Chanel vs. Shalimar - Preliminary Bout

This week: House of fur, ghost scents, and Ben Gazzara, who died this week.

But first -- Chanel No. 5 vs. Shalimar, Round Two.

Nothing can beat the Chanel No. 5 ad.  But what does my Resident Perfume Expert say, now that he's finished with his chemistry mid-term and can get around to what's really important?   (Honestly - his mother and I certainly didn't study that hard.  Kids today!)

Christopher Bickel:

In response to your concern that you have "mediocre taste" in perfume-- once you have actively smelled and investigated around 50 perfumes you might begin to see a change in your tastes.

The best way to truly appreciate a perfume is if you treat it like a book. You can't ignore it for even a few minutes, or else you lose the story (or lack thereof).

While I appreciate Chanel No. 5 (parfum) I don't particularly like it. You're not alone. Personally, It's more important as an artistic landmark than an enjoyable fragrance. The eau de toilette version (a 1950's take on No. 5 with more violet and peach), is the only incarnation i genuinely like.

Shalimar > No. 5, in my opinion. Artistically Shalimar and No. 5 are masterpieces, but the complexity of Shalimar makes me like it more. The same woman could wear both, definitely. I am all for people wearing whatever they like whenever they like on principle.

But I also instinctively feel that the kind of woman who wears No. 5 is simple but chic, whereas the woman who wears Shalimar is over the top and glamorous. No. 5 would wear a silk blazer while Shalimar would wear a mink coat. As a final thought, I don't really think that anyone should wear No. 5 or Shalimar whenever they feel like it. Perfumes like those are like fancy jewelry-- you don't wear an opal pendant when you're gardening (at least I'd hope not). You need to be able to play the part, because those kinds of perfumes can end up wearing you instead.

If you're smelling the parfum version of Shalimar you are smelling what Guerlain claims to be the original formula. That is a dirty lie.

Any perfume made before the 50's in its current incarnation does not smell exactly like it should because it is missing synthetic musks that were found to cause brain cancer. Luckily, musks don't have much of a smell of themselves, they act more like a filter on a perfume to make whatever you're smelling seem richer, smoother, or like something else, so replacing the musks changed the actual structure of the fragrance very little. 

Additionally, as of 2010, everything smells wrong because the IFRA decided that they were going to restrict the use of oakmoss, jasmine, vanilla, rose, etc.

I have never smelled the original No. 5 or Shalimar and do not intend to because I would end up spending all my money on vintage perfume. If you're interested, the "The Perfumed Court" (a sample selling website) for samples of vintage ones.

Given that I've never smelled the originals, I cannot say exactly how the incarnations across the years have differed from one another. All I know is that many people have noticed an undesirable change in Shalimar and No. 5, along with the other older classics.

(Next question:  why restrict the use of natural products?  Scarcity?  Do roses also cause brain cancer?  How much perfume would you have to drench yourself in anyway to develop brain cancer?  For some reason, the only person I could picture this happening to is the Duchess of Windsor. )

Thank you, Chris.  That was excellent.  I didn't know that you could buy perfume samples.  Certainly more dignified than trying to talk the Sephora salesladies into giving me what I want and not what's new this week!  I bought minute amounts of vintage Chanel No. 5 and the Shalimar.   I have a feeling that they'll both end up wearing me instead.

Would a fur coat help?

We've seen Revillon's perfume, Carnet de Bal, in this issue.  Here are the furs.  Above, more Southwest African (Namibian) Persian Lamb, this time "Paris-propelled young design sorcery in the modern Persian Lamb .   . . blacker, brighter, lighter!"  It looks like a bathrobe.

Below, "Fouke-Dyed 'Matara' (Trademark) Alaska Fur Seal.    It's too plush.

The House of Revillon was (is?  was until last year?  Can't really tell, from the scant research I had time for this week - sorry.) an interesting company.  Founded in the 1700's, it had a network in Canada and a fabulous cold storage building in New York, in addition to its showrooms.  But most intriguing, Revillon  underwrote the first ever documentary, Nanook of the North, chronicling a year in the life of the "lovable, happy-go-lucky" people of northern Canada.  

Let's go to the movies! 

And see Anatomy of a Murder again, in honor of Ben Gazzara.

*  Small-town lawyer with a refrigerator full of fish lands case of a lifetime.

*  James Stewart, Ben Gazzara, Eve Arden, Lee Remick, George C. Scott all terrific.

*  Also:  Duke Ellington, the attorney who asked McCarthy 'Have you no shame?,' cute dog, lurid story, great titles. . . well worth it.