Let’s Talk About It! What is “Cheap” Perfume? With Frank Voelkl of Firmenich, Dora Baghriche of Firmenich and Pierre-Constantin Guéros of Symrise

Pepe le Pew’s Favorite Perfumes 

The word “cheap” has been popping up a lot lately in fragrance reviews and related comments.  It doesn’t seem to matter if the offending fragrance is a celebrity scent, a designer perfume, an artisan offering or an expensive niche fragrance.  The word “cheap” has been liberally applied to scents in every perfume genre – across the board – no matter the cost of materials, formulation, packaging or promotion.

Ees thees a cheap perfume ma cherie

So what does “cheap” really mean in relation to a perfume?  As a fragrance journalist I fancy myself a wordsmith and am well aware that the understanding of a phrase often turns on the gradations of meaning inherent in a single word. The terms “cheap” and “synthetic” and to some extent the words “common” and “linear” might start out as expressions of subjective opinion, but with repeated use, often evolve into descriptors. I personally feel that vague labels and subjective judgments like “cheap” and  “expensive” tend to limit our horizons instead of broaden them. 

Pew de Toilette is $400 for 30 ml (ha)

Does “cheap” mean anything at all as a description of fragrance? To help understand the word “cheap” in regard to perfume, ÇaFleureBon engaged the assistance of three accomplished perfumers, fragrance artists who have brought us many of our favorite scents and who work with perfumes and perfume materials on a daily basis.

  

Senior Perfumer Frank Voelkl of Firmenich (photo February 2017)

FRANK VOELKL, Senior Perfumer for Firmenich has created a host of exciting and iconic fragrances. Frank is the perfumer behind many Le Labo creations including: Santal 33, Iris 39, Musc 25 (Los Angeles), Benjoin 19, (Moscow)  Baie Rose 26, (Chicago) Ylang 49, and Limette 37 (San Francisco),THÉ NOIR 29,  as well as for the highly acclaimed Nomenclature line, which uses a high percentage of proprietary “neo-synthetics”.

Frank Voelkl:  “Even though I’m not a huge fan of market research, in some cases it helps us understand consumer’s perceptions and behaviors. Interestingly we have found in our consumer research that the attribute “cheap” is often used in conjunction with “heavy/sickening”, “aggressive/harsh” and “artificial/chemical… Often cheap fragrances are very strong and overpowering… I believe “cheap” is an expression to describe low quality rather than being an olfactive descriptor. 

 …Over-exposure can [also] create this impression. For example the use of gourmand notes has been very popular in the past few years and it seems that we might have reached a level of saturation. So I can very well imagine that some of these gourmand fragrances in the market today might be perceived “cheap” smelling in a few years from now if gourmand is no longer in trend/fashionable…

Senior Perfumer Frank Voelkl of Firmenich (photo February 2017)

After all, it is all about quality and how consumers define quality. I do think that consumers clearly have a sense of quality and have an understanding of “quality inside the bottle…comparable to fashion and even food, [quality] is defined by the choice of ingredients as much as the composition of the ingredients…using the “right” ingredients is not a guarantee for a good quality, expensive smelling fragrance. The art lies a lot within the creative composition and consumers understand that.

[There is a] myth that anything synthetic is bad and cheap and anything natural is good, high quality and expensive.  A blend of Molecules (synthetics) with naturals can be perceived as much more “expensive” than a poorly blended composition of naturals only, not using any synthetic ingredients. By the way some of the Molecules we use are, in fact, way more expensive than some naturals. I’m particularly excited to work on the Nomenclature brand where Molecules are featured as the star ingredient and “dressed up” with naturals.”

 

Pierre-Constantin Guéros of Symrise

PIERRE-CONSTANTIN GUÉROS, Perfumer for Symrise, has literally traveled the world for fragrance! He has lived and worked in Paris, Munich, New York and Dubai.  Pierre’s international experiences have contributed to the creation of many beautiful fragrances, among them the 2016 Fragrance Foundation Finalist for Perfumer Extraordinaire Carolina Herrera Oud Couture. The beautiful Parfums Quartana Venetian Belladonna (2016) is another example of his fragrant art.    

Does “cheap” mean anything at all as a description of fragrance?

Pierre-Constantin Guéros: “It does.  But has nothing do with any synthetic or natural raw materials, but more with the category of products the fragrances are used in.

1. Raw materials used in other categories than Fine Fragrance – For example, Lemon top notes in fine fragrances get a “cheap” comment, even with Lemon Oil S-fumatrice from Calabria in Italy, because the lemon scent is very popular in floor cleaners and technical products in general. Mint is another good example.  It is used in Oral Care.  Pine the same.

2. Accords used in other categories than Fine Fragrance – A Cool Water structure or Giorgio is used since decades in a lot of technical products. That is how DIHYDROMYRCENOL or ORANGE FLOWER sweet got this “perceived cheap impression”, but for a perfumer it has no sense.

3.  Depending on the market – The notion of “cheap” once again has for me nothing to do with natural or synthetic, as ORANGE can be perceived as “cheap” (but is natural) and AMBROXAN as luxurious.

