Talk:Perfume

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Fashion Portal This article is within the scope of the Fashion WikiProject. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. Thanks!
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top	This article is on a subject of top-importance within fashion.
Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh) Strong article; needs more inline references and a little bit better organization. Anyone willing to sink their teeth into this one should seriously consider nominating it for GA status when they're done. Daniel Case 15:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Please visit your local Guerlain counter and beg them not to change the perfume formulations for Shalimar, Mitsouko, Jicky, L'eure Bleue and many more, as they have planned. Thanks!

Yes I don't want Guerlain/LVMH to change the formulations either, but how does this contribute to the article??

Contents 1 Pharaoh's wife 2 Looking for a particular perfume/advice about perfume 3 flasks - a little help. 4 Most perfumes are noted as eau de toilette 5 Eau de Senteur 6 Musk 7 Fragrance vs Perfume 8 The Nose? 9 Tarty and Tacky 10 Please check recent edits on synthetic 11 History of Perfume 12 Atomizer 13 No mention of Indole? 14 Try for Good Article status

[edit] Pharaoh's wife

I have pulled the following edit because it has no reference. If a reliable source is referenced, it can go bacj in, suitably edited.

Once a wife of a Pharaoh took extracts of Egypt's most valueble flowers which were used for worshiping purposes only. She ordered her slaves to keep the extracts of the flowers with fats of a goat and let them out under the hot sun that they could mix and dissolve togetter. Later the two substances formed a thick paste which was the form of perfume or Atar (a perfume without alchohol) at its first stage. When the queen used the paste she admired it so much that she gifted bottles of perfumes to daughter as a wedding gift.

-- Dalbury^(Talk) 11:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Looking for a particular perfume/advice about perfume

people I have been looking for perfum in a very long time and I just can't find it on the internet. This perfum is the best perfum I have ever smelled in my live but the mistakes I did was to buy only one bottle and throw the case away that covered it. How ever if anyone seem to know about it let me know by writing here. The only informations I get about this perfum is that on the bottle stands ,, Russian love " and beneth that is the letter J. I bought it on a marked in germany in 2001 and now I need more of this cause all of my friends were speaking about this smell when I was using it. so if you can help me please add somthing here ... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.220.23.228 (talk • contribs).

Please be careful and refrain from deleting the comments of other users. As well, an encyclopedia is not the right place to request perfumes. Please use a forum such as this instead. Sjschen 00:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If you're still looking for this perfume - or for anyone else who comes here looking for advice - you could try the Basenotes community as well. The people there are very helpful. --Grace 06:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] flasks - a little help.

Somebody could write on flasks, like flasks of the perfumes, or "History of the flask"? I do not know to write well in English (almost nothing, Template:=( ), but I understand a little and I could try to translate into my language (portuguese). I found something thus: http://www.glswrk-auction.com/140.htm Very thanks, --200.217.140.183 22:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Try looking at Perfume bottles, contributions through translations are also very welcome. Sjschen 07:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Most perfumes are noted as eau de toilette

What is the right way to wear them? Is it supposed to be put on clothes or on the pulse points? Thanks for the help

20:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC) This is my first time on Wikipedia and I can't seem to add my own post ( I don't see a link ) But anyway, I sell fragrance at a high end american retailer. Eau de Toilette is a lighter example of a fragrance, because it is more "watered down" it is best to layer with a cream or a lotion with the same notes or of the same fragrance. The pulse points are the warmest points on the body, or so the industry suggests, so the fragrance can travel when warmed. If Applied to the wrists, never "rub" the fragrance, (rubbing wrists together) for it to dry on the skin. It is meant to be experienced as it is sprayed. Allow the area to be fanned instead, or to dry naturally, this allows the alcohol to evaporate and leave the extracts and oils behind. Well, I hope this little contribution can answer some questions. Thankyou Sinyre 20:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC) Sinyre Speigle Sinyre 20:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eau de Senteur

The article notes the difference between parfum and eau de parfum etc., but there is no mention of eau de senteur ("perfume" without alcohol). Since I do not know the percentage of aromatic compounds in eau de senteur, I cannot add it myself. It does seem relevant to the article, though. Terukiyo 23:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Musk

There seems to be a discrepancy in this section. It says musk is produced by a young male deer in oestrus. But oestrus is a hormonal state that only female placental mammals enter. My knowledge of deer biology being somewhat limited I would suggest either someone has written male instead of female or perhaps the word oestrus should be changed to the equivalent word referring to a particular state of the male hormonal cycle. AntonioBu 11:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you are correct so I removed the oestrus reference. Perhaps it is supposed to be that musk is produced by young male deer when females are in oestrus? Any deer experts out there? I'm not sure about the young part either. I think all adult male deer produce musk Wjousts 20:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fragrance vs Perfume

