

From Frederic Malle's website: "Perfumes based on base notes like Chypres or Orientals, have a long shelf life, although, most of the time, their top notes oxidize after 18 months. Nevertheless, past the first five minutes, these remain good to wear for many years."

From Perfumes: The Guide, by Luca Turin and Tania Sanchez: "A small number of perfumes seem to take a turn for the worse after a couple of years, but the majority we have collected seem to have no expiration date…A perfume kept in dim light to darkness could last two hundred years. If you're not going to use up your fragrance quickly, save it in the box."

Chava 02/16/14 15:49

I do not buy vintage perfumes because I expect them to smell exactly like they did when new - I buy them because I like how they smell! They're much more pleasant to my nose than the new versions, and certainly more pleasant than all the generic fruity florals they're cranking out today. My 20 year old Opium stays on all day and has a rich scent that far outshines anything on the market today. I understand that's not how it smelled 20 years ago, but that makes it no less pleasant.

ForrealMe2 02/16/14 15:30

Sherihan: I agree with you..wisdom will tell with time..with that in mind i would love to come across vintage in perfect condition though..if i do and am able to test it i would be tempted to buy but i am concerned about my health..it is a nice thought..I say this because i have suffered from allergies and asthma and i do believe some perfumes especially vintage can trigger flares..So of coarse I had to pop out my old bottle of Poison from 1987 and while it's still a beast of a perfume my nose didn't take well to it last night and when i woke up this morning my sinuses were flared up...this does not happen to me with even my most strongest newer perfumes as i normally only like loud fragrances myself..I don't think its always personally healthy to wear every type of old expired product as we wouldn't necessarily do that with outdated product now..usually if a beauty product turns old today we are advised not to use it for health reasons with possible risks of side effects..I'm sure many will disagree but for those who do feel side affects from outdated fragrances just be careful and be aware to connect the dots if your perfumes are affecting your body in anyway..just saying..I'm having to take a perfume break today because of it..hopefully my sinuses will be back to par by tomorrow.

StopHammertime 02/16/14 15:20

I am not a vintage collector but I do have some vintage perfumes. My personal 'vintage' faves [Miss Dior Cherie, Dior Poison Tendre, Givenchy Organza Indecence] really aren't all that old, they are mostly products of the 90's, so maybe that is why I haven't had much issue with them being off. Only a couple of times have I recieved an off bottle :knock on wood:. I have heard that fumes only have a shelf life of about 3 years but I think that might be a bit of an exaggeration, kind of like when you go to the store and the 'sell by' and 'use by' dates are more of a guideline LOL.

I have seen reviews of people saying that they had to uncap and 'let the fragrance breathe' before wearing it, or they would wear it and hate it for the first half hour. To each their own, I can't knock the practice but I would never personally do that. If I don't like the frag all the way through I will never bring myself to pick up the bottle and spritz it on myself in the first place, I don't have that kind of patience LOL. But like I said earlier, I have purchased many vintage frags with no issues. Maybe I am just lucky and/or happen to like frags that age well.

Oh, and I buy vintage because it smells good, the same reason I buy any perfume :)

Sherihan 02/16/14 14:35

I want to say that from all my beautifull vintage collection, I found only 3 ones that are wearable and not spoiled,that's it. In general,most of them are freshly unopened,sealed,and was stored in dark place,but a lot of them smelt vinegary,or acidic,a lot gave me headaches and migraines,som really caused a sinus infection that needed more than a trip to the doctor and a very long antibiotic treatment. On the other hand, I have another big new collection that I'm wearing regularly, totally new fresh stocks,but som has been opened for like 3or 4years now,but still I consider them my everyday collection. I'm not a big perfume WEARER,sometimes I stay 3 or 5 days in a row without one spritz,and it's okay with me,but when I'm spraying,I'm a big sprayer. I really started to slow the vintage purchase for a while now,befor this article hase been written, now I really am stopping purchasing vintages.

jeca 02/16/14 14:21

Nice.. ;o) I see a true battle here ;o) I love flea markets, so many curious things there!

migueldematos 02/16/14 13:50

In honour of this article I just bought a vintage 50ml bottle of Rochas Mystere in a flea market (5 euros) and it smells amazing. It's a very strange perfume and a true lesson of what an animalic chypre was. Yes, WAS, because you just can't find this anymore in contemporary perfumery.

joliecat 02/16/14 13:10

Quoted from this article "Malle of Editions de Parfums, one of the patron saints of niche perfume (certainly the one who gave popular prominence to perfumers as "auteurs" around 2000) has been critical of the vintage mania of collectors ever since. Chuckling under his well-tailored sleeve, he dispels the myth that you will be able to smell the perfumes as they wεre intended to smell by their creators."

