Vintage - Yes or No ?

I came across a very interesting article on vintages by Elena Vosnaki (who is also the author of PerfumeShrine) on Fragrantica.
She dispels some of the myths of vintages. Is it all an illusion of nostalgia?

I never really believed that perfumes actually age inside the bottle, once they have been filled. I always thought that the maturing takes place before the scent if filled into a bottle and sold. (Based on reading Andy Tauer's blog, he lets his creations age a few months and then fills the bottles.)

Okay, how much validity is to the theory that perfumes continue to age. How long is the span of aging?

I have had the experience of a few "slightly turned" vintage scents myself. Not only had the top notes evaporated, the scent did not last longer than perhaps two hours. "Magie Noire" by Lancome ... is what I had the luck and occasion to sniff and evaluate from a generous member.

I would like to believe Jeffrey Dame, as he probably has a lot more sniffing experience than I.

I don't agree with him whatsoever. He can say what he wants and shill for all he's worth, but I know his statement of "anything older than ###years is dreck" is absolute BULLSHIT

Then I own some dreck that smells reeaallly good. Sure, fragrance can turn over time, but if enough of it weren't still fabulous, we wouldn't use it. I don't need someone to tell me when something doesn't smell good, do you?

Ironically Magie Noire vintage is the one fragrance that lasts on me all day and beyond. I don't think my nose is highly sensitive enough to be able to detect subtle changes in formulas but I do know that of the vintages I have purchased, they are either love at first sniff or I can live without them. Many times, I don't have a fresh or modern version to compare my vintage to so Im usually content with my very old bottle.

I own hundreds of vintage fragrances and out of them all, over all those purchases, only 2 were "turned" and smelled "off". I'd also be willing to bet that those 2 were ruined from storage in heat and light.

Now, all fragrances "lose" something over time. The top notes go first, but so what??? In a brand spanking new release, the top accord is only going to last a few minutes anyhow, so what the hell is he yapping about? I'll suffer the loss of a few minutes to still be able to enjoy the heart and base of an excellent, vintage frag.

I understand he is a professional in the business. Even so, that cuts no mustard with my amateur ass and you know why? It's because he's willing to tell half truths in order to sell current releases. People who speak out both sides of their mouths aren't my cup of tea.

I am no expert on vintages, but my vintage Vent Vert is gorgeous, and the galbanum up top is still going strong.

My bottles of Shiseido Zen and Guerlain Samsara are just as beautiful as when I bought them -- in th 80s.

I've read the article, also, when it was first published.
I am also a die-hard vintage fan, owning many, many bottles of vintage perfumes.
My first inclination after reading it was that it was geared towards the less-informed, younger perhaps perfumistas who purchase perfumes. I saw it as a thinly-cloaked article attempting to draw funds towards today's formulations in sight of the arguments that are currently appearing about the differences in vintage perfumes and today's standards.
Those of us who are familiar with the perfumes of yesteryear know the differences. We spend our money on the vintages, know what we are looking for, know what we smell. As I feel it bears repeating, I buy a perfume not for its' top notes anyway. I buy a perfume for what it will smell like eventually on me, what it will become on me. So when a vintage has lost some of its' top, so what? For me, it has only aged desirably, and its' drydown is all the more better.
Frankly, I saw the article as an attack on vintages, rather than an appreciation of them. I found it a bit frightening, as in a George Orwell type of way. Because something is older, are we to dismiss it completely? Are we to dismiss vintage clothing, and never wear exquisite pieces we may find? Or when we shop for collectables for our homes, is that something that we are to dismiss as garbage now, too?
Out of all of my vintage bottles of perfume, I can count one that seemed off to me. And that one bottle perhaps was a perfume that I just didn't appreciate. Now out of new ones I've purchased, there have been a few that have been rancid, and I have returned them to the stores. Go figure.
But most importantly, I do believe money and politics was the true incentive behind the article. If people argue in reviews that one should always look for "the vintage one" because it wears better, then the manufacturer will never really be making more money. But if consumers can be convinced that the vintages aren't any good, that perfumes "go bad after a few years", then who profits?
And in the end, who really suffers? The true history of perfume will be forgotten because of politics and the dollar bill.

Well said !!!

Sorceress, if I may say so.... your post gets a 5 star award.

Aromi, does she get a new car?

I think she may qualify for a 2014 Cadillac CTS "loaner" vehicle with zero interest and no money down.......

I have absolutely no idea what you two are talking about....

Elena has responded to the controversy on her blog. Which leads to even more controversy in my mind. Why not answer on Fragrantica, is my thought, where two forum postings have begun. Instead, she is now saying she deliberately wrote "with a view of being controversial". You can read it here: perfumeshrine.blogspot.com/2014/02/on-vintage- stuff-and-polemics-of-truth.html

But her blog seems to me to be a Monday morning quarterback response to the anger of people. It still doesn't make sense to me and she still seems to be blowing smoke without wanting to upset the ad-contributors. That's a shame. It takes away the credence of her words now.

Writers needs to be true to themselves. Once they cross the line, earning back trust is difficult.

I have given up on buying vintages as I was often disappointed with what was left of the originally gorgeous scent.

As sad as it may be to be without my beloved perfume memories but I do not enjoy these fragrances anymore if they are either on the verge of turning bad or even have crossed that line already.

