Showing posts with label style. Show all posts
Showing posts with label style. Show all posts

Thursday, January 1, 2009

For The Pet Who Has Everything

Self indulgence has its limits. So when you've reached yours, think of others less fortunate. Those furry and hairy individuals lacking the means to obtain perfume and cosmetics you take for granted.

I remember my amusement over last year's launch of Juicy Criture. OK, my horror, but tinged with amusement. A friend who promotes Liz Claiborne scents including sister Juicy Couture line said she had just put on a Nordstrom event for cats and dogs. Creativity kudos to whomever first cooked up the notion of "dog nail pawlish."

Until quite recently, I assumed the beauty industry's interest in four-legged consumers was limited to household pets. But no! Fragrance is coming on strong in the large animal community. Sniffapalooza magazine now features Brandy and its creator Patricia Namm. Patricia's muse in designing the scent? A palomino horse by the same name. "Horses don't usually like perfume," Patricia told a group of fragrance enthusiasts at Sniffapalooza's New York Fall Ball. But this scent, "with its suggestion of distant fields, rolling aromatic meadows, apple and peach top notes and herbaceous heart notes" appeals to the horsey set, and most importantly, to Brandy himself.

Perfume for pooches. Perfume for ponies. Why didn't I think of that?

The discerning dog above is reticent about top notes of the L'Artisan Parfumeur scent presented for his approval at New York's exquisite Aedes de Venustas boutique. Attends le drydown, mon petit chien.

Saturday, December 13, 2008

Fickle Fragrance Fashion

Hideous shoes on feet attached to otherwise fabulously turned-out people are sometimes perfect. We imagine that disgusting colors seem right, even those producing eerie flashbacks of refrigerators, Twiggy and Peter Max posters. Given repeated exposure to the latest look, ugly becomes beautiful. We succumb to groupthink and the Emperor is oh-so-chic, new duds or no.


Arguably, in the case of clothes, the mandate is visible, the standards, clear. We must have those perky, flouncy, unnaturally tight, loose, short, long, bright or dull items in the magazine. We all go along, victims and perpetrators of style. I get it.


What I don’t get is this: Why do so many fragrance shoppers ask for the latest thing? Hand-held computing devices get better. Medical technology gets better, notwithstanding the social and personal dilemmas that result. Admittedly, new aroma chemicals have created perfume possibilities that never existed before. But should we conclude that new, not-yet-improved and highly promoted fragrances are automatically superior to the rest? No.

Pause to consider the subset of folks noticing your scent who will enjoy it more or think better of you if this scent launched in 2008 instead of 2003 or 1956. Do they know or care?