Well, now we should feel like COMPLETE FOOLS for buying Malle's fragrances that are bottled in small amounts for exhoritant prices. Clearly, HE doesn't expect HIS OWN creations to smell "exactly as the perfumer intended" either, in the near future. Those who own his fragrances should use them up soon and buy more as soon as possible if you love them. By his own admission here, his own fragrances are not made to last.
"Chuckling under his well-tailored sleeve" indeed ! I will NOT buy his creations, nor anyone else's for these "snob appeal" extremely high prices. I MUCH prefer classic vintages that DO LAST, are made with MUCH better quality, timeless ingredients, and were created when perfumery really was a true art form.

weegee 02/16/14 12:00

Thought provoking article, indeed; however, I doubt any of its pronouncements will cause vintage buyers to stop purchasing, regardless of the inherent gamble. Why? Because we're mostly happy and often thrilled with what we buy!

If bottle after bottle proved disappointing we wouldn't continue to purchase but our experience proves otherwise.

Many of us aren't just buying "old bottles", we're reclaiming memories. We know we probably won't be smelling 'exactly' what was there when the bottle was new but often "close enough" is worth every penny, every dollar, because of the associated memories of circumstances, events, places and people.

And yes, indeed, it IS sometimes worth enduring 10, 20 or even 30 minutes of spoiled top notes to get to the something truly sublime that reveals itself and lasts for many hours.

As for the phrase "practical purpose" in the article's title, I submit that the happy pairing of the creation of deodorant and ready availability of indoor plumbing has totally negated the practical purpose of perfumes. We don't buy them because they're useful or because we need them, we buy them because they make us feel good. Perfumes, whether vintage or newly bottled, are an indulgence that requires no apology.

Now, where can I buy a t-shirt boldly imprinted with "I buy vintage perfume & I am NOT stupid!"

hadas 02/16/14 11:22

It seems like your article almost presupposes that vintage perfume lovers get pleasure from the rarity or exclusivity of the old perfume or from the "hunt," rather than from the actual smell of the liquid itself. This is far from true. If the juice did not still smell amazing, people would not get so excited about it. Regardless of if these old perfumes smell *exactly* as they did when they were new, the fact is that many of them DO still smell really, really good - many do NOT smell like nail polish remover. And their good smells are of a kind that could not be created today because they include oakmoss, nitromusks, etc. which are not used much anymore.

Many, many vintage perfumes - despite what you dogmatically attempt to assert - do still have the exact same basic scent profile as the perfume did when it was new. How do we know this? Because we remember what the original smelled like back in the day, so yes, we can say "This perfume smells just as I remember it." I have a 40+ year old bottle of Calandre parfum that smells so fresh and green and perfect, just like it was new. I have many other bottles that smell similarly wonderful and well-preserved which are decades old. I do not collect these perfumes for the hunt or for the exclusivity factor, I acquire and wear them because they actually smell intoxicating to me and I find I generally do not derive the same pleasure from the perfumes being produced today.

MommyMaudlin 02/16/14 10:55

The problem with this piece is simple: Too many of us have actually had very good experiences with vintage fragrances. In fact, I would say that I haven't had a bad experience yet! My vintage Shalimar, Poison, L'Heure Blue, Rive Gauche and others are exactly as I remember them and exactly as they should be. (I've never known a Guerlain to "turn". Ever.) Maybe my love of orientals has something to do with it. As one commenter already mentioned, fruity fragrances may not fare as well overtime. That's an interesting possibility. The subject of WHICH fragrances hold up through the years - and which don't - might have been a better subject for this piece. (I'd love to know more about that!) But right now the article doesn't mesh with the overwhelmingly positive experiences of those of us who like vintage fragrances.

sirop de Liège 02/16/14 10:53

I don't buy vintage perfume but I do own a few bottles I've had for more than ten years. I find it scary to think they might turn bad. The only brand which has let me down more than once is Estee Lauder. I had two bottles of Pure White Linen, one regular and one Pink Coral which I had to throw away within 3 years after purchasing. My best experience is with Guerlain and Chanel, they seem to keep their quality even after 10 years.

