Caveats, admissions, presumptions, and amendments
Before I go on with the commentary aspect of this project, there are a few things I want to address. Firstly, that I’ll have to shave off a few of the initial questions. Secondly, I’m making some assumptions that I haven’t directly stated; thirdly, I may presumed a level of knowledge that perhaps my reader doesn’t have.
Let’s begin.
Alright, I have to admit it: I’ve bitten off more than I can chew regarding the task at hand. Here is what I will not be able to address:
Anything to do with perfumers, dupes, intellectual property, and the right to be credited for creativity.
For those who are interested in this tricky and fascinating aspect of perfumery, look up Christophe Laudamiel and check out what he’s fighting for.
Perfume materials listed on packaging, etc.
This sort of relates to the topic above, as it means that it’s easier to copy a formulation using the list of ingredients and a nose (for example, think of getting a recipe for a sauce without the measurements and just working it out).
This is something I’ve also seen a lot in the art world, where listed under “materials”, you get “mixed media” with no further explanation. I used to do this, thinking that I was protecting my individual style, until I realised that a) no human has an original idea, and ideas can converge from anywhere in the world and any context, and b) everyone deserves to build something from another person’s idea as long as they either give credit (if it’s copied or borrowed) or acknowledgement (if it’s inspired from).
The obvious question of “safety”. As a naturally curious and science-oriented person, it drove me NUTS not know what was in a perfume. And if you have a particular allergy, you’d be stuck in the world of fragrance-free forever. But on the other side of the pipette now, so to speak, I see the issues with it. People are terrified of chemical nomenclature. They’d see dihydrogen monoxide (water), or some other such inert chemical, and throw their hands in their air screaming for natural ingredients, which… also have chemical properties (that are the main trigger of allergens). So for this exact reason, I’m staying away from that debate (for now).
Let’s move on.
In order to cut my workload down to something actually manageable, I’m making some assumptions around some ingredients. I’m assuming that there is no truly sustainable oud, because the tree is listed as critically endangered on the IUCN red list. It doesn’t matter if there’s a sustainable farm in Malaysia that is growing the trees on a farm and conserving the wild ones; if you see Oud or Agarwood or Aloeswood (they’re the same) as a note, the chance of it being from the one miraculous farm is about 1 in 400 million. I’m going to make a similar assumption for Indian-grown sandalwood for similar reasons, as well as Brazilian rosewood, the balsams, palo santo, and benzoin. All stunning smells, all fuelling the grey market and paid for with blood money. Ambergris (the calcium-carbonate hock-up from sperm whales) is a similar tricky one that is out by default - there are so many different rules internationally around collecting, treating and selling amberbgris that it’s an ethical minefield. Oakmoss bothers people’s skin too often, bergamot and other citruses are probably bergaptene-free, but how would you know? They’re out. Should I disqualify mimosa because it’s not actually a French flower (it’s Australia’s national emblem, wattle!) and they simply shouldn’t be passing it off as their own?? I’m tempted!!!! But we don’t harvest it so… let’s see.
Carrying on.
And now for my third subject: assumptions. I presume people reading this are into perfumery. Perhaps you are not. In which case, my apologies. I will try to keep this in mind as I write these thoughts out. In the meantime, here is a crash course in perfumery:
Perfumes are made up of 2 major components: raw ingredients and a solvent. The solvent is most likely pure ethanol unless stated otherwise (perfume oils, non-alchoholic perfumes). The raw ingredients are the smelly part. They can be anything from vanillin crystals to lavender essential oil to jasmine absolute to any magical concoction from a fragrance house given an evocative name such as “cashmeran” (a molecule/bunch of molecules that evoke the sense of soft cashmere).
Natural ingredients are more expensive across the supply chain than synthetic ones, so the more mass-produced a fragrance, the less natural the perfume is likely to be (this is also because the strict rules around skin allergens mean that synethics are much safer). There are the odd exception to this but not really. If naturals are cheap they are usually bad quality. The quality of a synthetic ingredients is based more in the scientific and hygienic rigour employed in its production.
Major designer brands consult their audience before creating a perfume to which they attach a story after the potential ingedients have been OK’d. Independent (“indie” or “niche”) brands create the story and the scent before releasing it to their audience. Most conversations around perfumery will usually address this dichotomy accordingly.
OK, that just about sums it up. If I can think of anything else, I’ll make another outrageously long post like this one.
