Topic: LIDL trump CHANEL in blind test

Last month the prestigious Perfumer's Guild conducted a blind test with 150 women.
The two contenders?

- Chanel's luxury perfume "Coco Mademoiselle"

- Lidl's bargain basement "Suddenly Madame Glamour" (£3.99 for 50ml)

The result?

A Staggering 91% of women preferred Lidl's.

The two scents are apparently very similar, with Lidl being slightly softer. So which would you go for, and how would you answer the "oh, what are you wearing?" question should you opt for the cheapo version?

Poll away people glad

Do as I say, not as I do - The Others

Re: LIDL trump CHANEL in blind test

So, LIDL have perfumes too? I must check that out! I would proudly wear a cheapo, as long as it smells nice and have great sillage and longevity. http://www.fragrantica.com/js/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/img/smiley-kiss.gif

Re: LIDL trump CHANEL in blind test

I love me a good bargain, so I would at least try the cheapo and would be tickled and happy if it worked out for me. Problems with telling that I wear the inexpensive stuff I don't have - I don't care for brand-nuts... http://www.fragrantica.com/js/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/img/smiley-foot-in-mouth.gif

Re: LIDL trump CHANEL in blind test

BONJOUR.I VOTED FOR THE SECOND CHOICE ''Bargain here I come but no way would I tell!''

Last edited by nikosculpture (2011-07-15 16:15:29)

Carpe Diem.

nikosculpture's Website

Re: LIDL trump CHANEL in blind test

It would have to be exactly like the Chanel to substitute. If I was willing to pay for a Chanel because I loved it so much, then giving it up for a replica would be cost effective only if the replica equaled the Chanel with no loss of enjoyment in any aesthetic.  It would have to equal in quality, sillage, and longevity.  Also the bottle would have to be as beautiful as the Chanel.  I love beautiful bottles.  It is important to me that my dresser and toiletry table look beautiful as well.

If I absolutely could not afford Chanel, then of course I would get the replica and wear it proudly.  One does the best with what one can.

The impermanence of life is what makes it so very precious. Carpe Noctem!

Re: LIDL trump CHANEL in blind test

i'm astounded by this. to me, perfume is a luxury item and part of that is that it's not at a bargain bucket price. i can't believe a perfume with such good reviews is cheaper than a couple of decent coffees...that just doesn't seem right. i'm tempted to say that *if* i was really in a situation where i couldn't afford even ebay/discounted prices then i would buy it but a little part of my soul just died thinking about that. i think ultimately i would rather do without and just ask for perfume for xmas and birthdays from my family. i have to question the ingredients and their testing at that price too.

Re: LIDL trump CHANEL in blind test

treenhe wrote:

... i have to question the ingredients and their testing at that price too.

Ah but you see treenhe, this is where we're all taken for a bunch of mugs because I remember seeing a very comprehensive programme about perfumes a few years ago in France and was shocked to hear that the price of the juice accounts on average for only 3% of the total retail price we end up paying.

Yes 3% ... So when you know that Lidl have no advertising to pay for, no celebs attached that demand big pay packets, no launch budget, no PR, no fancy bottles and packaging, there you have it.

Calculate what 3% is for the vast majority of commercial / big distribution scents on the market today and you'll be amazed at how many match Lidl's.

Here is an interesting article I just found on the subject: "Why some perfumes really cost 20p a bottle"

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bill … ottle.html

Do as I say, not as I do - The Others

Re: LIDL trump CHANEL in blind test

Dolby wrote:
treenhe wrote:

... i have to question the ingredients and their testing at that price too.

Ah but you see treenhe, this is where we're all taken for a bunch of mugs because I remember seeing a very comprehensive programme about perfumes a few years ago in France and was shocked to hear that the price of the juice accounts on average for only 3% of the total retail price we end up paying.

Yes 3% ... So when you know that Lidl have no advertising to pay for, no celebs attached that demand big pay packets, no launch budget, no PR, no fancy bottles and packaging, there you have it.