Lilah Veil 02/16/14 10:32

There was a time before the "watering down" when finer, purer, ingredients were used. I would say that time stopped somewhere in the 90's. Most of today's modern and newly reproduced vintage scents named as EDP have the concentration of vintage colognes. The body sprays are alcohol with total fragrance content being 5 percent or less. That is a problem for me I cannot tolerate or overcome. I am angry and dismayed at modern perfumery. Sure, it still smells good but not long enough for the price of it and I am not fond of the quality or smell of most modern scents. I favor the bold, spicy, rich orientals and heady florals of a time long gone. It's sad... but I refuse to settle for less.

cytherian 02/16/14 09:23

I do not agree that most reformulations are barely perceptible. However, I am a believer of the striking difference between a fresh bottle and an older one. That air is required to work on the contents, helping to macerate the ingredients within.

Case in point, was a bottle of Royall Muske I'd purchased. It was a newer bottle with the revised label and I had an older bottle to compare with it that I bought partially used (so it had been exposed to air for quite some time). I was astonished at the blast of astringent alcohol upon application, compared to the lush richness of the fragrance from my older bottle. I even wrote to the owners of the licensing about my distress and complained, wondering why they had to change it. They told me only two fragrances in the Royall Fragrances line had been reformulated and Muske was not one of them. Well... I eventually got an older bottle that was sealed and when I applied it I found myself befuddled--it was like the newer bottle! How could this be? Well, after a few months and some decants that let more air in, the contents of the newer bottle began to change and approach more of the qualities I experienced from my older bottle. The "air exposure" factor was confirmed for me.

So I'll bet that there are quite a number of "horrible reformulation" stories that start out like this. People not giving the contents a chance to "adjust". I think it may also be possible that with a less subtle reformulation this experience is exacerbated, but it may actually shift to become much closer to the original with sufficient time exposed to air.

Queen_cupcake 02/16/14 08:34

I own quite a few vintage perfumes, most of which are old enough that I wouldn't have smelled them when new. They are, for the most part, very nice and in pretty decent condition. They smell good. Do they smell as they originally did? I have no idea. I like them a lot more than most of what is being produced today.

It is both specious and patronising to infer that the collectors of vintage fragrances naively assume that those perfumes have (or will have) aged well, as is possible with certain wines. Some of us actually know about wine, also.

If it is true that most perfumes are spoiled after just 18 to 30 months, then everyone would do well to restrict their purchases to perhaps two or three NEW BOTTLES per year at most--depending on how much they spritz, splash or dab, of course! Does anyone here do that?

krmarich 02/16/14 08:18

I have very little in my collection that dates before 2003. Its strange that out of about 300 bottles I have collected online since 2005, only 2 have "gone off". They are generally minis. C'est la vie!

I guess its kind like music. Does a digital download sound like your old vinyl records? There is no dust and they don't skip. Yet, there is something missing. Its a tactile thing.

Its the same thing with books. Digital downloads can produce an entire library you can take with you on vacation. A book has the paper smell, sure the smell may be the decay of the paper, and you are sure the publisher wont change the ending to suite the censors. Its the tactile thing again.

Fashion has tossed out fur, face powder, uncomfortable high heels and the stiff, starchy style of yesterday. Its just as easy to cast off my bottle of Mitsouko, yet there is nothing wrong with it. It still has all of the notes intact and the bottle is over 35 years old!

My original bottle of Kouros from 1984 is still just as potent and beautiful as then, yet the clothes I wore in the day have turned to rags, my hair is white, and I have some lines in my face. Yet, when I wear Kouros of yesterday, I have the style to bring it to today.

