Perfume genres are based on composition (components): chypre (oakmoss), floral, gourmand, fougere (coumarin), oriental (labdanum), fruitchouli. Sometimes these categories are helpful. They hold together. For instance, I like chypres and I don’t like sweet gourmands. But there are exceptions that make the compositional genre approach less effective. That is, I’m inclined to like fougeres and I generally don’t like aquatics.
In my head I tend to use other qualitative categories that feel more functional to me. 1740 falls squarely into one. 1740 is large, full, expansive, rich. It’s rumbling, church-organ harmonious, full-bodied. Typical of the conundrum of talking about perfume, although I have a clear image of what this sort of fragrance is, I don’t have a good word to name it, to describe it. My fall-back is Huge Fucking Perfumes. The fragrances in this pseudo-genre aren’t necessarily alike in structure, they just wear similarly for me. They tend to fall into two subcategories: chewy/boozy (Mauboussin by Mauboussin, Kiss Me Tender, Daphne Guinness, l’Ombre Fauve) and dry (Sikkim, Mahora, Yatagan, Aromatics Elixir, Cuir d’Iris.) Some have a foot in each camp like Aramis’s JHL and Havana.
1740 is a huge fucking dry perfume. Leathery and tobacco-ish, dense but expansive, rich but not bubbly. This sort of fragrance tends to get pigeon-holed with aspirational gender goals. ‘It’s the sort of fragrance Cary Grant, Morgan Freeman, George Clooney...would wear.‘ Since gender is really fantasy, the original war/role playing online-game, with the gaming community historically being humanity, let’s expand the field. 1740 is the sort of fragrance that Michelle Wie, Jane Goodall or Gwen Eiffel... would wear. Worn for yourself, it’s the center point between cozy and stimulating. Worn for others, it projects confidence and contentment. For me, perhaps even more than other fragrances, a huge fucking perfumes deserve to be worn primarily for yourself. Others liking it, or not, is beside the point.