Okay Ladies Admit the truth...Do you ever wear "retro" perfumes?
- Thread starter dmitchell15
- Start date
I used to LOVE this scent. I also used to wear Chloe all the time, years and years ago. Anyone remember that one?
Ok well, I can see how opium might be considered retro....I use to love opium and loved to wear it in the winter time but wouldn't dream of buying it let alone wearing it now.
I love love love chanel no.22! it's the only one that smells great on me!
and quelques fleurs too, now that one I wear all the time.
Same here! I think they smell too strong and very mature!
I prefer the fresh, light, and fruity scents!
I think that the older scents are very heavy in comparison to today's lighter scents. Now, I think women want only those close intimate people to be able to smell them rather than strangers 3 blocks down.
I almost exclusively wear classic or retro perfumes. The one exception being the new one by Gwen Stefani. I love love love it, and always get tons of compliments on it.
I do think there is a difference between 'retro' and 'classic' though...Chanel No. 5, Opium, Shalimar (and many of the others from Guerlain), Quelques Fluers, Fracas - to me these are classics. They have stood the test of time, and IMO are as relevant today as they were when they were first introduced. Retro scents to me would be more along the lines of : Giorgio, LouLou (by Cacharel), Ysatis (Givency), Lauren, Tabu. These were popular in their day, but have faded with the times.
No matter how many perfumes I try though, eventually I always end up going back to my faithful Quelques Fleurs. They just don't make florals like THAT anymore!!!
I do think there is a difference between 'retro' and 'classic' though...Chanel No. 5, Opium, Shalimar (and many of the others from Guerlain), Quelques Fluers, Fracas - to me these are classics. They have stood the test of time, and IMO are as relevant today as they were when they were first introduced. Retro scents to me would be more along the lines of : Giorgio, LouLou (by Cacharel), Ysatis (Givency), Lauren, Tabu. These were popular in their day, but have faded with the times.
No matter how many perfumes I try though, eventually I always end up going back to my faithful Quelques Fleurs. They just don't make florals like THAT anymore!!!
I only have one. Chanel no 5. I don't really consider it "retro", more of a classic. It's more of a special occasion perfume for me not an everyday perfume.
So it seems that what makes a classic is also partly (or completely) marketing as well. Is it just marketing that makes a perfume classic or are there other components that allows perfume to "stand the test of time?" I think that you are right to differentiate between classic and retro perfumes. I also agree with what you said above.
Hmmm . . . that is an interesting question! Yes, I would think marketing would have to play a role in it to at least some degree. But OTOH, regardless of how well something is marketed, if it smells like poo, then it's not going to make it, right? So yeah, I think that it's a nice combination of both marketing strategy and skill in the juice mixing department.
Marketing plays a role, certainly initially, but the classic Guerlain fragrances, and certainly not the ancient single notes, are not really heavily marketed today, yet women who first smelled them at the dressing tables of their grandmothers are still buying them - without a whole lot of marketing.
I remember somebody telling me that I was the only 16 year old they had seen who could carry off L'Heure Bleue - and the only 16 year old they had known who would be remotely interested in attempting it! (Please note that I was not an especially mature 16 year old, just a very strange one).
When I was in high school, most girls wore the most popular "new" perfumes, soft, powdery concoctions like Chantilly and Heaven Scent. But even more popular was one called Love's Baby Soft, which actually smelled exactly like Johnson's Baby Powder!
The reason they were so popular is because they suited a large chunk of the teenaged girl population. As those girls grew older, they began to branch out more, and discover which scents, both old and new, were right for them.
Unless you are using ancient "single-note" fragrances, it takes time to learn what smells good on you and what doesn't, and what just goes with you, and I don't think that you can know that when you are 20. Single-note perfumes are pretty straightforward. I was 4 when I learned that on me, Lily of the Valley stinks. But there is no way I could, when I was 20, know whether Chanel No 5 or Joy would suit me better when I was 40, if that makes any sense.
Chanel No. 5, I think, will still be around, and still just as popular in another 50 years as it is today, and if you break it down, in addition to the synthetics that made it so revolutionary and cutting edge and modern and tickled Miss Coco so much, the bulk of it is not so much those synthetics but favorites from ancient times like rose, jasmine and sandalwood!
I can remember how popular it was in the late fifties and early sixties, but a lot of its popularity did have to do more with image than whether it was really flattering to the individual wearer. There were a lot of college-age girls wearing Chanel No 5 and even to me as a child, it just seemed weird on them, like they were playing dress-up! Even though it was "new" (at least to the US market) it smelled "old lady-ish" on them. But on their older sisters, and on their mothers, it was wonderful!
