Perfume poisoning in Texas

A woman in a Texas bank sprayed "strong perfume", according to the BBC. Two people complained of chest pains and headaches. An announcement was made that anyone feeling ill should leave the building; 150 people did, and twelve were later taken to hospital by ambulance, complaining of dizziness and breathing difficulties.

Now, my feeling is that the vast majority of the 150 were simply grabbing a chance for a few minutes off work, and in general I think the EU's fussing about the allergenic potential of, say, oakmoss is blown completely out of proportion. Nonetheless, I have sympathy with the original two complainants. Because some perfume, while not necessarily allergenic, is just so foul that a person of nasal sensibility cannot put up with it.

It's not a question of "strength", which is a misleading term. Personally, I would find someone wearing the pure parfum of No 5 or Mitsouko unobjectionable, and, in fact, entirely pleasant to be around. Meanwhile, the eau de toilette of many celebrity perfumes – or even something so mild as Lynx/Axe or Impulse body spray – can seriously gross me out. It's a question of quality, and that comes down to composition, ingredients, and intent of the perfumer.

Most perfume is sold in Duty Free, department stores or chemist shops, and this is the key to the problem. In those enclosed spaces, the environment quickly fills up with a high-level chemical hum, which obliterates any subtle notes. To sell, a perfume or body spray must stand out from the crowd. One way to do this is to make it incredibly aggressive. After smelling, say, five or ten similar scents, most buyers are so confused and exhausted that something which smells powerful and different will appeal.

The results are obvious, and probably the reason so many people claim to dislike perfume. I can see where they're coming from: I dislike at least 90% of perfumes. I have on more than one occasion had to move tables at a restaurant on account of somebody else's bad perfume. I've had to scrub bad perfume off my own arms. As Beverley Sutphin has observed, being stuck with bad perfume on a flight is intolerable. Just last week, I was stuck at a restaurant between two women, both of whom were wearing different bad perfumes: the combination was particularly dire, and actually put me off my food. I concur entirely with those people who claim a noseful of something offensive may have a physical effect.

The real question, though, is what perfume caused it? The reports give no clue, but there are so many possibilities! The ones I've had to move away from or scrub off include, of course, Angel, Amarige de Givenchy, a revolting and shockingly overpriced perfume by Lalique once sprayed on me in Roja Dove's shop at the top of Harrod's, and Cinema by Yves Saint Laurent. And the obvious culprits could include Giorgio Beverly Hills – allegedly banned by some shops and restaurants in the 1980s – or the famously wrecking-ball fragrances of Poison or Opium.

Any more guesses? What perfume might make you evacuate the building and call in a HazMat team?

On Pretension

New perfumes! New perfumes! Let's get unwrapping and see what we've got.

Lovely. Rose Noir, Eau de Parfum, nice classy white box. No problems there other than it's huge compared to a bottle of perfume. What's inside?

Er... another box. Good good. With some symbolism. A crown, and a Trivial Pursuit counter, and a thing that's a bit like an aleph with an extra bit. Now we have to break two seals to get in.

Bottle, excellent. What's that on the right?

Oooh, a tiny envelope! Maybe it's ingredients? That would be boring. Or a nice little message from Gorman? Perhaps thanking me for buying his lovely fragrance, like you get with Amouage?

The text reads:

The edges of its petals begin to blacken, and yet the classic damascene rose is no less beautiful--its scent no less evocative. But of what? Not of innocence, nor prurience. No, it's something subtler, something sophisticated yet animal, the aura of Baudelaire. The rarest flowers mingling their fragrance. The Oriental splendor, might whisper: restraint and order, bless; luxury and voluptuousness.

Oh, for god's sake, what the hell is that all about? Why is it that, so often, people writing about perfume descend into rubbish (and slightly illiterate) fifth-form poetry? It's not even poetry, it's faux poetry - fridge poetry, the Vettriano of poetry. It is utterly pretentious and awful. I can just imagine the copywriter staring dreamily at the Lady of Shalott poster above their desk and composing their horrible prose. "It smells of roses... no... too abrupt. It smells of the scent of roses carried on the breeze... much better! What kind of breeze? Oh... It smells of the scent of roses carried on the breath of lovers... wonderful! 'Smells' is clumsy... how about... It resonates with the scent of roses carried on the breath of tragic lovers... I'm a genius."