Calculate what 3% is for the vast majority of commercial / big distribution scents on the market today and you'll be amazed at how many match Lidl's.

Here is an interesting article I just found on the subject: "Why some perfumes really cost 20p a bottle"

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bill … ottle.html



don't destroy the myth! *lol

bang goes my 'perfumes are a luxury item' argument then glad

Re: LIDL trump CHANEL in blind test

Hello L'Enfer,

It says SOME perfumes cost 20p to produce, and pigs will fly before these come anywhere near a vat of Iris butter.

You're right that some raw materials are exceedingly expensive, and Guerlain certainly is one house that continues to use them.

Luca Turin explains in this article that cheapo perfumes are often a false economy. An important factor mentioned there too is that profit margin can be up to 95% of the retail price of a perfume.

That doesn't leave very much for the rest.

Do as I say, not as I do - The Others

Re: LIDL trump CHANEL in blind test

L'enfer wrote:

I do think these "cheap" perfumes drive down the standards of what perfumes are released as the houses or companies see that "that bottle of pink bleach" sells well can we make one like that?

ciao



*nodding vigorously

Re: LIDL trump CHANEL in blind test

I bought a bottle of this notorious low-budget scent stuff - rather ridiculously entitled "Suddenly: Madame Glamour" (it was 3.99 Euros only) - and I must confess that it is NOTHING in comparison to Coco Mademoiselle - hence I cannot understand the result of the consumer study at all. http://www.fragrantica.com/js/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/img/smiley-yell.gif

I would never prefer it over the Chanel - it smells cheap - of screechy, unpleasant synthetics - to be precise - and fades away quickly.

Last edited by Juliette has a gun (2011-07-23 05:56:28)

Bad art is a great deal worse than no art at all. Oscar Wilde

Re: LIDL trump CHANEL in blind test

I think Coco Mademoiselle smells cheap, so...

Re: LIDL trump CHANEL in blind test

Dolby wrote:
treenhe wrote:

... i have to question the ingredients and their testing at that price too.

Ah but you see treenhe, this is where we're all taken for a bunch of mugs because I remember seeing a very comprehensive programme about perfumes a few years ago in France and was shocked to hear that the price of the juice accounts on average for only 3% of the total retail price we end up paying.

Yes 3% ... So when you know that Lidl have no advertising to pay for, no celebs attached that demand big pay packets, no launch budget, no PR, no fancy bottles and packaging, there you have it.

Calculate what 3% is for the vast majority of commercial / big distribution scents on the market today and you'll be amazed at how many match Lidl's.

Here is an interesting article I just found on the subject: "Why some perfumes really cost 20p a bottle"

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bill … ottle.html



I just read that article - it's funny because the whole text is based on their own wrong calculations!
They say that cheap materials that cost £20 per kilo can make 100 50 ml bottles for a price of 20p per bottle. OK.

Then they say that quality ingredients cost 20 times as much which (they say) means the actual value of the scented oils in those perfumes is 20 times that of the cheaper products. OK.

Then they add up the numbers and come to the conclusion that 20 times 20p must be £40 which is wrong but they don't get it and ramble on about quality fragrances that contain quality ingredients worth £40 when it's actually only £4!

This is a joke!

Perfume lovers of the world, unite and take over!

Re: LIDL trump CHANEL in blind test

tschiepchen wrote:

Then they add up the numbers and come to the conclusion that 20 times 20p must be £40 which is wrong but they don't get it and ramble on about quality fragrances that contain quality ingredients worth £40 when it's actually only £4!

This is a joke!


Dear tschiepchen,
Gosh, I was too stupid to detect this case of wrong mathematics - but - of course, you are right!!!

In the case of "Suddenly, Madame...." vs "Coco Mademoiselle" my own nose opts for the Chanel because it smells BETTER. Btw, Coco Mademoiselle is not my favourite perfume at all ... but Madame Lidl smells like many other imitations of Coco Mademoiselle available on the market.

