The packaging of Clive Christian No. 1 is the main driver of the price, and this is the key point about luxury fragrances. The scent is important, but it is still a sideshow to the presentation of a bottle and the luxury credentials of the brand. For the new generation of emerging market trendsetters, with cash to spend, the core of luxury attraction is related to how much a brand says about its social status. It is aspirational consumption on a scale that fast-moving consumer goods markets have never seen before.
— Read more at Super Premium Beauty on Cusp of a New Era of Growth at GCI.
I guess it’s obvious I’m not a luxury buyer because that makes no sense to me. Especially since your smell is probably going to be more obvious than a bottle you have at home.
So, I’d say what’s in a bottle would have a larger scope of people in the know, unless you don’t plan on using it but just keeping it in plain sight.
Here here. If the perfume doesn’t smell like the nectar of the gods for far too often aspirational prices, then the packaging, no matter how striking or beautiful, won’t sway me. Especially if the packaging, “exclusivity” and marketing is emphasized far more than the beauty and construction of the perfume.
Perhaps you could carry the receipt around with you so when someone asks what you’re wearing, you could just whip it out. It might seem a little crass but if the goal is to impress others with how much you spent then you have to be prepared to appear a bit louche.
I am guessing many of these bottles are purchased as gifts or status symbols.
This is just ridiculous. It makes me want to dig out old Thorstein Veblen’s ‘Theory of the Leisure Class’ and re-read it.
Yep.
I’m a bottle/packaging ho, and completely understand the lure of the presentation.
It isn’t a status issue for me, I just loves the purty.
But I don’t see how the presentation gives one any particular social distinction, since presumably very few other people are going to see the bottle, let alone the box and other accoutrement.
I will say that even if money were no object, I’d pay $3000 for perfume before I’d spend $60,000 on a car. That seems far more bizarre to me, and yet I know many people who love their Beemers and Sadies; I know darn well the status of it is a factor, though they all deny it.
I also know people who wear certain brands of perfume, clothing, shoes, etc. for the sole purpose of flashing the name, so I think louche comes at many price points, and in many industries.
I wonder to what extent the joy of the social distinction is just from the act of purchasing? So that even though nobody will see it in future, it has already made you feel above other people.
You’re on to something there, Robin.
I’m with you on the lure of good presentation; awkward or ugly bottles can be the tipping point if I’m up in the air on a fragrance (thus, conversely, my adorable travel size of Marc Jacobs Daisy). But when I want full-blown luxury, I happily reach for an Estee Lauder Private Collection or Chanel No 5 Eau Premiere. Gorgeous bottles true, for the minute or teo a day i enjoy them, but a spritz or two of the juice provides an all-day cloud of luxury–for under $100 a pop. So paying luxury prices for a bottle alone doesn’t really do it for me.
When we had our last Sniff, one of the guys bought a CC and at dinner we put his beautiful presentation next to my beautiful Kilian presentation and took a picture, saying this is what $1000 of perfume looks like. There is something to be said about luxury, but neither of us bought what we bought to flaunt it. We just loved and wanted it. However, I did feel better about buying into the Kilian after he told us about his feelings on luxury, and how it is not to be discarded, but used for life.
Several of the BK Calice Beckers are in my all-time top ten. I’d love them just as much in plainer packaging, but I do respect his concept of luxury, which used to include quality and now is so often nothing but empty hype.
I also appreciate that the boxes and travel sprays protect the perfume very effectively from light while keeping it handy for use. Some thought went into this line.
As the saying goes, “It’s not the steak,,,it’s the sizzle.”
Packaging can be interesting. The original Armani Pour Homme (early 70’s – still a great juice) was meant to look vaguely like a man wearing a suit – strong, squared shoulders.
The new Bottega Veneta bottle is just gorgeous…from the weight/shape of the glass, to the colour of the juice and subtle skin ping tie and the grid underneath. It is feminine and very classy…and the perfume is quite likeable on first try! The leather /patchouli are very creamy. It is one bottle I would like to see a lot! (not sure if I would dislke the creaminess after a few wears!
Clive Christian has a lot to anwer for – some years ago they pruchased the then on-the-way-out Crown Perfumery & continued part of the range for a while, then ditched it completely for their “exclusive” range. Crown Perfumery had the most wonderful fragrances & it’s a crying shame that CC let the line die out. Apparently CC’s daughter is a fragrance buff, so one wonders why they didn’t just develop their high-end line & continue the Crown line as well.