I´ve just read the post of
ezhinka (in russian!!!) about Guy Robert´s opinion on the article from Perfumer&Flavorist. As I am not in Paris you'll still have to wait another 2 weeks for the promised review of the "remade" fragrances according to the article. Some remarks till than:
- the "formulas" were done after the analysis of very old fragrances and they are supposed to "replicate" their smell
- there are some "modern" materials that surprised me in the beggining but I understood that the goal was not to "reconstruct" a formula, but the "smell" with available materials.
What´s the difference between reconstructed formula and reconstructed fragrance?
Well if in the second case the process is like "copying" anyother fragrance on the market (sorry for the comparaison) in the first there is also some "archeology" of fragrance. For example you should know how fragrances were built in the 20´s: tinctures (vanilla, amber, civet, Tonkin musk), bases available from suppliers in that period (Chuit Naef, Givaudan...) or "special" treatement for raw materials (like jasmin lavage, pommade, extrait, PNSC - absolute...etc). A very complex work!
In the end the formulas published in PF reminded me a proces that took place in the industry some decades ago. In the past formulas were locked, they were full of bases within bases and with the age of computer/regulation...everything was split into very clear formulas that looked nothing on the paper like the formulas written by their creator.
I was not surprised when Guy Robert talked about Arpege. I suppose he reffered to Rallet EDT because of the Ambrarome... but when mixed, it´s not so Arpege. :)
Did you enjoy my article? Sign up for updates about new fragrances, reviews of artistic perfumes and exceptional vintage masterpieces. I would be very happy if you would consider joining 1000 Fragrances, throughRSS feed,GoogleFriend connect, Facebook (more personal), or any other way that appeals to you.
Fragrance is the 8th Art - Octavian Coifan - Le Parfum est le 8ème Art