Perfume and Price, or the Yatagan Conundrum

image(Image Will Kemp)

I’ve been thinking about the wonderful yet inexpensive perfumes out there. There are many well considered, beautifully made perfumes that you can buy for a song. Cheap or pricy, though, the best perfumes must stand up to the same criteria. Is it coherent and balanced? Does it hold up over time? Does it smell good? Is it ‘you’?

Let’s look at perfume criticism. And let’s not start with the accepted classics, the greats, the grandes dames. Let’s also skip the niche all-stars, and side-step the premise that more money equals better perfume. Let’s start with the commonly-available, inexpensive yet extraordinary perfumes. Rochas TocadeGeoffrey Beene Grey FlannelCaron Troisième HommeBalmain IvoireGres CabaretEstee Lauder AzuréeClinique Aromatics Elixir or Estee Lauder Private Collection. I’ll use Caron’s Yatagan here as a proxy for all of the above. At the time of writing (3/2013) a 4.2 oz bottle of the edt costs 29.49 an Amazon.com with free shipping.

I hesitate to use the word “great” in perfumery. I think of greatness as an aspiration or a standard of the Old School. I hope that new schools in perfumery and criticism might promote quality, creativity and analysis, but not hold out judgment and arbitrary thresholds as principal goals. Greatness connotes a false objectivity, or at least a socially agreed upon judgment, when it is in fact fundamentally subjective. We say ‘Great’ when we’re looking for the dividing line: high/low, good/bad, worthy/crass.

This bottle of water features over 10,000 hand-applied Swarovski crystals. Bling H20 water bottles are all made to order, numbered and come with white handling gloves and a case. (Value: $2,600, courtesy of Bling H2O)

(Image Bling H2O)

Dissociating cost and excellence is an important step in taking a discerning look at perfume. Divorcing notions of status and aspiration from the sale and use of perfume is a tricky prospect since perfume and fashion are historically and currently bound together. Still, while perfume and fashion are bound in the marketplace, perfume doesn’t necessarily have to be viewed and debated in the same light as fashion and design.

OK, so Caron Yatagan. (1976, Perfumer Vincent Marcello.) Per Caron’s own marketing it is a, “Flowerless Oriental Chypre”.  So perfectly, hollowly evocative! It is instantly familiar to the ear, like flourless chocolate cake, but is also an easily decoded intimation.  Flowerless = not pretty (read: the troubled masculinity of 1976, its year of origin).  Oriental = a long history of describing ‘exotic’ sensibilities using tedious stereotypes of the inscrutable East.  Chypre = green, bitter, mossy and, importantly, sophisticated.  I imagine Caron might have been scared of Yatagan’s distinctiveness and attempted to use classic fragrance language to come up with a catch-phrase to comfort and flatter its potential buyers.

Caron may have been encompassingly vague in their marketing language, dimly offensive in their oriental allusion, but fortunately direct and brave in their fragrance. Yatagan has that striking balance of starkness and richness found in the best and most distinctive of perfumes.

So given its quality, why is Yatagan so inexpensive? Some factors I can loosely understand: economies of scale over time, brand recognition obviating the need for specific product marketing, possibly lower composition/production costs, clear profit margins assuming the initial investments in the 1970s have been returned. But rhetorically, why does Yatagan cost so much less than the weekly iteration of men’s designer crap fragrance? And why does Yatagan cost literally one-tenth the price of some directly comparably, high quality fragrances like those from Serge Lutens and Amouage?

Any thoughts?