This article focuses mainly on fine fragrance (what I think most people would think of as perfume) and only touches on fragrance for consumer products (e.g. deodorants, air freshners, soaps, etc). I've redirected the fragrance page to here (it was directed to odor before, which I don't think really fitted), but should there be a seperate fragrance page focused more on fragrance for consumer products?Wjousts 21:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

That might be difficult though. The development, composition, and manufacturing of flavorants, frangrances, and perfume are basically the same except for the need of certain physical constraints in the added components such as chemical stability, ingestion toxicity, and what not. The worsd perfume and fragrance are interchangably by the industry as well as consumers. Sjschen 04:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Nose?

Hi- Where did you get the information about the perfumer being called "The Nose"? My father, Harry Cuttler, was two times past president of the American Society of Perfumers. He only referred to himself as a "Professional Nose" as a joke. He encouraged us to use that title to tweak our teachers when, each school year, we were asked to fill out cards giving our contact information that included intrusive questions about our parent's occupations.--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Karen Weinberger (talk • contribs).

The term is a direct English translation of the French term "Le Nez", it is commonly used in 1) Many books about perfume by professional in the field (can be found in the ref. section) as well as 2) in the popular media. Sjschen 16:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "The Nose" is generally considered a professional job title. The correct job title would be "Perfumer" and I think "Nose" is only used informally. I've only ever heard our perfumers referred to as perfumers. Wjousts 18:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Though "Perfumer" may be the professional or formal title, I have also heard interview and read articles by people in the F&F industry use the term "The Nose". However, if the term is a too informal or a bit degrading, I'm fine with changing the section name and have all instances of "Nose" be changed to "Perfumer". Sjschen 08:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

If I may butt in with my utter lack of expertise, may I suggest still mentioning "the nose" once, if not using it? Melchoir 16:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tarty and Tacky

Um, are 'tarty' and 'tacky' really valid classifications of perfumes? I'm not an expert, but that all sounds really suspect to me... 70.241.29.164 17:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please check recent edits on synthetic

I have no knowledge of this subject but there seems to be a number of recent edits that are strongly POV against synthetic chemicals. can you please review, or mark statements that need verifiable backup? ike9898 14:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that they have been very POV Wjousts 01:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, seems like 69.95.144.34 has an issue with synthetics. Though what they put down is not completely incorrect, it is definitely presented in a very POV manner Sjschen 04:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This was recently added to the naturalVSsynthetic section. In fairness to everyone, is the writing in current section biased against naturals?

“	Apparently, proponents of the use of synthetics in perfumes are unable to countenance any critical information about synthetics to be posted in Wikipedia articles and must consistently excise such criticism. In contrast, no proponents of natural materials in perfumes have removed criticism of natural materials from Wikipedia articles. That alone speaks volumes.	”
—Perfume#Natural_versus_synthetic_aromatics, 63.28.79.181 on 12:02, 22 December 2006

Sjschen 12:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The truth is that chemicals are chemicals, they don't know if they are synthetic or natural and being made in a plant and then extracted doesn't give them some magical properties that wouldn't exist if they were made in a reactor. Both some naturals and some synthetics have advantages and disadvantages. Both can be deadly toxic, both can be polluting. Neither are inherently "better" and to try and argue either way is just silly. Wjousts 13:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Aroma chemicals are not, in fact, "just chemicals" when it comes to synthetics vs. naturals in perfumery. For one thing, aroma chemicals are single substances, many of which do not occur in nature and which we have no knowledge about (other than "smells metallic" and has a fragrance half-life of 4 years, for instance)--and which the FDA allows in perfumery, despite the lack of evidence for their inoffensiveness or even the presence of evidence showing hazardousness. In contrast, a single plant aromatic like an essential oil is composed often of hundreds of chemicals that frequently have counteractive properties (for instance, hepatotoxic and hepatoprotective chemicals in the same plant matter). Natural aromatics have been used in perfumery for thousands of years. We know their track record. Animals like people have evolved along with plants, including the aromatics of those plants; we have not evolved to deal with chemicals not found in nature, which are used in synthetic perfumery. But chemicals are also not just chemicals because there is a huge amount of money behind the use of synthetic aroma chemicals. Where there is money, there is BS created to protect that money. And that is what is appearing here in Wikipedia in this article section Naturals vs. Synthetics. It is fine if people want to make the case for synthetics, although I do wonder why it is seen as necessary, given that synthetics control approximately 99% of the perfumery market. However, the section Naturals vs. Synthetics was obviously constructed in order to attack the use of naturals in perfumery as somehow dangerous and bad for the planet. How very disingenuous. If there is going to be an entry concerning synthetics vs. naturals, then it is going to have both perspectives, not just one. In an attempt to bring some balance to the synthetics puff pieces, I had posted information including references to PubMed articles that appeared in peer-reviewed journals regarding, for instance, the damage synthetics like musk ketones have done to the environment. Then I come here to find that all of this information had been removed and that all statements that did not trash naturals were deleted in order to recreate the nifty bit of aroma chemical industry propaganda. Note that the indiviudal(s) writing the attacks on naturals has not provided any references to back up his assertions. Either this section will be fair, or it must be removed altogether. And by the way, I have a PhD and know what a chemical is, so spare me your patronizing attitude. Harry53 19:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)harry53