The result is the only criterion that matters to me. If you can obtain a great result using cheaper material - why not? I'm only in favour! But if cheap material leads to perfumes which don't satisfy me - why bother?

Last edited by Juliette has a gun (2011-07-23 07:21:59)

Bad art is a great deal worse than no art at all. Oscar Wilde

Re: LIDL trump CHANEL in blind test

raraavis wrote:

I think Coco Mademoiselle smells cheap, so...



http://www.fragrantica.com/js/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/img/smiley-laughing.gif



(Coco M. is not my fav either, but I don't think it "smells cheap". You seem to smell it everywhere, though...).

Bad art is a great deal worse than no art at all. Oscar Wilde

Re: LIDL trump CHANEL in blind test

tschiepchen wrote:

I just read that article - it's funny because the whole text is based on their own wrong calculations!
They say that cheap materials that cost £20 per kilo can make 100 50 ml bottles for a price of 20p per bottle. OK.

Then they say that quality ingredients cost 20 times as much which (they say) means the actual value of the scented oils in those perfumes is 20 times that of the cheaper products. OK.

Then they add up the numbers and come to the conclusion that 20 times 20p must be £40 which is wrong but they don't get it and ramble on about quality fragrances that contain quality ingredients worth £40 when it's actually only £4!

This is a joke!

I feel that it's probably a typo. You're correct, £4 is twenty times 20p.

In any case, this is not an exact science since every perfume is a different price, however, if you stay on the 20x comparison and take some zeleb new release costing say £20, you would have to pay £400 for a top end monetary equivalent and I don't know many perfumes costing that much.

This example is used to illustrate the fact that you get far more for your money by buying quality perfume, and that el cheapos are a false economy.

The passage where this is mentioned is quoting Luca Turin and I think he knows a thing or two about perfumes don't you?

I don't quite see why that makes the article a joke.

Do as I say, not as I do - The Others

Re: LIDL trump CHANEL in blind test

Dolby wrote:

This example is used to illustrate the fact that you get far more for your money by buying quality perfume, and that el cheapos are a false economy.



El cheapos like in "Madame... Suddenly... Lidl" are indeed a false economy, I agree with you, Dolby.

On the other hand, I know many examples of extremely expensive fragrances which don't last, don't smell great and are not worth the money you have to cash out on them!

Let your own nose decide, not the price tag.

Bad art is a great deal worse than no art at all. Oscar Wilde

Re: LIDL trump CHANEL in blind test

Juliette has a gun wrote:

On the other hand, I know many examples of extremely expensive fragrances which don't last, don't smell great and are not worth the money you have to cash out on them!

Well of course Juliette, two wrongs don't make a right glad

Do as I say, not as I do - The Others

Re: LIDL trump CHANEL in blind test

Dolby wrote:
tschiepchen wrote:

I just read that article - it's funny because the whole text is based on their own wrong calculations!
They say that cheap materials that cost £20 per kilo can make 100 50 ml bottles for a price of 20p per bottle. OK.

Then they say that quality ingredients cost 20 times as much which (they say) means the actual value of the scented oils in those perfumes is 20 times that of the cheaper products. OK.

Then they add up the numbers and come to the conclusion that 20 times 20p must be £40 which is wrong but they don't get it and ramble on about quality fragrances that contain quality ingredients worth £40 when it's actually only £4!

This is a joke!

I feel that it's probably a typo. You're correct, £4 is twenty times 20p.

In any case, this is not an exact science since every perfume is a different price, however, if you stay on the 20x comparison and take some zeleb new release costing say £20, you would have to pay £400 for a top end monetary equivalent and I don't know many perfumes costing that much.

This example is used to illustrate the fact that you get far more for your money by buying quality perfume, and that el cheapos are a false economy.

The passage where this is mentioned is quoting Luca Turin and I think he knows a thing or two about perfumes don't you?