Pierre smelling attars in Dubai

But the notion of “cheap” depends very much on the market.

For example A FRUITY GREEN JASMINE (Full Type) is considered very cheap in the Middle East because a lot of cheap incense sticks smell like that. In Europe, especially in France, some overly fruity notes are considered cheap compared to the US.

4.  Cost of a formula – And finally let’s face it – for some cost reasons, you can not always use the same amount of rich raw materials and if you use, let’s say too much BENZYL ACETATE (fresh fruity jasmine note but also banana like) or DIHYDROMYRCENOL, you have to be careful not smelling “cheap”.

You need some technical skills to make a very inexpensive perfume smell very good and worth the money. So there is a lot of perfumer work behind inexpensive perfumes. As you cannot use Jasmine Absolute, you have to give the impression of Jasmine with 15$ raw materials. That is quite challenging. But there are some limits and some high-end raw materials you cannot replace. The volume of AMBROXAN, the facettes of OUD or NATURAL SANDALWOOD, the complexity of natural flower extract are still unique jewels you use when the budget allows and most of the time it shows in a formula.”

Dora Baghriche of Firmenich (Photo: Nathalie de Lopez)

DORA BAGHRICHE is a Fine Fragrance Perfumer for Firmenich. She has created many works of fragrant art including Still Life (2011) and Still Life in Rio  (2016) for Olfactive Studios, the stunning Caligna (2013 ) for L’Artisan Parfumeur and Amouage Op. VI with P. Négrin (2012 ). In her working journal, Dora not only records fragrance specifications, but also reconnects with her literary roots. Dora says “I write everything down, from descriptions to inspiration”.

Dora Baghriche: “Here is what I say about cheap: Cheap is the lack of content and substance; over and above the raw materials we use, cheap is the lack of creative ideas, it is following without re-inventing. Of course we all consider an orris, a superb quality of jasmine or tuberose as being qualitative, but a fruity playful note, if used in a creative way, is not cheap neither. Quality is all about how we build a new aesthetic olfactive shape; it is the right choice of raw materials to express an idea, without any boundaries of cost or preconception of use. 

Gourmands for example: I believe we can find nobility in edible, regressive notes. It is not a lack of quality or sophistication to be close to our primary food memories. Again, and this is true for every olfactive territory, it is how the perfumer see and treat a theme that will assure quality, how the perfumer unveils an emotion behind.

Start looking at perfumery as an art and it is all clear: cheap, like in every other art, is the absence of message. There are no rules, no routes to follow; only the ones that lead to emotions, and emotions can be everywhere. The difficult task for perfumers is to provoke them, and when we succeed the quality of our work is there. Most important, we should not forget that the notion of cheap is cultural (what is perceived as cheap in France will be surprisingly perceived as very qualitative and upscale in another part of the world!), and personal, linked to personal history and subjective associations. But I would say that no matter the reason behind, when a fragrance is perceived as cheap it means  “poor in positive feelings”. For me personally, cheap is, indeed, emotional platitude”. 

We’ve heard what these renowned perfumers have to say about “cheap perfume”. What did you think of their answers? Now – what does “cheap perfume” mean to you? Let’s talk about it!

—Gail Gross, Sr. Contributor

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


20 comments

  • GrandmaGaga says:

    Hmmm…what is cheap with regard to perfume? To my nose, sharp smells feel cheap; a fragrance that can be parsed with a very quick sniff feels cheap; a poor copy of a popular perfume feels cheap and lastly, extremely poor longevity feels cheap.

  • June says:

    The most intelligent article I have read in a long time on a blog. So many commentators and critics call something cheap without any knowledge. For me Frank Voelkl quote on sythetic molecules was fascinating as they do get a bad rap. Yes lemon could be expensive but it does smell like household cleaners and that fragrance is cultural is very interesting per mr gueros. But Dora Bagriche’s response that cheap is lack of emotion and message really was a great answer.
    Thank you to these big perfumers for their very knowledgable interviews

  • Aaron Luke says:

    Cheap is such a dumb term when referring to fragrance. Some of the best colognes are so called “cheap”. Lanvin Avant Garde and Rassasi Tasmeem are less then 30 bucks and are amazing scents!

  • Filip__ says:

    I usually don’t pay much attention to opinions calling something “cheap” because I have no idea what it means (apart from the price, but this is not what reviews are for). “Low quality” sounds much better and more informative (the scent wears off quickly or evolves into something unpleasant).

  • Bryan Christopher says:

    Some of my favorite to use everyday fragrances are in the “cheap” range. To the old favorite Cool Water and an Arabic fragrance called “Tres Nuit”. They’re cheap yes, but they don’t make me feel ill and some last me the whole day.

    What I consider as cheap though are perfumes that has no soul, a piss poor attempt to ape a popular fragrance while offering poor longevity, and wants a huge price tag for it.