Nonsense. There is testing done with synthetics are your attempt to deny it shows your own bias. Obviously there is not as much testing as is done with pharmaceuticals, but then again your not injecting it directly in to your veins. To try and argue that there are no down sides to naturals is also disingenuous, there are down sides, just ask a musk deer. Its also nonsense to try and argue that the impurity of natural oils is always a plus, it can just as easily be the case that chemicals in an essential oil may interact badly and the complexity of the oils means we actually know less about them and the natural variation from one batch of oils to another makes it less reproducible. To try and argue that somehow plants oils are magically evolved only positive benefits so we can mash them up and slap them on our skin shows a lack of understanding of evolution. You know tobacco is all natural right? I'm not attacking naturals as bad, I'm saying that to try and argue that either natural or synthetic is better is absolute nonsense. Every thing needs to be considered on a case by case basis. And as for your pathetic attempt to appeal to authority, I also have a Ph.D. and mine is in chemistry. So don't go throwing your diplomas around and expect people to worship your infinite wisdom. Wjousts 12:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone, perhaps you, wrote the section on naturals vs. synthetics expressly for the purpose of attacking naturals. When I saw it and tried to add a balanced view, it was erased over and over again so that it presented only the absurd perspective that synthetics are more ethical because they save musk deer and that chemicals that have never existed in nature are somehow inherently less dangerous than plant chemicals we have evoled with. This was done with not one iota of references to back up those claims, falling headlong into the POV trap that Wikipedia is supposed to avoid. Then my additions, which did have references, were not only excised but individuals came here to complain about MY additions being POV. Clearly, it was more important for the aroma chemical company line about synthetics to be put forward than it was to participate in actual sharing of information. Yes, killing musk deer is bad, but giving people cancer so you can make a fragrance is a hell of lot worse. Just ask all the cities that border on the Great Lakes what they think of synthetic musks. But you've set up a false dichotomy between either killing deer or using synthetics. It is actually possible to do neither. There are a number of plant musks that are not toxic and it is even possible to come up with formulations where musk is just not necessary. Of course, that would require thinking outside of what is clearly an extremely tiny box. And the fact is that synthetic aroma chemicals are not about saving musk deer or protecting people from horrible dangers of plants. Synthetic aroma chemicals are about saving production costs, making a product that is reproducible always and everywhere, and creating patentable concoctions (not possible with natural ingredients). There is indeed testing of aroma chemicals, but for the most part, that testing is done neither by the aroma chemical companies themselves nor by trade associations like IFRA. Instead, it is done by academics researching the effects of these chemicals on people and the environment and publishing that research in peer-reviewed journals. There is no magic involved, and for you to keep accusing others, including me, of magical thinking is laughable when you have been unable to back up anything you say and when your response to any criticism of synthetics is to delete it. The time when corporate practices will go uninvestigated and unquestioned is over. Get used to it. Harry53 15:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Harry