I don't quite see why that makes the article a joke.



Dear Dolby, thanks for your response. I am well aware that the numbers given are just estimates and that the calculation should make it easier to understand the difference. But they used this example. It is not my calculation. I bet a lot of people did not spot the error in the Daily Mail article and some of them are probably thinking that either "Britney is trying to con me, oh no!" or "Ha, I knew my slightly more expensive brand is really worth the price!".

I am well aware that only a fraction of the price of a product is actually used to cover the costs (research, production, materials, staff, supply chain, rent, packaging...) and that everything else is profit. But to those who don't know that the article gives a completely false impression.

It does not make a difference if it's a genuine typo, a deliberately planted wrong number or just Mr Turin being misquoted. Fact is that we were given a wrong impression by this article. I have no problem with Mr Turin; I did not say/write anything about him at all. I don't know about his qualifications, all I know (now after some very little and basic research) is that he says what he thinks of perfumes which is no real science as well. I am sure he deserves to be in the position he is and that he has a very refined nose and everything one needs to have to be a perfume critic.

I am all up for "buy as you please" and I really do not care if a perfume costs as much as a cheap lunch deal or if the price of a perfume is closer to one month's rent in London. Buy what you like and rely on your noses, everyone!
And don't let anyone tell you that something you may not even like is "better value for money" - if you don't like it, it's a complete waste of money!

Just for the record: I have discovered celebrity fragrances less than a year ago. I made my fist celebrity perfume purchase on the 1st of September last year. I am well out of their targeted age group and I couldn't care less. I wore Jovan's Musk (oil concentration as EdP) as a teenager and I am now wearing J Lo's Live. It's fantastic that tastes change all the time and that only oneself can make the right decisions.

In regards to the LIDL perfume: I was looking forward to trying it (I don't like Coco Mlle at all but am still curious) but my local LIDL does not stock it. I'll make a quick visit to a larger LIDL store tonight. Will report my findings.

Last edited by tschiepchen (2011-07-23 10:51:50)

Perfume lovers of the world, unite and take over!

Re: LIDL trump CHANEL in blind test

tschiepchen wrote:

Dear Dolby, thanks for your response. I am well aware that the numbers given are just estimates and that the calculation should make it easier to understand the difference. But they used this example. It is not my calculation. I bet a lot of people did not spot the error in the Daily Mail article and some of them are probably thinking that either "Britney is trying to con me, oh no!" or "Ha, I knew my slightly more expensive brand is really worth the price!".

I am well aware that only a fraction of the price of a product is actually used to cover the costs (research, production, materials, staff, supply chain, rent, packaging...) and that everything else is profit. But to those who don't know that the article gives a completely false impression.

It does not make a difference if it's a genuine typo, a deliberately planted wrong number or just Mr Turin being misquoted. Fact is that we were given a wrong impression by this article. I have no problem with Mr Turin; I did not say/write anything about him at all. I don't know about his qualifications, all I know (now after some very little and basic research) is that he says what he thinks of perfumes which is no real science as well. I am sure he deserves to be in the position he is and that he has a very refined nose and everything one needs to have to be a perfume critic.

I am all up for "buy as you please" and I really do not care if a perfume costs as much as a cheap lunch deal or if the price of a perfume is closer to one month's rent in London. Buy what you like and rely on your noses, everyone!
And don't let anyone tell you that something you may not even like is "better value for money" - if you don't like it, it's a complete waste of money!

Just for the record: I have discovered celebrity fragrances less than a year ago. I made my fist celebrity perfume purchase on the 1st of September last year. I am well out of their targeted age group and I couldn't care less. I wore Jovan's Musk (oil concentration as EdP) as a teenager and I am now wearing J Lo's Live. It's fantastic that tastes change all the time and that only oneself can make the right decisions.

In regards to the LIDL perfume: I was looking forward to trying it (I don't like Coco Mlle at all but am still curious) but my local LIDL does not stock it. I'll make a quick visit to a larger LIDL store tonight. Will report my findings.

