Question:
I'm curious to see if the aquatic haters dislike Creed's Erolfa. Remember, that not all aquatics are created equal. Kenzo PH, Bulgari Aqua and Dali Laguna are very special brews that evoke various bodies of water.

Answer:
I like the music analogy.
Aquatics are like the American Idol of perfumery. They are simple, pleasent but VERY forgetable.
I happen to like some aquatics (Creed Erolfa) but they are not my favorite.

Answer:
Stooopid question, but here goes!: what defines an aquatic?
I would say Cool Water,ADG,Kenzo are aquatic,by definition,however, I would call them "citrusy" rather than aquatic.
Whats the "official" criteria for aquatic? For example, the Guerlain Aqua series is more "fruity" to me

Answer:
Originally Posted by MFfan310 For me, it's three things:
1) They smell very synthetic in most cases.
2) They tend to have shoddy compositions.
3) Everyone wears them.
There are some exceptions: for example, I like L'eau d'Issey PH, as it is well-crafted and not too synthetic. It's the AdGs and Kenneth Cole Blacks that make me sick. I don't find aquatics "very synthetic in most cases." There aren't any fragrances out there that aren't predominantly synthetic by any definition of the word. It's a catch-all phrase for justifying a most subjective response and dressing it up as objective fact. Let me illustrate my claim: I could never wear Givenchy Pi. To me it's the most overt and chemically in your face fragrance out there, and yet I know a lot of people who like it and don't perceive in this way at all. In fact, I know some people seek out the EDP version of it. However, I don't feel at all compelled to tell anyone this by making a definitive statement good for all time that its a "synthetic" fragrance. In fact, because I don't like it, I don't feel at all compelled to talk about my dislike for it, which, when all is said and done, is entirely irrelevant to those who like it. Finally, I am not even interested in arguing that Givenchy Pi comes across as an overtly chemical fragrance, given that it doesn't for some people, which at least suggests to me that my response to might just involve a little subjectivity. I continued to be amazed by what people get out of fragrances, and I certainly don't set my subjective responses as a bench mark for everyone.
Back to aquatics: Acqua di Gio Pour Homme particularly and most aquatics generally tend to have very complex compositions. I wouldn't apply the word "shoddy" to them; it seems inappropriate not just in the case of aquatics, but in the case of fragrances in general. Even the most "common" smelling mass appeal fragrances are complex, artful, involved compositions. The word "shoddy" is a subjective term--like most terms we use to describe fragrances--that really has nothing to do with the objective facts of the chemistry of fragrances. I don't see it's applicability here at all.
I don't have any problem with everyone wearing aquatics since I don't wear fragrances for anyone but myself. I haven't ever based my individuality on my fragrance or on personalized number plates. Again, this is a personal, temperamental thing, but I certainly wouldn't claim that because I don't worry about what others wear or what I wear that everyone should follow suit. I, therefore, find it prescriptive to be told that one shouldn't really like something because it's popular. I am an accomplished cook, but I still eat a packet or two of the massively popular twenty cent packets of Ramen noodles when I get the inclination and enjoy that experience immensely. Is there something intrinsically wrong with that as many posts seem to unquestioningly suggest by applying the principle of popularity as an objective, sorting criterion to the valuing of fragrances?
Out of the 520 odd fragrances I own, Acqua dio Gio Pour Homme is one of a handful of personal favorites, and I wear it often, with great pleasure and to almost universal acclaim that cuts across gender, age, and cultural boundaries. These are not objective reasons to wear this fragrance; for me these reasons are a sufficient set of subjective reasons, but the most important component, as in all my choices of what I wear, is pleasure. If it gives me pleasure, I wear it, and Acqua dio Gio Pour Homme gives me a lot of pleasure, and, so, I wear it.

I am not passing off my personal subjective preferences in this post as objective facts, which is the way I see this thread heading. Renato's post has the virtue, at least, that in it he bases his like of aquatics on nothing more and nothing less than preference, variety, and versatility. Good enough for me. I can't object to that, but I do object to the general tendency to dress up subjective responses as objective facts. Although, I would argue, and have done so in close to 2,000 post that what I claim above about the nature of the chemistry of aquatics and fragrances in general are reasonably objective comments.
Finally, we tend to want to justify our dislike of a fragrance on grounds larger than the sufficient ground of not liking it with objective grounds that are supposedly sufficient in and of themselves, but those so-called objective grounds are not sufficient in and off themselves. For example, it's common knowledge that MFfan310 is a fan of Thierry Mugler's A*Men, and yet, relatively speaking, A*Men by any measure is a very "synthetic" fragrances with its prominent tar note and candy-floss sweetness, among other things. Also, I wouldn't claim "everyone" wears it, but it is a considerably popular a widely worn fragrance, and yet, the fragrance is one of his favorites. What's good for the goose doesn't seem to be good for the gander.
scentemental


Answer:
Originally Posted by noggs I just don't find aquatics very interesting, preferring stronger, richer, more complex scents which hold my interest. Yes, by the standards of this forum I qualify as a genuine old man

My typical response to an aquatic is that when I first encounter someone wearing one I think that sure smells nice. But just a few minutes later I'm already bored with it and wish I didn't have to smell it anymore. It's not that I find aquatics unpleasant, but rather boring.