  • Robert H. says:

    Thank you Gail for this wonderful and engaging article! For me, cheap denotes any perfume that is made (to my mind) on the fly without much thought or intention. It can cost $150.or more, but feeling poorly-made makes it “cheap” to me. The proof of it is of course, the number of perfumes that are INEXPENSIVE vs. cheap. My favorite example is the Coty “Love2Love” range, beautiful albeit simple perfumes by noted perfumers such as Maurice Roucel, Sophia Grojsman, Calice Becker, and Bruno Jovanovic, and not a single one over $10.00. Inexpensive, but not cheap.

  • nsquared says:

    Very insightful and thought provoking. The idea of cheap is so subjective. To me, something that lacks an idea, or is poorly thought out, would be considered cheap. To others it has a different meaning. And to me cost has nothing to do with it.

  • Old Herbaceous says:

    I think when people say “cheap” they often mean “shoddy”, i.e. a product of poor quality, inferior ingredients and/or poor workmanship. So a bargain fragrance that was well-designed, and maybe cost more when it was first released, can escape being “cheap” because the original workmanship was good. Sometimes people use “cheap” to mean tacky, so that would account for loud, overwhelming, overly sweet scents being called “cheap.”

  • fazalcheema says:

    I think the impression of cheap depends upon the smell of perfume, irrespective of the purchase price. This is why sometimes expensive perfumes are criticized and some low-priced are praised.

  • jenbat says:

    How cool to get these insider insights! I agree with Dora Baghriche, that a ‘cheap’ perfume is “poor in positive feelings”. For me, a ‘cheap’ (and I would probably use the word boring instead of cheap) perfume is one that doesn’t take me anywhere or tell me anything.

  • Henrique Brito says:

    It is a very interesting article and thought provoking too. In my opinion/impression the notion of cheap is not only related to personal concepts, but also to the level of expectations and this seems to be correlated with the price and product positioning. When i try to evaluate a fragrance i always use this as a starting point, but in fact is not always easy to judge.

  • tarena says:

    Great article! I dislike the word cheap and never use it; if you’re paying money for something then it’s not “cheap” imo. In regards to perfume, when I hear the term “cheap”, I think poor quality (which to me smells like a blend of indiscernible harshness) or short longevity. It’s interesting to read everyone else’s interpretation of the word!

  • Miss Almond says:

    To me, perfume can be nice, beautiful, ugly, I can like it or dislike it, but “cheap” is the term I use mainly when speaking of imitations which have almost always some oily/chemical note similar to some cream or lipstick far beyond its expiration date.

  • Lauren says:

    I think the discussion on whether or not synthetics make something smell cheap is interesting. I usually assume that all natural is better (generally speaking), but now I see there is a pretty good case to make for using both all natural and synthetics in fragrances. Very interesting!

  • Toblerone says:

    Very interesting discussion! I cannot agree more about the overexposure case. When I think “cheap”, I usually mean “too popular to be interesting”.

  • DAnu Seith-Fyr says:

    This was extremely interesting from my perspective as a winemaker and as a writer on fragrances. For me there is something indefinable about quality, it’s the same essence that we call style.
    Some people manage this elusive quality imperceptibly, wearing ordinary clothing and very little adornment or cosmetic enhancement, yet still they possess grace and ‘style’.
    The most expensive clothing and jewellery will not endow the wearer with this mystique.
    So it is for me with wine, it is not necessarily the most expensive that is the best expression.
    Or that the cheaper wines and ‘bad’.
    What defines fragrance as cheap for me or conversely of quality is that undefined essence that underpins it’s very existence..
    The driving intention of its creator, is he following his Muse, his dance with the inner callings that urge him on, or is it another God he is answering. I am fascinated by Genius and what it is, and for me it is an essential ingredient of any Masterpiece.
    Of course if one attempts to create a fragrance from the cheapest components, something will suffer, because in the very act of settling for cheapest, the creation is already taking second place to financial considerations.
    There is as the perfumers state a balance here and that is the Artistry, to create using both synthetics and naturals to express their intentions.
    I will finish with the wine analogy, sometimes a cheap bottle of wine is just that, a mass produced monster, chemically enhanced and manipulated, as far from the vineous source as you can get, sometimes the best wines you can find are small batch, family produced rural wines true to their origins..
    Expensive wines are often just all about the particular named vineyard and owner, the wine will often fall short of what I call a fine wine.
    Others warrant their greatness as an art form,
    For me it all comes down to Authenticity of Creation…
    Not just components and our perceptions of ‘cheap’
    Thank you Gail, a fascinating topic..

  • Hikmat Sher Afridi says:

    What an interesting article. Well done. I consider cheap those which are intimation/fake of the original perfumes. I hate fake perfumes.

  • carole macleod says:

    CaFleureBon, you inspire the best discussions-thank you. I agree with Dora-the idea of cheap fragrance , for me, means something produced with no thought other than the thought to take money from a consumer. The fragrance is not meant to be beautiful, or meaningful, and will not change your life-it’s a functional product, and that is all.
    And Mr Voelkl-in case you are reading, I won CFB’s draw for your fragrances last year. I wanted to say thank you for producing such beautiful scents-they have given me so much pleasure. Thank you for them.

    Best regards,
    Carole