I am not a bottle collector either but have some miniatures as a keepsake for those nostalgic moments.

This is what I alluded to earlier, the fact that we can each judge for ourselves as to when purchasing vintage bottles makes sense or doesn't. If a person buys 10 vintage bottles and two have turned, that might be enough for that person to throw in the vintage towel, but for someone else it might not be.

BTW, Elena's "article" is meaningless to me. And it is suspiciously wordy and full of questionable assertions, as though it's trying very, very hard to be convincing. "Don't believe everything you read" couldn't be a more pertinent concept in the internet age. Unlike in the days of yore, where an op-ed piece or major magazine article went through multiple filters before it was "published," this is just a glorified blog. That's the problem with the internet, almost anyone can commit their thoughts to cyber print and others will treat it like journalism. It isn't.

Now, back to why PontNeuf has a point. Unfortunately, when a fragrance turns, it's not just about losing top notes, I wish it were. It's about middle and base notes that now smell like kerosene. I think maybe 5% of the vintage purchases I've made had sadly turned, and most of these were minis, all splash, which that, I can understand. But I've also purchased a couple of regular size spray bottles that had begun to turn and were about 30 years old, both from Ebay sellers who'd obtained them from estate sales, and both sellers assured me they still smelled "lovely." I won't be buying bottles this old from estate sale Ebayers anymore. For one thing, if a bottle that old is nearly full, it means the deceased lady probably didn't like it very much, and likely didn't take much care to keep it away from heat and light, not thinking ahead to when her children would one day sell off the contents of her home to the highest bidder.

On the other hand, the 20-year old bottles of original formula Samsara that I've purchased are absolutely beautiful, with no signs whatsoever of even beginning to turn. And I have other examples. The asking prices for all of these was low enough to risk it, so I did. For the most part, I've not been disappointed by my vintage purchases . . . so far. So Elena can pontificate all she wants, I can make up my own mind.

It's all about how the vintage fragrances were taken care of during their lifespan. Kept intelligently away from light and heat, they will last an extremely long time.

It's always been "buyer beware" no matter what you are purchasing. Regardless of the law, because people are just not honest in their dealings. Not everyone is. That's life. Whether it's a home, a car, an antique, whatever the purchase may be.

I'll still take my chances, but I'll limit my costs, as I always have. Like I said in a former post, there are many newer fumes that sit under the lights in a store like Sephora until they turn over. I've heard complaints from customers about those perfumes not smelling right. I've returned new perfumes that were rancid.

One last comment about the original post by Elena. Since she converted her remarks to her blog, instead of answering on Fragrantica, I began to wonder how many hits she was looking to achieve on her blog and for what purpose. She could have answered on F, but she didn't. She led people directly to the blog instead, for a purpose. I think it was all done deliberately, but not very well-thought out. She wanted a backlash, she received one, but the comments instead weren't left where she wanted. She was playing devil's advocate, and words are only words, but they can hurt a journalist's reputation.

Slightly off topic -

I wonder what makes "good journalism". Is it not just somebody's version of a truth - well written and meant to entertain?

Does it have to be "politically correct"? What is politically correct. That differs in whatever group the piece is written.

I suppose a journalist like Elena Vosnaki has a reputation and in her blog she can write whatever she wants. I have enjoyed reading her perfume reviews. Really well thought out.

All this recent controversy about vintages, reformulations and impending severe regulations goes a little over my head. The minute I think I have it figured out, the next news comes through with new and different takes on the problem, like this outfit IDEA.

I better stop as my thoughts begin to ramble, and this is not Facebook here.

What makes "good Journalism"? From a Journalists point of view, we have standards that we must adhere to. We have been taught from Day One on the obvious-the "who, what, where, when, why and how". But it goes far beyond that. There are guidelines in the industry that one must follow. Strict guidelines for sports, for business, for media, for newsgathering where legal issues can face all journalists in the future. We have our own code of conduct and ethics that we should and must adhere to. We have sources, we can quote our sources at times, we must be careful about defamation, including the elements of a claim arising from the publication of a false statement. There are many situations that can arise. Just because a person decides to write a blog in no way lessens the legal scopes that might arise from their words. A blogger must realize their written words are considered legal fodder.
The Associated Press has their own legal handbook for instance. There are others available to use.

(Off topic)

A Hah! I did not know all that. I thought a blog is just a glorified outlet of thoughts, similar to what we are doing here in the discussion group. Just more organized and more educated.

Well, I guess there is a difference. While we are guests here - the blog owner is responsible for her blog (domain). Whether the ads pay for the expenses, or not, there are legal restrictions.

Journalists are obliged to check their facts, or have their facts checked by a second party, prior to publication.

Having an opinion and blogging about it doesn't make us journalists.

It all depends on the information contained in the blog. If the blog owner tells their readers that they simply give their opinions and do not quote anyone else, then their blog is simply their own opinion. If they begin to quote others, they they are responsible for those quotes in terms of giving credit to the original person. If they begin to give factual information, they are responsible to back up those facts in some way for their own credibility. (If they care about their own validity.) It all depends on where the blog owner is going with their blog. There are a lot of factors involved, many more than just the opinion of the blog owner. Regardless, the person writing the material must take credit for their words. Some blog owners are serious and write with a purpose in mind, having a background in journalism. Others do not, but educate themselves for liability purposes.