It is funny to see that out of an article of goodness knows how many characters (couldn't be bothered to run a count) you choose to focus on ONE digit, and boy do you seem angry about it.

Typo or no typo, it doesn't make a great deal of difference as, unless they're simpletons, I don't quite see how so many people could be fooled into thinking that a perfume contains £40 worth of raw ingredients since this is the average price of a fragrance today.

Nobody is arguing the fact that you should let your nose decide, and as they say in France, "Les gouts et les couleurs...", in other words, "each to their own".

I also agree that there are some expensive perfumes made with cheap ingredients.

However, you can dispute it whichever way you want but every single low cost modern Avon, Yves Rocher, Paris Hilton, Britney, Celine Dion & co etc etc etc (...) are made dirt cheap and sold for a fortune in comparison. So the person thinking "Britney is trying to con me" has had a moment of lucidity if nothing else by realising it.

This article does NOT give a completely wrong impression, just look again at the £20 Vs £400 I mention and think about it. (Gee, I can't believe I'm defending a Daily Mail article of all things).

Dr Luca Turin is not really a perfume critic, he's a physiologist and scientific researcher specialising in the mechanics of smell, and more precisely has made groundbreaking discoveries by advancing a theory based on molecular vibrational spectroscopy.

Perfumes are just his little play toys.

Do as I say, not as I do - The Others

Re: LIDL trump CHANEL in blind test

Juliette has a gun wrote:
raraavis wrote:

I think Coco Mademoiselle smells cheap, so...



http://www.fragrantica.com/js/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/img/smiley-laughing.gif



(Coco M. is not my fav either, but I don't think it "smells cheap". You seem to smell it everywhere, though...).

This is probably it- I smell it everywhere..and then it's part of a trend at least as prevalent as fruity-florals (IOW-too many, and they start to smell the same), and then there are the associations with the wearers... (And I actually owned it.) I don't think I mean cheap as in actual quality of ingredients, but cheap as in aesthetically cheap, tacky. Not just Coco Mlle, but that whole genre/note combo has that association for me. It bothers me that the fragrant impression of Coco Mlle in particular is that it's supposed to smell expensive- that makes it worse! superglad

Re: LIDL trump CHANEL in blind test

It seems to me that the cheaper drugstore versions of designer perfumes probably have equitable base ingredients in them all. That is why they can offer them at such low prices, since they don't pay for marketing, advertisement, and not even much testing since they are replicating. The reason I think is the restriction on so many older ingredients like animalics, oakmoss; various natural plant extracts and indoles are not now used in many mainstream perfumes. Everyone seems to be using lab created chemicals. I even notice a lot less stinkiness from many recently formulated jasmine accords as opposed to 5-10 years ago. It would cost too much to withdraw the indoles from a natural derived sample. So they would probably just create hedione in a lab for jasmine, damascone for roses, ionone for violets, and so on. This is probably done for many flowers. The percentage of natural ingredients in anything nowadays is probably miniscule. Fake white moss for the oak moss like Estee Lauder now does.,,,fake musk…..fake castoreum...some kind of fake civet now for Guerlain. I think that is why the older perfumes start actually smelling so harsh. It isn't the vanilla in Shalimar that makes it round and smooth. It's the natural civet that smooths out the harsh top citrics in combo with the powerful wood base. Can't have real Shalimar without real civet. Which is another reason I don't do vintages.....it's hopeless to try and replicate the beauty of some things when they were specifically created as masterpieces with critical ingredient substances now banned. Side effect of civet is the urine accord, but it's not so strong on some people....like my mother. And when you don’t’ suffer the negative side effects of civet or negative side effects of a heavier application of indoles like my mother, the resulting scent is sublimely gorgeous. They don’t have an artificial civet the can pass muster yet. Or a suitable quality fake oakmoss. I think that is also why they are making so many EDTs of the twisted vintages since the harshness is more easily hidden in dilution. Hard to hide lack of real civet in a parfum extrait that heavy and strong when it needs it. I'm getting off topic, but what I am saying is that most every house uses synthetics en masse now. The cost of this would be similar when sold in bulk by whatever chemical company makes it. The only major difference then would be just the advertising/marketing/research/packaging costs. You don't see the designers copying drugstores do you? Oh, and that baccarat bottle costs a bundle to design and make too. That is a huge part of the cost. Packaging cost difference is VERY easy to see. When it comes to smell, the designer may have a patent on the actual formula, which is probably why the drugstore brand will not smell EXACTLY like it. However if the subtle difference MAKES ALL the difference to you, then of course you will buy what really pleases your nose. As far as cost to make either scent itself? It isn’t much different at all.

