evan@pedsgo.UUCP (Evan Marcus) (12/31/85)
I have been barraged with advertisements lately regarding cheap/inexpensive imitations of expensive brand-name perfumes, often offering imitation jewelry if I bought it. They have ranged in price from $1.25 up to $19.95. I am getting tired of the advertising (both on TV and thru direct mail), and was wondering if anyone had ever tried any of this stuff, and if it didn't smell like old turpentine or something. The MOTOS likes the perfume called Opium, which lists at about $80/oz, but thru these guys I seem to be able to get it from $9.95/oz., or so. Anybody know anything about this? If enough people mail to me, I will post a summary. -- NAME: Evan L. Marcus UUCP: ...vax135!petsd!pedsgd!pedsgo!evan USnail: CONCURRENT Computer Corporation (formerly Perkin-Elmer DSG) M/S 308, 106 Apple St., Tinton Falls, NJ 07724 MA BELL:(201) 758-7357 LIVE: "Hey, Evan" QUOTE: I don't trust any air if I can't see it.
tw8023@pyuxii.UUCP (T Wheeler) (01/03/86)
Those imitation perfumes will, in most cases, smell just like the expensive ones. The makers get the formulas from a publication (I can't remember the name). Anyone can make the stuff, given the right ingredients. What the makers can't do is package it just like the original. That's fraud. There was, at one time, a small shop in the Wall Street area of NY that would make up any perfume you wanted at one tenth the cost of the real thing. Right next door was another small shop that sold perfume bottles, nearly like the ones that the good stuff came in. You could have a perfume made up and go next door and package it yourself. They were honest, though, they wouldn't let you package more than three bottles from their shop to cut down on someone trying to peddle the stuff as the real thing. By the way, the shops are gone now. Replaced by a high rise office building. T. C. Wheeler
ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) (01/04/86)
> The makers get the formulas from a > publication (I can't remember the name). Anyone can make > the stuff, given the right ingredients. What the makers > can't do is package it just like the original. That's fraud. What about the patent laws? Don't they stop people from making copies of perfume formulas? Or aren't they patented?
larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) (01/04/86)
> I have been barraged with advertisements lately regarding cheap/inexpensive > imitations of expensive brand-name perfumes, often offering imitation > jewelry if I bought it. They have ranged in price from $1.25 up to $19.95. The key phrase imbedded in the advertising is ``our version of the famous perfume [insert name here]''. This is a disclaimer which gives these schlock imitation perfume companies great leeway in avoiding prosecution for mail fraud and from violating assorted other deceptive advertising statutes. You get what you pay for, and these imitations are trash. There are no shortcuts to the manufacture of a quality perfume. The various `famous' perfumes consist of mixtures of as many as 30 different fragrences, along with carefully selected fixatives which retard and equalize the evaporation rates of the various constituent fragrences. One characteristic of a cheap imitation perfume is that the overall fragrence *changes* while being worn; this results from a lack of proper fixatives. Save your money until you can buy the real stuff from a reputable store. ==> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York <== ==> UUCP {decvax|dual|rocksanne|rocksvax|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry <== ==> VOICE 716/741-9185 {rice|shell}!baylor!/ <== ==> FAX 716/741-9635 {G1, G2, G3 modes} duke!ethos!/ <== ==> burl!gladys!/ <== ==> "Have you hugged your cat today?" ihnp4!/ <==
bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) (01/05/86)
In the mid-70s I worked in the 'counterfeit' perfume business, both training people and mixing tho mostly from cookbooks from a master perfumer on the staff (I won't mention his name, but his credentials were impeccable.) Well, the answer to 'knock-off' or whatever you call those perfumes which claim to be the same only cheaper w/o the fancy labels etc is complicated, I will only consider the case where you are dealing with a reputable company (ours was although counterfeiting was not our major source of revenue, it was more an amusement for a line of generic fragrances, something to do with customers at the counter): a) No matter what perfumers claim, most perfume sources are synthetic, likely originating from Int'l Flavors and Fragrances, I forget the reason but the perfume industry has some deal with the govt that allows them to lie about this. This is true even of expensive, big name perfumes (I heard from an old-timer that that wonderful aroma from a freshly opened coffee-can also originates at IFF, that the coffee industry was granted that little lie during WWII to keep people happy with second-rate coffee and no one has removed it from the books, I don't know if it's true, but it's an example of this sort of collusion.) b) There is an expression in the perfume industry: "The most expensive part of a perfume is the bottle", consider the Lalique crystal bottles etc, it's probably almost always true (next would probably come advertising.) c) There *are* however expenses