Sometime in the early sixties, Revlon came out with what I guess was supposed to be their "answer" to Chanel No. 5, it was called "Intimate," and it was not nearly as complex or "sophisticated," and almost immediately became wildly popular, and worked much better for the t'deen** market. It may have had Lily of the Valley in it, because it smelled awful on me!
Anyway, one's "nose" is a very individual thing, and there are few women who are going to have the same "signature" scent, if they have one at all, when they are 20 as they do when they are 30, or 60, or 90.
To me, it is kind of like finding the right man. You can't know, when you are 18, who you will be at 50, much less who you will want to see first thing in the morning when you are 80, or what you will want to smell like while you look at him!
** like tween, but on the other end of adolescence, the transition from teenaged girl to young woman, the late teen-early twenties are t'deens.
You know, if you think about it, that is as it should be!
I remember somebody telling me that I was the only 16 year old they had seen who could carry off L'Heure Bleue - and the only 16 year old they had known who would be remotely interested in attempting it! (Please note that I was not an especially mature 16 year old, just a very strange one).
When I was in high school, most girls wore the most popular "new" perfumes, soft, powdery concoctions like Chantilly and Heaven Scent. But even more popular was one called Love's Baby Soft, which actually smelled exactly like Johnson's Baby Powder!
The reason they were so popular is because they suited a large chunk of the teenaged girl population. As those girls grew older, they began to branch out more, and discover which scents, both old and new, were right for them.
Unless you are using ancient "single-note" fragrances, it takes time to learn what smells good on you and what doesn't, and what just goes with you, and I don't think that you can know that when you are 20. Single-note perfumes are pretty straightforward. I was 4 when I learned that on me, Lily of the Valley stinks. But there is no way I could, when I was 20, know whether Chanel No 5 or Joy would suit me better when I was 40, if that makes any sense.
Chanel No. 5, I think, will still be around, and still just as popular in another 50 years as it is today, and if you break it down, in addition to the synthetics that made it so revolutionary and cutting edge and modern and tickled Miss Coco so much, the bulk of it is not so much those synthetics but favorites from ancient times like rose, jasmine and sandalwood!
I can remember how popular it was in the late fifties and early sixties, but a lot of its popularity did have to do more with image than whether it was really flattering to the individual wearer. There were a lot of college-age girls wearing Chanel No 5 and even to me as a child, it just seemed weird on them, like they were playing dress-up! Even though it was "new" (at least to the US market) it smelled "old lady-ish" on them. But on their older sisters, and on their mothers, it was wonderful!
Sometime in the early sixties, Revlon came out with what I guess was supposed to be their "answer" to Chanel No. 5, it was called "Intimate," and it was not nearly as complex or "sophisticated," and almost immediately became wildly popular, and worked much better for the t'deen** market. It may have had Lily of the Valley in it, because it smelled awful on me!
Anyway, one's "nose" is a very individual thing, and there are few women who are going to have the same "signature" scent, if they have one at all, when they are 20 as they do when they are 30, or 60, or 90.
To me, it is kind of like finding the right man. You can't know, when you are 18, who you will be at 50, much less who you will want to see first thing in the morning when you are 80, or what you will want to smell like while you look at him!
** like tween, but on the other end of adolescence, the transition from teenaged girl to young woman, the late teen-early twenties are t'deens.
I remember Love's Baby Soft and Heaven's Scent. I used to wear those in Middle School.
Some of these older scents are just so heavy. I live in a hot climate, and heavier scents are almost nauseating to me because of the way they interact with the heat. And I associate heavy scents with old lady scents. I remember going to church, weddings, and social functions as a kid and being overwhelmed by the different fragrances the older women were wearing.
I go for fresher, lighter scents. And clean musks. My favorite for several years has been Sara Horowitz Perfect Veil. I also went through a CSP (Comp Sud Pacifique or something like that) phase, but they have no staying power.
The two fragrances I can recall that were just unbelievable to me, in a bad way, are Poison (smells like roach spray to me), and Angel (this one I tried in a boutique and thought Allan Funt must be hidden away filming people's reaction to this fragrance).
So much of fragance is the memories we asscociate with them.
I go for fresher, lighter scents. And clean musks. My favorite for several years has been Sara Horowitz Perfect Veil. I also went through a CSP (Comp Sud Pacifique or something like that) phase, but they have no staying power.
The two fragrances I can recall that were just unbelievable to me, in a bad way, are Poison (smells like roach spray to me), and Angel (this one I tried in a boutique and thought Allan Funt must be hidden away filming people's reaction to this fragrance).
So much of fragance is the memories we asscociate with them.