Check the history of the article. I have not deleted anything in the synthetic vs natural debate. But then I wouldn't expect you to have any interest in the actual truth because you prefer to see things as black and white, good or bad, synthetics are all evil and naturals are all magical and good. If you are unable to make a non-POV contribution to this article then perhaps Wikipedia isn't for you? You are the one with the false dichotomy with your belief that all things made made are inherently evil. I'm not saying there aren't synthetic chemicals that are bad, and I'm not saying there isn't pollution related to the fragrance industry, and I'm not saying that truly new and novel aroma chemicals couldn't be more throughly tested. But it's not true that all synthetics are bad, most of them are just fine and in fact most of them are identical to chemicals from natural sources (something you seem ignorant of) which is part of the reason they don't need particularly rigorous testing. Also, the fragrance industry isn't any more polluting than any other chemical industry so it's a little unfair to try and portray them as the evil defilers of the Earth. Naturals are not the solution to everything either. There are problems with naturals (that you don't want to accept) and they are also likely to cause pollution (either through farming or processing) and can cause people harm. For example, peanut oil is all natural, do you want to claim it's therefore completely safe for all people? What this article needs is a balanced view of the issue that addresses the pros and cons of both synthetic and natural. I'm all for holding corporations accountable, but you also have to hold them accountable for the right reasons and when you can make a coherent case. Your babbling just makes you look like a nut and does nothing to convince anybody. Wjousts 16:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I have checked the history, and I have also found that you have been told on other occasions by Wikipedia admins not to delete sections of articles you don't agree with. You even created a page to attack Wikipedia admins as fascists because they won't let you delete whatever you don't like. Clearly, you are unable to handle ideas you disagree with, so I will no longer engage you in this talk section. However, if you or one of your sock puppets deletes or mutilates what I have written again, I will simply put it back. You should consider learning how to construct a reasoned argument instead of resorting to arrogance, name-calling, and censorship. It just makes your position look indefensible. Harry53 23:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)harry53.

I didn't even notice this until now. Was this directed at me? Clearly harry is totally paranoid and is now just making stuff up. I have never been told by an admin not to delete sections of articles (and I never have done), I don't have sock puppets and I never set up a page to accuse admins of being fascists. Clearly harry when from paranoid ranting to straight up lying. Talk about an indefensible position! Wjousts 16:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If you checked the history, you will note that I have edited the section after comments and edits. You can read my comments to my edits in the history page and if you have any questions and concerns with my edits please feel free to discuss them with me on my talk page. I assure you that these edits were not done with malicious intent to POV or to "attack" naturals. Some of the edit I made were to better incorporate the new information included, but some of them were done to remove sentences that, were not encyclopedic, were definitely POV, or they did not add anything to the section but are simply the rehashes of the same point. The most of them being rehashes of : "synthetics are bad for the environment because it is bad for the environment and people". While this is essentially true, there is little reason to repeat over and over again. I'm sure the readers of the articles are intelligent to understand something without having to see it repeatedly. As well, there are some inaccuracies and misleading information that have been included both on synthetics and on naturals. Nitromusks such as musk ketones are no longer presently used, and their presence in the great lakes is due to its historic use. That is not to say that there is presently an overuse of macrocyclic musks due to its potency and low price.

Is this section inaccurate? No, all the information there is true, albeit some citations would help. Could it mislead one to think that synthetics are better and that naturals are worse? Perhaps. After all there are many point there "against" naturals and there is little discussion on the benefits of natural aromatics in perfumery. Maybe we should add to that. To hopefully aid in resolving this conflict, I have separated the section into the synthetics and naturals, and removed the versus in hopes that less bickering and more useful editing will occur. Truth is, not all synthetics are "bad", not all naturals are "good", and vice versa. They both have their areas of benefit and flaws. Such is the nature of things. Sjschen 05:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

If the information about synthetics being basically harmless is accurate, there should be no problem providing articles from peer-reviewed journals to back up all the assertions. But there are none. There is only one reference at all, and it is a generic reference to IFRA, which is a trade organization. I don't know if you have ever actually looked over the "research" that IFRA bases its consclusions on, but I have. It is very seriously flawed--old, tiny samples, substances not correctly identified or not fully identified, carriers not identified, no control, no double blind, and so on. Still, IFRA is not the only game in town. So for instance, where are the articles to back up assertions such as "Many natural aromatics inherently contain toxins"? There are NONE. I have provided articles for my assertions about synthetics. Also, the two sections are set up such that all the assertions under "natural" are negative and most of the assertions under "synthetic" are positive. I will remove the positive assertions under synthetic so that they will be balanced, and I expect that there should be plenty of citations forthcoming about the assertions about naturals. It shouldn't be any problem if those assertions are in fact valid. Btw, although old forms of synthetic musks are no longer being used in the US, they are being used elsewhere, and I just ran across research that showed that two of the new synthetic musks are also being found in human fat and human milk. Harry53 13:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Harry

