Comments on: Three fragrances for a confident Valentine’s Day

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 20:59:24 +0000

It *is* nice and it's cheaper than owning, say, Degas sculptures.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 14:48:15 +0000

Of course I agree on just being fans, but very devout ones! I myself am not at all much knowledgeable about perfumes, I guess you could call me a burgeoning perfumista. And yet, it is still fun to learn so much about such a fascinating subject. After all, we all have our own personal interests in this – we wear perfume, it's part of our daily lives. It's nice to know art is a part of your life, wouldn't you say?

And as for Robin, I think her seriousness without seriousness is exactly the reason I started reading NST:)

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 04:38:07 +0000

Well, thank you for enjoying my strangely serious post! I appreciate your kind words, though I promise to say something silly next time. I love Luca Turin's description of perfume as “portable intelligence” and I fail to see how perfumery can be anything other than an art, just like novel writing, painting or composing symphonies. As such, it certainly deserves its own theory as well – although I must stress that I'm not at all qualified to be engaging in the theory end. While I too am fascinated by the more academic writings on fragrance, I try to remember when reading it that I'm just a fan looking to justify the time and money I spend on this obsession! Robin here at NST has that rare virtue of taking her subject seriously, without taking herself seriously, and I admire that.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 04:21:16 +0000

Ah, the *other* Odalisque! Was it you that brought that one up on Bois de Jasmin on the occasion of Lenin's birthday (I believe) when Victoria posted about discontinued fragrances? It sounds wonderful. PdN's Odalisque is a little powdery too – lots of iris – and is complex for a fairly linear perfume, but I wouldn't call it rich. Is the Rosenstein an oriental?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 04:15:44 +0000

R, thanks for sharing some great choices. It's been a long time since I tried Red, I'll have to give it another go. A sexy scent (in a red container!) that I love is Gucci's Rush.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 04:13:41 +0000

Thanks, D, and sorry I took so long to repsond to your comment. Sublime is one I had to try on myself several times before I was hooked – it doesn't perform particularly well on paper, I find.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 12:37:05 +0000

Erin, thank you for a very deep and inspiring post!

It's texts like these that reassure us, perfume lovers, that there is so much more to perfume than just chemistry. That perfume is, among other things, often an expression of self, an interpretation of how one feels in a relationship and of letting your partner know how much you appreciate him/her. And that potential depth is, of course, fascinating and one of the reasons I love perfume theory:)

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 04:37:07 +0000

Very interesting choices. I love Sublime madly, and I do believe it is sadly overlooked.

I did not know there was another Odalisque out there – there is a vintage perfume called that by Nettie Rosenstein, and it's magnificent, but nothing like the one you describe. It's rich and complex, a little powdery, and smells like wealth. I adore it.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 23:17:08 +0000

I just want to thank you for an fascinating article, Erin – you've given some food for thought on three fragrances of which I may take a second look.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 22:54:24 +0000

Here are three fragrances that remind my of Valentines Days past:

Chopard Madness

Giorgio Red

Valentino

And they are all red!