Last edited by RosaMilena (2011-07-23 13:32:13)

The impermanence of life is what makes it so very precious. Carpe Noctem!

Re: LIDL trump CHANEL in blind test

Dolby wrote:
tschiepchen wrote:

Dear Dolby, thanks for your response. I am well aware that the numbers given are just estimates and that the calculation should make it easier to understand the difference. But they used this example. It is not my calculation. I bet a lot of people did not spot the error in the Daily Mail article and some of them are probably thinking that either "Britney is trying to con me, oh no!" or "Ha, I knew my slightly more expensive brand is really worth the price!".

I am well aware that only a fraction of the price of a product is actually used to cover the costs (research, production, materials, staff, supply chain, rent, packaging...) and that everything else is profit. But to those who don't know that the article gives a completely false impression.

It does not make a difference if it's a genuine typo, a deliberately planted wrong number or just Mr Turin being misquoted. Fact is that we were given a wrong impression by this article. I have no problem with Mr Turin; I did not say/write anything about him at all. I don't know about his qualifications, all I know (now after some very little and basic research) is that he says what he thinks of perfumes which is no real science as well. I am sure he deserves to be in the position he is and that he has a very refined nose and everything one needs to have to be a perfume critic.

I am all up for "buy as you please" and I really do not care if a perfume costs as much as a cheap lunch deal or if the price of a perfume is closer to one month's rent in London. Buy what you like and rely on your noses, everyone!
And don't let anyone tell you that something you may not even like is "better value for money" - if you don't like it, it's a complete waste of money!

Just for the record: I have discovered celebrity fragrances less than a year ago. I made my fist celebrity perfume purchase on the 1st of September last year. I am well out of their targeted age group and I couldn't care less. I wore Jovan's Musk (oil concentration as EdP) as a teenager and I am now wearing J Lo's Live. It's fantastic that tastes change all the time and that only oneself can make the right decisions.

In regards to the LIDL perfume: I was looking forward to trying it (I don't like Coco Mlle at all but am still curious) but my local LIDL does not stock it. I'll make a quick visit to a larger LIDL store tonight. Will report my findings.

It is funny to see that out of an article of goodness knows how many characters (couldn't be bothered to run a count) you choose to focus on ONE digit, and boy do you seem angry about it.

Typo or no typo, it doesn't make a great deal of difference as, unless they're simpletons, I don't quite see how so many people could be fooled into thinking that a perfume contains £40 worth of raw ingredients since this is the average price of a fragrance today.

Nobody is arguing the fact that you should let your nose decide, and as they say in France, "Les gouts et les couleurs...", in other words, "each to their own".

I also agree that there are some expensive perfumes made with cheap ingredients.

However, you can dispute it whichever way you want but every single low cost modern Avon, Yves Rocher, Paris Hilton, Britney, Celine Dion & co etc etc etc (...) are made dirt cheap and sold for a fortune in comparison. So the person thinking "Britney is trying to con me" has had a moment of lucidity if nothing else by realising it.

This article does NOT give a completely wrong impression, just look again at the £20 Vs £400 I mention and think about it. (Gee, I can't believe I'm defending a Daily Mail article of all things).