The last time I checked, the internet was still free. There was a brief moment when you one couldn't buy perfume made in France, regardless where the seller was. This was scary. Indeed, there may come a day when the internet may vanish. I am sure there is probably some corporate conglomerate with some nefarious plan to stop the sale of vintage perfume one day. Good luck with that;-)

Until then, take that risk, buy that bottle that you had in the day, you will probably love it. Most of all treasure those sellers that offer these wonders that have outlasted the hands that made them. That's where the art begins and the stigma ends.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Its all about our experience of the moment. Any one reading this understands the key to OUR hearts is though our nose!

zoebo1403 02/16/14 07:57

I just shelled out 280 euros for a 70's sealed Shalimar Extrait in 30 ml size. Worth it ? Yes, every microdrop in that precious bottle. Last week i paid 100 euros for a vintage set of Chanel 5 , EDT in 100 ml, EDP splash in50 ml and a sealed 14 ml extrait. Worth it ? Yes, i have been wearing and rotating them all 3 this week. I bought a bottle of vintage Diorama for 5 euros a couple of years ago, it was glorious after all that time. If i look at prices of nowadays niche / indie scents, which i equally appreciate and enjoy, i dont really understand the article. 300 euros for an Ormonde Jayne ? 200 euros for a DSH tiny 30 ml bottle to name a few....buy and wear what you like and can afford.

Iris_it 02/16/14 07:35

Why should I spend about 280 € on a 60 ml Puredistance bottle to smell something which is not as beautiful as discontinued Hermes Bel Ami at 1/5 of that price ?

miss misty 02/16/14 06:43

Reading this whilst wearing vintage YSL Paris was sort of funny...but not very convincing.

blacktaffeta 02/16/14 06:12

"Patronising" is the adjective that springs to mind.

I buy vintage perfume because I want a high-quality product that smells good. As long as one avoids the best-known and most obvious names, vintage fragrance costs a tiny fraction of contemporary niche stuff. Yes, occasionally I get a bad bottle and return it for a refund. This is not a major difficulty.

If the bottle has been kept in its box and is unopened or nearly full, the chances are that it will have suffered little deterioration. And of course this applies equally to the wine analogy here. Heavy red wines, looked after properly, last for decades. And the same is true of "heavy", i.e. oriental and chypre, fragrances. What a surprise!

My bottles of Shalimar, Cabochard, Champagne, First, Dolce Vita, Givenchy III, Quadrille, Prelude, Roma, Venezia, Loulou, Cristalle, Parfum Sacre, No.19, Fendi, Hypnotic Poison, Samsara, Theorema, Byzance, Opium, Paris etc etc etc (you get the idea) all date from the last century and all smell wonderful. And, I REMEMBER what they smelled like back then, and would notice if they were substantially different.

Yes, there are exceptions. Old Lanvins don't seem to stand the test of time very well, for example. So one learns this, mourns Arpege, and moves on.

Learning how to buy amd look after vintage frags is a process, like many worthwhile things in life. If you want to smell the treasures of the past though, it can be done - and it's worth every step of the journey.

migueldematos 02/16/14 05:06

I don't agree to nearly all of what was said here and let me say I'm an informed perfume lover. 8 years and after that a perfume turns bad? That's a pure lie. Here's an example, but I could give you many more. 20 years ago I used to wear Pierre Cardin's Bleu Marine before it was licensed to Coty. I had 3 bottles of it. After that I stopped wearing it and eventually the reformulated version came out smelling awfully cheap. Recently I found an original bottle, from the 80's. I've been wearing it a lot and it's just perfect, exactly like I remember it to be. I have dozens of vintage perfumes and only a small percentage of what I have found was turned. Yes, it's true that buying without testing is an extremely risky thing but from here to suggesting that vintage lovers are fools?

moonfish67 02/16/14 05:02

one more thing pro vintages - the wabi-sabi concept.

Jacster 02/16/14 04:18

I'm not an historian.
I'm not a trained 'nose'.
I'm not a graduate of any perfume making or perfume appreciation course.
I'm not a perfume professional of any kind.

So, who am I, to boldly disagree with much of what has been written here?

I am a woman approaching 60.
I am the daughter of a perfume-loving mother who could afford the very best parfums the French had to offer in the 1960s and 1970s.
Her love of the very best led the adult me to wear the classics of the 1970s and 1980s, with just a few from the 1990s.
I have a good 'uneducated' nose and a *very* good olfactory memory.

I only buy what I remember - how else would I know if what I get is good or not? And let me tell you this: 90% of the vintages I have bought are sensational. Check out my wardrobe to see what I've got; I have very little new stuff.

It would be so easy to turn up at a department store and buy what I want. But I got sick of that. I got sick of forking out big dollars for fragrances that bore only a faint resemblance to their earlier versions. Not only did they smell different, they lasted almost no time at all. I'm too old and too wise to waste my money on products like that.

