Weekend Update, and a note on the word “chemical”

First I wanted to say thank you to Ida for her lovely review of Ambre Noir on Fragrantica yesterday! I’ve heard from a number of people over the years that they like to use Ambre Noir as a layering fragrance, which makes sense to me.

I’m still testing the new floral scent and tinkering a little bit with the formula. I’ve not had much time to spend on it but am getting close.

A few interesting links that you may have missed recently:

I love natural perfumery ingredients and prefer fragrances that contain high percentages of them, but this post caught my eye because, even though I am a fan of naturals, I still dislike the misuse of the word “chemical.” An Australian chemistry teacher created illustrations of natural foods with accompanying ingredient lists to illustrate that even things like natural raw fruits contain chemicals and that “chemistry is everywhere.” When people say that they want a perfume without chemicals, they really mean that they want a perfume without synthetic chemicals. Or, they may mean that they want a perfume without toxic substances. There are synthetic and natural chemicals, and there are synthetic and natural toxic substances. I don’t want to get into the natural/synthetic debate, but the chemistry teacher’s illustrations do help make his point about the word “chemical.”

Here’s an article about taking the study of the genetic influence on scent perception one step further by trying to understand how some smells (like rotting meat) are genetically hard-coded from birth to be distasteful (at least to most humans!).

Jordan of The Fragrant Man is posting a series on oud on Fragrantica; his series on sandalwood on basenotes was excellent so I look forward to reading the oud series too.