and secret formulas involved, knock-offs can only approximate. A very common side effect of a cheap imitation is that it smells very good in the bottle (heavens forbid, when wafted through the air after being dipped onto an absorbant swizzle stick! never the bottle :-) When you rub some into your skin and it combines with body heat and chemistry the effect may be different. This may range from it being too short lasting, too strong odored or even just plain changing into something unpleasant. d) No, the perfume industry does not bother to sue these copy-cats. Their motto seems to be 'imitation is the finest form of flattery'. They consider perfume a status symbol and no one who would really buy their expensive products would buy a knock-off, only 'common' people do that (needless to say, it is a *very* snotty business.) Besides, the copycats have never seemed to really cut into their business as they figure it, probably for exactly the reasons they state (status.) Yes, you could put your copy into a real bottle from an initial purchase and who would know but, as the carpenter who assiduously oiled and rubbed the parts of his furniture no one would ever see said "I (you) would know". I think, from experience, that the two most important factors in choosing a counterfeit perfume, if you are so inclined, are the reputability of the counterfeiter and whether the particular perfume lends itself to being successfully copied, some do better than others. As I remember, Chanel No 5 was easy to copy, Bal A Versailles (sp?) was hard, Joy was probably easy except to a very descriminating nose (in which case they retched), Y by Yves St Laurent was quite easy, Shalimar could be mimicked by rubbing your entire body with twinkies and letting it ferment for a while :-) How to choose a good source is the hardest, I for one would not consider ordering such a product by mail. I would go somewhere I could smell it and then buy the smallest possible amount and try it for a while. If you did that and had some other people you could trust for an opinion (seriously folks, if you think you wear perfume for others, ask them once in a while what they think!) how wrong could you go? You're only talking probably a $10 risk unless you couldn't stand the thought of being discovered (I have often been known to remark loudly at a party "Ok, who's the wise guy wearing the cheap J'Reviens knock-off..c'mon, fess up!") As Shakespeare once said "A woman smells best when she smells least". (No, I am not sure he said that, I should look it up.) -Barry Shein, Boston University Gee, ya learn some pretty weird things traveling through life...
larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) (01/06/86)
> > The makers get the formulas from a > > publication (I can't remember the name). Anyone can make > > the stuff, given the right ingredients. What the makers > > can't do is package it just like the original. That's fraud. > > What about the patent laws? Don't they stop people from making > copies of perfume formulas? Or aren't they patented? Proprietary chemical FORMULATIONS - which are combinations of existing chemicals, with perfumes falling in this category - are generally not patented, and in fact, are generally not patentABLE. This is as opposed to chemical syntheses, which result in indentifiable new chemicals. Furthermore, even if patenting were readily possible, the general industry attitude toward proprietary chemical formulations is one of simple secrecy. A patent for a proprietary formulation would be difficult to enforce, and would only tell the competition exactly what is in the product - thereby providing an opportunity for competition to "work around" the patent. A classic [hehe, pun intended] example of the above is the attitude of Coca Cola in protecting the formulation of their products. In addition, complex organic formulations like perfumes are extremely difficult to analyze chemically in order to ascertain exact composition; the most effective formula protection is still secrecy. ==> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York <== ==> UUCP {decvax|dual|rocksanne|rocksvax|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry <== ==> VOICE 716/741-9185 {rice|shell}!baylor!/ <== ==> FAX 716/741-9635 {G1, G2, G3 modes} duke!ethos!/ <== ==> burl!gladys!/ <== ==> "Have you hugged your cat today?" ihnp4!/ <==
edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (01/07/86)
Some friends and I once did a test of an Opium-imitation (Opium is a
perfume, for those who don't know) against the Real-Thing. (It was
an otherwise dull party, so what the hey...) We made two interesting
discoveries:
1) The fake worked much better on some people than on others. It's
a well-known fact that the resulting odor of a perfume can be
strongly affected by the skin chemistry of the wearer.
2) Some people were able to find a much stronger difference ("Gee,
these don't smell a bit alike") than others ("They smell pretty
similar to me") between the two, even when applied to (the right
and left wrists of) the same individuals.
But the bottom line was: in all cases, people were able to tell the
difference. (One, in fact, prefered the smell of the imitation.)
So much for an informal, non-blind test. The quality of various
imitations may vary.
-Ed Hall
ihnp4!sdcrdcf!randvax!edhall