Dr Luca Turin is not really a perfume critic, he's a physiologist and scientific researcher specialising in the mechanics of smell, and more precisely has made groundbreaking discoveries by advancing a theory based on molecular vibrational spectroscopy.

Perfumes are just his little play toys.

Hi Dolby,

I am really sorry if I upset you! I am not angry about anything. I just noticed the error and pointed it out as no one else seemed to have doubted that £40 of quality ingredients are in a 50 ml designer or high end perfume bottle.
I did/do not dispute that budget fragrances (let's call them that!) are made with cheaper ingredients.
Anyway, this old article would probably never have come up anywhere if they had made the error on the other side, in favour of Avril, J Lo and Justin Bieber (like £200 vs £400).

The Britney reference was meant to be exaggerated. I am certain you know that but it seems to really bug you. Anyway, I am sure we agree that the motives of Guerlain and Coty are the same as every other company's motives.

About Luca Turin: I did not mention him. But you asked me if I did not think he knows some bits about perfume. So I just googled Sanchez and Turin and read the first bits of the first short summary that came up. But thanks you looked him up in more detail. He does seem to be a talented scientist.

Have a good evening!

Perfume lovers of the world, unite and take over!

Re: LIDL trump CHANEL in blind test

Rosa Milena, wow, what a wealth of knowledge you are! You are probably right with your guess about the base notes of drugstore fragrances. I have quite a few fragrances that leave almost the same sweet vanilla/musk accord on my skin - the only difference seems to be the remains of the different floral accords from the fragrance's heart.

But a lack of substance is found in most of today's perfumes. The majority of the ones made before 1990 (rough estimate as I cannot really pinpoint the year) lasted for ages while it's the exact opposite with recent perfume launches.

If it has to do with natural or synthetic oils only is something we cannot really judge. Apparently everything can be created synthetically (I read a great article about perfumer Céline Barel who is a master of creating the most incredible scents by using the "ugliest" materials).
But I too find differences in fragrances from then and now and think "Who the heck did sign off on this version?"
This keeps me wondering, why aren't they able to recreate the real thing when they manage to get that close?
It is well-known some of the designers do struggle a bit and that for some of them the beauty and perfume branch is the only profitable branch of the business. It makes sense to reduce costs in tough times but I wonder why they do not cut costs in their less lucrative lines. Oh well, we will never know!

Regarding the LIDL fragrance: Not lucky (again) but I am sure that I will find them somewhere.

Perfume lovers of the world, unite and take over!

Re: LIDL trump CHANEL in blind test

They DON'T have a truly identical match for the complexity of natural scents. They just combine various molecular accords to approximate them. That is why original versions of vintages don't smell the same, and generally are not attractive.

Actually that is why I just search for a beautiful newly created scent that is NOT dependent upon genuine organic compounds in its original formula. I want something that is beautiful OUTSIDE the need for genuine organic , rare/expensive/endangered animalics -or- rare/expensive/endangered plant derivatives.

I'm fine with my synthetic jasmine. I like NOT having organic indoles for which my particular skin turns sour. I want a magnificent floral that does not require civet or castoreum or oakmoss to shine forth in splendor.

I think that is why gourmands and clean scents exploded in perfumery. MUCH easier to replicate vanilla, chocolate, and fruit than to replicate the complex scent of civet or oakmoss. Easy to make clean florals without indoles that don't require heavy woods or citrics that NEED the creamy softening of animalics or warmth of genuine oakmoss to offset harshness.

MUCH more difficult to create a really beautiful, elegant, and complex floral that doesn't require the softening warmth of animalics to offset over-tartness, soapy extremes, and astringency. But of course this is what I really want. I don't often find it.

So, I keep searching, sniffing......as do we all.

Last edited by RosaMilena (2011-07-24 01:50:35)

The impermanence of life is what makes it so very precious. Carpe Noctem!