Parker said one of the big differences is that niche perfumes don't use synthetics in their perfume oils, they work with all raw, natural ingredients.
Withholding synthetic ingredients allows the niche perfumes to have different notes, which are layers of different scents subtly released over time.
— The manager of a new perfume store located in my own beach town, Rehoboth, Delaware, quoted in Find a perfume that makes scents.
Don’t use synthetics?? She was either misquoted or is full of baloney.
I believe this store is a branch of the original The Perfume Shoppe in Vancouver – is that right? I hope it does well!
If it’s a misquote, it’s a doozy!
It does seem to be an outpost of The Perfume Shoppe, and it’s in a very surprising, not at all high end location — right around the corner from flip flops & salt water taffy & printed beach t-shirts & caramel corn & whatnot. Sort of a shock to see Serge Lutens there! The next highest-up perfume you can buy in that town is Tokyo Milk, or Pacifica.
So that’s your town? How nice to have some high end perfumes available!
I’m hoping she was misquoted in the sense of speaking only about a particular niche house that makes “natural” perfumes, rather than niche in general the way it sounded. Otherwise the “education” their patrons are getting is, um, not so good.
No, I wasn’t really clear…I don’t live there, but it’s where I go to the beach.
They seem to have mistaken “niche” for “natural”.
Anyway, the second sentence is complete nonsense. Eschewing synthetic ingredients means natural perfumers are working with a far smaller, more limited palette, which means that natural scents are going to be less, not more, varied in their notes. Not inferior: just more restricted.
It’s really silly. She goes on to say you can’t tell synthetic notes apart or some such.
I just like the idea that synthetic materials must be “withheld.” Like they are sitting there on the bench but the perfumer must. not. touch.
I’m sick of this kind of sales pitch, where they try to exploit the naïveté of the average, uninformed consumer and the common bias that anything “natural” is good and anything “synthetic” is bad. I blame an entire generation brought up with the word “green” used as a synonym for “holy.”
I doubt she’s trying to exploit anyone — betcha anything she just doesn’t understand perfume.
Whenever I come across the “natural=good” attitude, I like to point out that arsenic is natural, but I would not care to eat it. Really, the level of scientific ignorance in our society is appalling. I certainly don’t expect everyone to be a scientist, but I do feel that if you are a writer producing an article or book for publication, you should get your facts straight and educate yourself sufficiently in the subject so that you don’t write senseless drivel. I once came across an article in a popular magazine claiming that hair is made of “inorganic protein”. Their misguided opinion was that organic means “living”, and that if hair were alive, it would hurt when it was cut. This is, of course, complete nonsense. Organic (the chemistry definition, not the agricultural definition) does not mean “living”, and there is no such thing as inorganic protein.
I think the most blatant example of scientific ignorance I have ever had the misfortune to witness (outside of my in-laws, including the husband, but that’s another story) was preserved in an online article I read about a group of teen activists who were protesting Abercrombie and Fitch’s habit of scenting its stores and the space immediately outside its doors. I don’t remember the exact quote, but one teenager who was interviewed said something along the lines of how the scent has chemicals in it, and chemicals are bad for the body and the earth. My immediate reaction was to hiss at my monitor, “But EVERYTHING is made of chemicals, you idiot, even YOU! Life could not exist without chemicals!” and then openly bemoan the state of basic scientific and medical education and knowledge in the U.S. But I must agree, that “Chemical/Synthetic/Manmade = BAD, Natural = GOOD” attitude that seems to be spreading more and more is extremely irritating to me. And my both my inner librarian/copy editor/grammarian/English professor and inner amateur perfumista started crying and reaching for a red ink pen upon reading that article at delmarvanow.com. Ugh, I now have a headache, I think I need some chocolate.
“I blame an entire generation brought up with the word “green” used as a synonym for “holy.” ”
Thank you for putting into words what I’ve been longing to scream from the rooftops.
Ha ha. Basically this is just more proof that all retailers (and I am one myself) just ‘make up’ most of what they tell customers. It ranges from telling people what they want to hear (a lot of “discerning” customers won’t want to be told that they prefer “synthetic” perfumes even when they do) to outright lying, with a lot of random guesses thrown in (Penhaligons as a French brand)
This is why I never listen to the people in the shops.
I did not even notice the claim that Penhaligon’s is a French brand. Of course, that could be the paper’s mistake.
Maybe she believes the sales reps she orders from.
LOL… well if she believes the info she’s promoting this way…I am sure she will believe anything…Hey I have some non-synthetic and “organic” swamp water she may like to sell for me…(evil grin)
The problem is immense. Admittedly, I worked in perfume retail until very recently. Vendors provide a lot of misinformation to sales associates – hardly anyone really knows what they are talking about.
I will say that the skills of being a great perfume salesperson are not necessarily related to telling the truth about perfumes. Customer DO want to be told that things are ‘natural,’ that things are ‘light’ and ‘fresh’ and so forth. Those techniques definitely do work to sell.
There is one erroneous assertion after another in this article. Another example: Amouage is indeed expensive [and excellent], but the most valuable in the world? I don’t think that’s a fact.
I guess I’ll read this one not just skim, because that’s kind of hilarious too!
I’m sure that Tauer Perfumes is not among the brands she carries. 😉
The next sentence in the article:
“You can’t smell the different notes with synthetics,” Parker said.
The whole thing is a little weird.
“Cassandra Parker, manager said that there’s a lot of education that happens in the store. ”
Oh, god.
Oh that’s upsetting. =/
“Histoires de Parfums is from France, L’Artisan Parfumer from Paris” – I guess Paris isn’t actually a part of France.
The whole article is sloppily written, which unfortunately seems to be a common occurrence these days. Aside from the blatant misinformation, this article contains a multitude of punctuation and grammar errors. As a college freshman, I wrote for the campus newspaper, and had I turned in articles as poorly written as this one, I would no doubt have received a very poor grade.
OH Lordt! So much to smack one’s forehead over.
I’m torn between joy that a shop offers niche perfumes and horror at such a poorly written and error-prone article. I hope it’s just the writer – I’d hate to think the owner was so ill-informed. The English prof part of me has left the room sobbing – pardon me while I go get her a glass of wine or something.
Er… what?!?
“Withholding synthetic ingredients allows the niche perfumes to have different notes, which are layers of different scents subtly released over time.”
Unlike non-niche perfumes, which are famous for having only one note released all at once, conspicuously?
don’t even try to make sense of it, you’ll hurt yourself.
Well, now the link’s dead, so I guess the article’s been trashcanned… or sent back to the proofreader’s. Ah well.
Or that paper has a particular archiving system so that links don’t work after a certain time, which is more common than you’d think.