I don't hate aquatics, and I even have a few in my wardrobe. But overall I'd usually prefer to wear something more interesting. Why wear something that bores me?

I liken the aquatic fad to the concurrent popularity of white drinks like white wines, vodka and light rums over red wines, whiskies, cognacs, and dark rums. For a while it seemed like manufacturers were intent on making drinks with no flavor whatsoever.

I like those white drinks just fine, but prefer something with more stuffing, the same way I like my fragrances. Sums it up perfect for me. Couldn't agree more. I prefer woody/earthy/spicy complex fragrances. Most aquatics, with exceptions mentioned below, are linear and uninteresting for my personal taste. I have the same reaction to most air fresheners.
Since I started frequenting Basenotes, I discovered some aquatics I like and one or two that will become regulars in my wardrobe. Aquatics I like and wear include Creed MI and Erolfa, CBIHP Mr. Hulot's Holiday, Bond's Wall St., and Aqua de Bulgari.

Answer:
I think preconditioning of a person's expectations has something to do with it. At least it has some bearing on my own likes and dislikes, although I do try to be as open minded as possible.

I am in my 50s, and most of my experiences with scents are with the strong ones prevalent during the 80s (which seem quite normal to me), the citrusy ones, and the sweet, powdery ones. For most of my life this is what perfumes smelled like. These types of scents are what I find familiar and comforting. Caron's Pour un Homme and Guerlain's Habit Rouge are two of my top five all time favorites. Perhaps they are relatively simple and old fashioned, but I like the way they smell and I always feel good wearing them.

So when I smell new fragrances I always (whether I want to or not) tend to judge them based upon my lifetime experience with these types of fragrances. The aquatic fragrances seem so much different to me than what I'm used to. It's difficult to stop comparing and simply judge them on their own merits.

I think the younger generation has the opposite experience. They grew up with aquatics and other lighter, fresher, perhaps fruitier scents. These are what they are used to as scents, and function as references when they try other scents. I can see how they may be shocked by the heavier, more powdery scents, and can't come to grips with them.

I do think, at least based on which fragrances I smell on various people, that in general the aquatics are much preferred by the younger generation. I do smell aquatics on several of my similarly aged colleagues from time to time, but the vast majority of people I come in contact wearing aquatics are teenagers and people in their 20s.

Some of the likes/dislikes regarding aquatics, besides the popularity issue, must be due to our various life experiences with fragrances, what we expect them to smell like, and how we perceive them. Most of us Basenoters are more open minded and adventurous than most, investigating all types of fragrances, but I suspect that, somewhere deep in our subconsciousnesses, we are influenced by these experiences.

Answer:
The ONLY reason I don't use many aquatics is because they're so immensely popular in the mass market.
I want to be a little bit apart from the crowd. And lately, the crowd wears aquatics.
Many are really nice-smelling - Kenzo, the much-reviled AdG, Erolfa, Herrera Aqua, but are forgettable/indistinct not because they're bad but because of an oversaturation of fragrances in the genre.

Answer:
Originally Posted by manicboy I'm curious to see if the aquatic haters dislike Creed's Erolfa. Remember, that not all aquatics are created equal. Kenzo PH, Bulgari Aqua and Dali Laguna are very special brews that evoke various bodies of water. While Laguna has a strong marine note (as do Michael Jordan Cologne, Aquaman and Escape) I wouldn't class it as an aquatic. To me it's an ambery fougere scent.
Renato

Answer:
Laguna reminds me of the Creature from the Black Laguna.
no one is more surprised than me that I've lasted this long.
Time to meditate