I'm also too old and too wise to waste my money on vintages if they continually disappointed me.

I'm certainly not "as stupid as all that."

phurstclass 02/16/14 03:30

Very informative and insightful article. Thank you.

SolangeN 02/16/14 03:21

Thought provoking - thank you! I'd just note that the Coco I bought some 4 years ago has definitely improved with time. I thought the top notes were a bit harsh right after purchase (bought it anyway cuz I loves me some Coco), and there was something discordant underneath. It's smoother and more mellow now.

On the flip side, my little bottle of Jean Louis Scherrer parfum has definitely turned on the top notes since purchase 6 years ago. But I let it contact skin oils. It's only sour for a couple of seconds - WELL worth the rest of it. Won't let the 2nd little bottle I have stored in the dark contact body oils and will see if it fares any better.

ForrealMe2 02/16/14 01:09

hahaha... :) great article! I realized this truth after purchasing my first two vintage poisons from the 80's when i first joined fragrantica...while i still like the vintage juice (because as it evolves the tuberose plum is so rich and creamy and is to die for my goodness )the beginning top notes were off..its not a complete disaster where its not wearable either but now i see i need to use this up as quickly as i can and i realized then why it was really being sold just because its a vintage collectable or because it can't really be useful to wear...i still treasure the vintage just for keeps because i love Dior's Poison line but to be able to really enjoy them for the most part is finding a jem amongst the sand so I let the thought of going after vintages go..with that said when i came back home to my families house i found an old bottle of Tabu in the pool closet from the 1960's in a black bottle that is thick and the nossle is one where in order to get the perfume to spray you press it to pull it back towards you and believe it or not this beauty still smells wonderful probably because of the casing being dark and black and thick where no light can come in and the blend of this particular scent still smells like cinnamon patchouli which makes it smell slightly chocolate with this vintage powder smell its definitely oriental but i can't believe it lasted all this time it smells amazing, rich, sweet and long lasting...if this was the case ALL the time i would love to vintage but since i don't believe it is i don't think i would be interested in vintage unless i tried the perfume first or really loved the bottle to collect in the first place..i do believe it really is all about hype...i also believe very rarely some products were better and had a better blend of ingredients but there is nothing you can do about it now and like i said how it was stored and made is rare..so what do we do then? we just suck it up and either wait for our next love to come out or settle down realizing collecting too many fumes is not realistic if they are all going to turn and you can't enjoy them regardless of how you store them..i think there is much wisdom in just realizing this and enjoying the beauties you have...and with an occasional impulse buy every now and then (batting eyes) :) lol.. i think its time to use these beauties up while i can. thanks for this article it was very informative!

zoka 02/16/14 01:04

Every few months in our 'editor' inbox we get an email that looks like this... I have found in [some long time forgotten location] a [new unpacked/opened but almost full/half of the bottle] of [some fragrance] from [some far year]. How much it could be worth now?

People instinctively think that some forgotten bottle in wardrobe of grandma is now vintage exclusive thing and worth at least hundreds if not thousands dollars for people who yarn to find them. Well, bottles might be valuable to collectors with or without juice but old perfumes are something that is distorted from original.

I just heard that even prototype of kilogram made of iridium-platinum alloy have somehow changed over the time and weight different weights and it puzzles scientists how it is possible... what to expect for much less stable liquid that contains many organic compounds that are very degradable.

dubairob 02/15/14 23:06

A very good call to common sense and pragmatic realism...against the siren-call of illusion. As someone who does not consider himself anything like a collector yet who has accumulated nearly fifty full bottles and has enough fragrance to last well over a decade, this is a salient reminder that these fragrances will in all likelihood have little in common in that time with how they are now.

My only consolation is that I haven't gone anywhere near vintage - though I have picked up a few discontinued fragrances by smart shopping in bricks and mortar shops. Also, I buy the smallest size I can find (though even that will often be 100 ml.).

Lesson learned if I was to start again?....I would probably sample more rigorously before deciding on a bottle. I could probably at least half my number of full bottles in that process.

I am sure that this article will generate a lot more posts - especially from those who are critical of any such 'functionalist' approach to perfumery.