Not to skirt on the responsibilities of verifying research, but the fact is that this statement has been existent even prior to my involvement in this article. I agree that I should have been a bit more vigilant in checking out these assertions, but since you have looked over IFRA's research, could you perhaps provide the link such that I can also take a look. Saying that natural aromatics are toxic is definitely an overkill, but you are wrong in saying that natural aromatics contain no toxic compounds. The most common of these toxins still used in perfumes are found in oakmoss and treemoss [1] [2] [3] and they are shown to be rather allergenic with cursory evidence that it may be carcinogenic. Coumarin is a fantastic smelling natural aromatic from tonka that is know to be mutagenic. For interest, here are some lists of compounds found in natural aromatics that are believed to be toxic, from being just sensitizer to being carcinogenic. However, whether the quantities of these products present in perfumes should be of concern is another question. Old synthetic musks are sill available and produced in the world, with India being the largest and few remaining producer. However, these compounds are no longer being used in "mainstream" functional or fine fragrances, which constitutes to a large part of synthetic musk usage worldwide. As for the findings that the new synthetic musks are already found in fatty tissues and milk, I'm not surprised. Seeing how much of these chemicals are used, or rather abused by the detergent industry, no one should be suprised. But to my knowledge, the present problem with macro-musks is that the are not easily degradable, and less that they are toxic, since they are not known to be toxic to animals. But since all compounds (even water) are toxic to humans in large enough quantities, the question that should then be asked is: "How much of these musks is toxic to humans if bioaccumulated?" Thanks for all the help! Sjschen 03:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Although I believe that for a chemical compound it is not relevant whether it was synthesized in a factory or in a plant, I agree with Harry53 that the current assertions in the article are vague and non-obvious but lacking references and therefore do not belong in an encyclopedic article. I am removing them:

• Many natural aroma materials inherently contain toxins^{[citation needed]} and are either banned or restricted by the International Fragrance Association (IFRA).
• Many natural materials and essential oil contain the same chemicals used in perfumes that are classified as allergens, many of them at higher concentrations.^{[citation needed]}

Apart from lacking references, this phrase in incomprehensible.

• In the distillation of natural essential oils any biocides (including pesticides, herbicides, or fungicides) that have been applied while the plant is growing may be concentrated into the essential oil making the oil toxic^{[citation needed]}. Unless the essential oil is distilled from a certified "organic" origin, it may be as dangerous as non-organic food.

To me this appears to be nonsense. The purification process is by definition very selective since it is supposed to isolate compounds that exist in minute concentrations. It is not like extracting bulk amounts of fat together with anything that is fat-soluble. Moreover, unlike fragances, pesticides are supposed to be nonvolatile and stay on the plant for more than a few hours, so it is also quite unlikely that they will be concentrated in a distilation process.

On the other hand, I'm also removing the following anti-synthetic statement due to lack of references:

• Synthetic aromatics might not be easily degradable and can persist for prolonged periods in the environment and in organisms, including human beings. The long-term effects of these synthetic aromas on people and the environment are also not well understood, since organisms not been evolutionarily exposed to the vast majority of synthetic aromatics.

I'm also skeptical about the following, but I'll leave them in for the moment:

• The production of synthetic materials may contribute to environmental problems, since their production involve known carcinogens such as aromatic hydrocarbons.

Could be balanced by a statement about the environmental impact of large-scale farming of natural compounds. Moreover, involving carcinogens does not necessarily mean that they are released into the environment. The nice thing about organic compounds is that they can be incinerated without leaving any harmful residues.

• There are many newly-created synthetic aromas that bear no olfactory relationship to any natural material

so what?

Han-Kwang 13:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

A lot of the statements are rather ridiculous, vague, or difficult to substantiate. In my own opinion much of the section needed a good bit of aggressive pruning as you have done and some referencing, which hopefully will be done soon. I refrained from removing these statements mainly because I have already heavily edited the edits of an anonymous individual, and if I actually went ahead with the deletion, some people might cry foul. Sjschen 03:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Perfume

Information is available here on the history of perfume that is not mentioned in the actual "History of Perfume" article. T@nn 17:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Atomizer

Wow, this entire article has no mention of atomizer's or even application of perfumes, thats surprising.--Azslande 07:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure the mention of atomizers is needed. As for applications, I think it's kinda obvious, though you do have a point about it missing. Care to add it? :) Sjschen 05:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I may add it, but I'm debating whether to create a new section about application or just add it under a current. I think adding a new section might be a bit much. But I think its worth mentioning.--Azslande 03:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No mention of Indole?

I was shocked to read the article and find no mention of the chemical Indole. Indole is used in many perfumes to add a flowery smell. Can somebody add this, since I'm a guy and therefore not exactly an expert in perfume. -- Kevin ^(TALK)_(MUSIC) 01:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Try for Good Article status

With the completion of the Techniques section and the fleshing out of the article (more or less), I think we should do a bit of clean up of this section and try to get a "Good article" listing. For starters, we should clean up that every nasty "health" and "natural/synthetics" section. Anyone have an other suggestions to improving this article further? Sjschen 07:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)