So much writing about perfume is packed with these kinds of adolescent flights of fancy which tell you nothing whatsoever about how the bloody thing smells. I'm not suggesting that we should replace all perfume writing with dry lists of ingredients, but that we should use comparisons that have meaning - does it smell of libraries? Does it make you think of the sea? Does it remind you of a walk in the woods in the summer? Maybe. Does it whisper 'restraint and order'? Is it evocative of the aura of Baudelaire? I doubt it. I hate it when I spot a piece on perfume and discover, upon reading, that it's nothing about perfume at all, but rather a piece of GCSE-level free association with all the sophistication of My Chemical Romance lyrics.

Let's see how Frédéric Malle does it, shall we?



A black box. With a bottle in it. Full marks to Monsieur Malle.

Blood, Sweat, Sperm, Saliva

The Metro (dreadful free London paper) has a piece today on Sécrétions Magnifiques:

New perfume smells of semen and sweat

Want a scent with a distinct fragrance that no one else has?
Well, blood, sweat, saliva and a dollop of sperm is just the thing for the stinking rich, if a perfume on sale at Harvey Nichols is anything to go by.
The perfume, Sécrétions Magnifiques, contains the smell of all those things and still sells for £76 a pop.
Maker Etat Libre d'Orange markets it as a raunchy alternative to the likes of Poison and Chanel No.5, calling it 'subversive' and 'disturbing'.
The company said: 'It's love or hate at first sight. Like blood, sweat, sperm, saliva, Sécrétions Magnifiques is as real as an olfactory coitus that sends one into raptures, to the pinnacle of sensual pleasure.
'Tongues and sexes find one another, pleasure explodes and all goes wild.'
The perfume mixes accords - a blending of scents - to recreate the smell of blood, sweat, saliva and semen with the more pleasant odours of coconut and sandalwood. Perfume expert Roja Dove said the aroma was a refreshing alternative to bland fragrances.
'The kind of people who will like this range are people who think they are being really, really alternative and going against the establishment and being really rather racy,' he said.
'But it is a bit of a mystery why anyone would want to smell of sweat, blood, saliva and sperm.'
Another perfume in the range is Jasmin et Cigarette, which does exactly what it says on the tin, stinking of jasmine and uh, cigarettes.
A spokesman for Harvey Nichols, the only shop in the country to stock the range, insisted it was popular. 'Niche fragrances tend to do very well in our fragrance offering,' he said.

Well, this is the Metro we're talking about, so it's not like I expected quality journalism. But... really. Shall I complain first about the glaring factual errors (Harvey Nichols isn't the only shop in the country to sell the range - I was sniffing them in Les Senteurs just the other day) or the horrible writing (Jasmin et Cigarette does not stink of jasmine, thanks very much)? I almost can't decide. I should mention that the print edition of the paper had an extra subtitle for the article which claimed that the fragrance was made from semen and sweat. Nice work, guys.

Putting the journalistic crappiness of the Metro aside for a minute, this part interests me:

Perfume expert Roja Dove said... "But it is a bit of a mystery why anyone would want to smell of sweat, blood, saliva and sperm."

Did Roja Dove really say that, do you think? Dove is one of the world's leading experts on fragrance, so I seriously doubt that he finds body smells 'a bit of a mystery'. I should have thought he's encountered them before. In fact, he once described a fragrance as 'what it would smell like if you inserted your finger into a clean rectum and then sniffed it' - and he was selling that in his shop. Or is he just bad-mouthing Etat Libre d'Orange because Harvey Nichols is his main competitor?

There is, perhaps, a good reason why Dove might dismiss Etat Libre d'Orange's fragrances: it would be fair to accuse the company of prioritising style over substance. Those I smelled the other day weren't particularly great, smelling generic and uninteresting, even though I love the names. I suspect, though, that the most probable explanation for Dove's comment is that the Metro made it up.