Labaloo 02/15/14 22:49

I enjoy collecting vintage frags- granted, most of my interest tends to lie in base-heavy orientals and powerhouses- but I do, for instance, find the modern, IFRA-mandated substitutions for oakmoss (as an example) annoying, to say the least. Perhaps it is indeed my romantic imagination that finds the original formulas richer and more-complex, and perhaps my nose is nowhere-near developed as some of the experts cited in this article who say otherwise. To that I say: I'm OK with that. I will carry on in my blissful stupidity.

*sophi* 02/15/14 22:15

-Did you catch that smell?
-Oh, no...which smell?
-The smell of a long lost scent!

The baccarat bottles of the historic scents are masterpieces to collect them ,aren't they?

CBT 02/15/14 22:14

Thank you! Someone needed to say it :P

When I was about 14 I was given a bottle of YSL Opium. It was divine for 2-2.5 years, then it went off and I got rashes whenever I wore it. The difference was like when fruit goes from ripe to spoiled - it's still recognizable as the same fruit but some notes increase in intensity until they're unbearable, while others disappear completely. The balance is lost. When vintage perfume fanatics claim that the vintage version has "more of a kick" or is heavier, less sweet than the modern version, it just reminds me of my Opium - that's not the way it originally smelled, it's just soured from old age.

Eneli 02/15/14 21:43

This article was a wake-up call to me. I finally realised that I can't own all the perfumes I want - at least not at once, and expect them to last for years. It's way to hard for me to part from some of them I already own but I have decided to take a break of perfume buying for some time. Ok - maybe just some niche samples..

AlaskaWomanTwo 02/15/14 21:08

Very good article. I have some elderly (excuse me, vintage) perfumes and assorted scents that belonged to my mother and grandmother. The bottles remind me of them. The alcohol (or worse smelling) stuff inside does not.

Except for a bottle of EDP of Joy. My mother never opened it, I did, with dread. It still smells like the old Joy, not thick, not bright, just luscious and rich. Won't last forever, so I am enjoying it now.

jeca 02/15/14 20:47

I can understand collectors of vintages, but myself I like modern things ;o) There are many ways to avoid too commercial and untasteful products, first of all, experience and education.

moonfish67 02/15/14 20:47

Thank you, Elena!
Question "Quid Prodest?" has a simple answer - to all vintage buyers & collectioners (the prices are MAD now, I hope they fall down soon to continue buying again) and luxeniche perfumers who makes fresh new perfumes and hope to sell them :)

Annemarie 02/15/14 19:16

Adding:
So yes, no practical purpose whatsoever, which is why I love it! Perish the thought that we always have to be practical!

Annemarie 02/15/14 18:55

Many thanks Elena, there is much food for thought here and your piece is a great corrective for over-optimism and naivete of vintage perfume collectors who believe that they are smelling the past accurately via vintage fragrances.

I work in a social history museum and could not be more conscious that every material object is in a state of deterioration and that no matter how hard you try to preserve it, to document its origins and (in exhibitions) to recreate the context in which objects have been used, you cannot halt the passage of time. But that is no reason to close up all the world's great museums, galleries, libraries and archives. Such as idea is ridiculous.

Perfume is no different from any other material object. Yes it deteriorates, but it is still wildly, wonderfully fascinating and absorbing to smell even an inadequate version of something, than nothing at all. I guess the key thing is to be informed and aware of the nature of that deterioration, and that is where your post is so important.

Being a historian actually re-inforces for me very powerfully that we all have to learn to live in our own times and not hark back to a past which we naively, yes romantically, imagine were 'better' or 'simpler' than our own. But at the same time I cannot imagine anything more frightening than living in a culture that makes no reference to its past. Equally. I cannot imagine having to live with the transient offerings of the perfume counter today. That would be horrible, no matter how much I may like those perfumes.

I don't collect as much as I used to and I was never a major collector anyway. But I do sample and buy vintage perfume from time to time because it is a way of indulging a romantic, nostalgic streak for which I have outlet in my day job. Sometimes I tell myself I'd be better off collecting vintage ads - and many thanks for the wonderful ones you have included in your post! - or bottles, but not being able to smell the actual perfumes would drive me nuts. There is no intimacy in that.

I think that sense of intimacy - of sharing something *physical* with people in the past - is partly with drives vintage perfume collectors. Perfume allows you to play with your identity and vintage perfume enlarges the range of people you can be. You can not just look at pictures of those beautiful, glamourous women, you can *be* them, just for a little while.