Answer:
Originally Posted by scentemental I don't find aquatics "very synthetic in most cases." There aren't any fragrances out there that aren't predominantly synthetic by any definition of the word. It's a catch-all phrase for justifying a most subjective response and dressing it up as objective fact. Let me illustrate my claim: I could never wear Givenchy Pi. To me it's the most overt and chemically in your face fragrance out there, and yet I know a lot of people who like it and don't perceive in this way at all. In fact, I know some people seek out the EDP version of it. However, I don't feel at all compelled to tell anyone this by making a definitive statement good for all time that its a "synthetic" fragrance. In fact, because I don't like it, I don't feel at all compelled to talk about my dislike for it, which, when all is said and done, is entirely irrelevant to those who like it. Finally, I am not even interested in arguing that Givenchy Pi comes across as an overtly chemical fragrance, given that it doesn't for some people, which at least suggests to me that my response to might just involve a little subjectivity. I continued to be amazed by what people get out of fragrances, and I certainly don't set my subjective responses as a bench mark for everyone.
Back to aquatics: Acqua di Gio Pour Homme particularly and most aquatics generally tend to have very complex compositions. I wouldn't apply the word "shoddy" to them; it seems inappropriate not just in the case of aquatics, but in the case of fragrances in general. Even the most "common" smelling mass appeal fragrances are complex, artful, involved compositions. The word "shoddy" is a subjective term--like most terms we use to describe fragrances--that really has nothing to do with the objective facts of the chemistry of fragrances. I don't see it's applicability here at all.
I don't have any problem with everyone wearing aquatics since I don't wear fragrances for anyone but myself. I haven't ever based my individuality on my fragrance or on personalized number plates. Again, this is a personal, temperamental thing, but I certainly wouldn't claim that because I don't worry about what others wear or what I wear that everyone should follow suit. I, therefore, find it prescriptive to be told that one shouldn't really like something because it's popular. I am an accomplished cook, but I still eat a packet or two of the massively popular twenty cent packets of Ramen noodles when I get the inclination and enjoy that experience immensely. Is there something intrinsically wrong with that as many posts seem to unquestioningly suggest by applying the principle of popularity as an objective, sorting criterion to the valuing of fragrances?
Out of the 520 odd fragrances I own, Acqua dio Gio Pour Homme is one of a handful of personal favorites, and I wear it often, with great pleasure and to almost universal acclaim that cuts across gender, age, and cultural boundaries. These are not objective reasons to wear this fragrance; for me these reasons are a sufficient set of subjective reasons, but the most important component, as in all my choices of what I wear, is pleasure. If it gives me pleasure, I wear it, and Acqua dio Gio Pour Homme gives me a lot of pleasure, and, so, I wear it.

I am not passing off my personal subjective preferences in this post as objective facts, which is the way I see this thread heading. Renato's post has the virtue, at least, that in it he bases his like of aquatics on nothing more and nothing less than preference, variety, and versatility. Good enough for me. I can't object to that, but I do object to the general tendency to dress up subjective responses as objective facts. Although, I would argue, and have done so in close to 2,000 post that what I claim above about the nature of the chemistry of aquatics and fragrances in general are reasonably objective comments.
Finally, we tend to want to justify our dislike of a fragrance on grounds larger than the sufficient ground of not liking it with objective grounds that are supposedly sufficient in and of themselves, but those so-called objective grounds are not sufficient in and off themselves. For example, it's common knowledge that MFfan310 is a fan of Thierry Mugler's A*Men, and yet, relatively speaking, A*Men by any measure is a very "synthetic" fragrances with its prominent tar note and candy-floss sweetness, among other things. Also, I wouldn't claim "everyone" wears it, but it is a considerably popular a widely worn fragrance, and yet, the fragrance is one of his favorites. What's good for the goose doesn't seem to be good for the gander.
scentemental
as always, you make a very well reasoned and thought out argument
so, just for the joy of debate:
"Even the most "common" smelling mass appeal fragrances are complex, artful, involved compositions. The word "shoddy" is a subjective term--like most terms we use to describe fragrances--that really has nothing to do with the objective facts of the chemistry of fragrances."

i believe that due to the massive price increase for essential oils in the early 90s, pressure for higher profit margins and much shorter product cycles, the objective quality of perfumes, on the average, declined noticeably, as cheaper components and lower concentrations came to be employed and noses had three months rather than a year or two to produce a new scent. significantly these event were coterminous with the rise of aquatics. while an aquatic per se may not be an inferior perfume, they acquired paradigmatic status at a time when perfume quality declined. ergo...
one might make the point that aquatics are part of the general trend towards fantasy perfumes which have made the classic categories of fougere, chypre etc. somewhat obsolete. this resulting once again from the pressure for marketing ever more scents and innovations and ever new available synthetics. i would forward the thesis, that until roughly the 1980s perfumes aimed at creating the impression of naturalness, with the help of synthetics of course. since then, the frame of reference has changed, perfumes smell increasingly like nothing comparable in nature, or a blend of such natural smells, therefore, subjectively, synthetic. the mass of aquatics and most other average designer scents is quasi intertextual, refering only to other perfumes, of which they are hastily concocted variations.
finally, as has been stated by others, part of the pleasure of consuming luxury products lies in the act of distinction, of being different- and, let's admit it - feeling superior to mainstream consumers. subculture, be it perfume freakdom or buffy the vampire fanclubs, is elitism under democratic conditions. it therefore makes psychological and sociological sense for a perfume lover to avoid aquatics. of course, if one actuall loves adg ot erolfa, that may take precedence.
personally i do not even like erolfa and MI, arguably two of the best made aquatics around, so, the issue is entirely academic for me personally
i welcome any comments on these theses in the spirit of lively debate