Udaria 02/15/14 18:11

This is such an entertaining and thought provoking article. I highly enjoyed reading and have linked it to another Perfume Discussion Site, with full acknowledgement of this original source. Let them read and enjoy it also.

curlykitty8 02/15/14 18:08

Thank you for a brilliantly insightful article with regard to the burgeoning fascination and acquisition of "vintage" fragrance.
As someone who remembers many of the coveted beauties, I tend to stay away from them for all the reasons you mention.
They say you can't go home again and this truly applies to all the exquisite perfumes that have grown extinct.
Better to savor the memory of the scent and if you have none, read about it and wax nostalgic.
God forbid we should return to the beloved homestead,where once a fragrant garden grew, only to find it dark and barren.

LoneCamel 02/15/14 16:32

Thank you Elena for a wonderful article @->-'---

heymoe9 02/15/14 16:31

Very informational article. I have a few vintage perfumes and you can definatly tell they are older, no matter how I store them. The light scents become a bit more intense and not so smooth. The more intense perfumes have become more dark and thick, almost like when you reduce a sauce. I do have 2 perfumes that didn't deteriorate and they are 24 and 32 years old.

Write your comment: Vintage Perfume Hunting: A Wild Goose Chase of No Practical Purpose (?)

Become a member of this online perfume community and you will be able to add your own reviews.

News from Category

Perfume Encyclopedia

Perfumes: 90,327
Fragrance Reviews: 1,726,527
Perfume lovers: 1,209,791
Online right now: 2,076

Perfume Reviews

Being Frenshe
Cashmere Vanilla by Vnp322

DS&Durga
Sweet Do Nothing by Polylife2018

Lancôme
Idôle Now by dglightblue

Elizabeth Arden
Green Tea Lychee Lime by dglightblue

Moudon
Temptation by TheInnerOh

Elizabeth Arden
Green Tea Mimosa by dglightblue

Fine'ry.
Sweet On The Outside by Vnp322

Moschino
Cheap & Chic I Love Love by emptea

Reyane Tradition
Insurrection II Wild by RonîM.Efrîn

By Kilian
Princess by jaehyuns

Jean Paul Gaultier
Le Male Le Parfum by Damp_Brownie

Jesus Del Pozo
Wild Temptation by Saira.Manahil

Juicy Couture
Viva la Juicy by The Hufflepuff Gardener

Marc Jacobs
Daisy Blush by weltprinzessin

Guerlain
Chamade by tanaC

New Reviews

Article Comments

New Fragrance: Zouzou Celine by JackieM

Egyptian Leather by Miller et Bertaux: like an Egyptian... by The Wolf

Immortal Potion by Scentologia by EPB

The Manly Man Fragrances by rmf1112

Crème de la Crème: L'Interdit Tubéreuse Noire Limited Edition by Givenchy by LSAUG

Dear Fragrantica: Why Are So Many Fragrances Discontinued? by PattyLovesScents

Helio's Collection of 6: Industrial Scents Haunted By French Ghosts by Siv7Stars

Richard Debor: A New Niche Brand by Yellowmoon

Kayali Vanilla Candy Rock Sugar | 42 by JackieM

Music to Smell: Fragrantica Editors Share Their Favorites. Part I by parsifal

The History of CkOne: Its 30th Anniversary is Testament to Its Marketability by FreshSummer

Fragrance Antique Bottles Exhibition in Istanbul: 2nd - 20th of May 2024 by George1979

Furla Pura by Alex Guerra Terra

Amber Dream: Detaille's New Fragrance by Bubu del Fiore

Fruity Sandalwood Stink-Bomb Beyond the Hype: Amouage Guidance by natk

Armani Code For Women: Twenty Years of Italian Sophistication by Aeternitas

Bold, Daring, Rebellious: Cacharel Yes I Am Fabulous by swedishmilk15

ESXENCE 2024: Rue de la Paix, a New Edition For Isabey's Centenary by shannfernando

New Niche Brand: SUPERZ. Budapest by ojain101438

Vegan Musk by Urban Scents: A Human in City and Nature by Tony Shades

Vintage Perfume Hunting: A Wild Goose Chase of No Practical Purpose (?) Columns

Author

Elena Vosnaki Editor, Writer & Translator

News Comments