TYPES OF PERFUMERY MATERIALS

Materials Wednesday: Part 1

How to start a series on perfumery raw materials? I suppose I could just dive in and consider individual materials one by one, but somehow it makes more sense to first consider materials by broad category rather than individually. I think everyone is at least vaguely aware that materials can be of different types, but may not realize the advantages and limitations of each type of raw material. So here goes with the most general classification possible.

Single Molecules. Chemically speaking, these are the simplest and most basic of all materials in that they are composed of a single type of molecule, such as phenyl ethyl acetate, amyl salicylate, or vanillin. Molecules with long, unwieldy names like (5E)-3-methylcyclopentadec-5-en-1-one are often given semi-descriptive trade names like Muscenone. Although different versions of an aroma molecule share the same chemical formula, the material itself may consist of different structural isomers (same chemical formula but different arrangement of atoms) or different stereoisomers (same formula and arrangement of atoms, but rotated in different ways). A given material may be a single isomer or a mixture of isomers, conferring different olfactory properties. The advantage of using single molecules is that the perfumer knows almost exactly what is going into the formula, common aroma chemicals are readily available in bulk, and they are usually easy to work with. For the beginning perfumer, probably the biggest down side of aroma chemicals is that there may be no real-world equivalents for their odors, so the properties of each one have to be learned from scratch.

Synthetic accords or bases. These are mixtures of aroma chemicals that, together replicate a complex natural scent such as rose, gardenia, or oud, or a fantasy scent such as “ambrosia” or “clean underwear”. Many bases of this type are available commercially as convenient ready-made components to use in perfumery. They are not the same as the “fragrance oils” that are commonly sold to hobbyists as functional scents for soap, candles, and lotions. The latter are some sort of odorant mix that approximates a complete perfume, diluted in a carrier oil, whereas perfume bases are the pure aroma chemical formula meant to be used as a building block, not a finished fragrance.

Naturals. These are the essential oils, absolutes, tinctures, and other materials derived from plants (and occasionally animals or minerals) that most self-taught perfumers start experimenting with in the beginning. The advantage of natural materials is that their names generally indicate what they will smell like, and most of them have familiar, “real-world” smells. Most natural materials consist of a large number of very different molecules that, together, produce the familiar smell, so are actually complete perfumes or accords in and of themselves. The advantage of using naturals is that they can be readily understood and easily impart complexity to a blend. The down side is that the very complexity that makes them attractive can lead to unwanted interactions and “muddying” of a blend if too many are combined in the wrong proportions. 

Another disadvantage is that naturals from different sources may smell very different, and the same material from the same supplier may smell different from batch to batch, and availability depends on crop yields, international politics, and many other unpredictable factors. A lot of naturals are difficult to work with in that they are sticky, gooey, lumpy, or otherwise nasty in consistency. They have to be melted, diluted, tinctured, or otherwise processed before they are usable, and the final formula often ends up cloudy so that it requires fining and filtering before it is clear enough to sell.

Mixed accords. These are like synthetic accords except that the desired smell has been created by combining naturals and aroma chemicals.

I think the majority of perfumers work with all of the above types of materials unless they are solidly in the all-natural category.

[All photos are from Wikimedia except for the alembic still, which is mine.]

MATERIALS ARE NOT EVERYTHING

The other day I was reading some posts on a perfume-making group that I follow, mostly as an observer, and was struck by a post advertising a new site that plans to sell perfume bases of various kinds. A base is a ready-made accord, for example, a synthetic rose, violet, oud, or leather scent, sort of a single-note perfume on its own. The post not only contains glowing descriptions of the bases that this company plans to sell, but makes it sound as if they’re miracle potions that will turn anyone and everyone into a master perfumer. Here’s a quote:

“This will help many people take the leap from consumer to producer. Also, in the upcoming years, there will be a huge increase in the quality of independent fragrances because of these exquisite bases which will be available to us  … Just imagine what we could accomplish with materials like these! This is the bridge which will eliminate the distinction between amateur and professional perfumes.”

Really? Everyone is going to be a professional perfumer? If everyone is a professional based on someone else’s work, then the only professional is the person who originally formulated the bases.

Now there’s nothing wrong with good-quality bases. I’ve formulated my share of them myself for use in my own creations, and am not averse to using a good commercial one if (and only if) it comes up to my standards and serves my intended purpose. However, the statement that having exceptionally good bases available for purchase will make everyone a great, or even competent, perfumer is kind of like saying that selling an electronic keyboard with synthesized sounds of a Steinway grand piano and Stradivarius violin to people with no musical training or talent will immediately enable them to make beautiful and original music with no study or practice.

Perfume, like music, is an art of composition. In skilled and imaginative hands, the simplest scales, rhythms, and chord progressions can be used to create an infinite number of beautiful, original, and evocative melodies and harmonies; in perfumery the simplest materials can be used to create beautiful, original, and evocative fragrances, but a certain amount of knowledge, skill, inspiration, and feeling for the art is required in ether case.

It may be that the ubiquity of useful and cost-effective commercial bases is one of the factors that already causes so many perfumes to smell so similar. If every musician used the same pre-programmed drum machine sequence and set of melodic samples, there would be a lot of similarity in the resulting compositions.

I suppose the idea expressed in the post is that even an unskilled person can take a beautiful ready-made mixture and use it as their own, but there are already many excellent materials available, including naturals, which are complex accords in their own right. Another implicit point is that having good quality raw materials to start with is essential to having a good finished product – a point in which I am in complete agreement. However, learning how to use raw materials to create something original and compelling is the real trick. That is why I find this post is so puzzling.

After writing this, I realize that it might be fun to start a Wednesday series on raw materials for perfumery, and will try to post on this topic as often as I can.

[Artistic images of "miracle potion" vendors by an anonymous 17th century artist, Rembrandt, and Giovanni Domenico Tiepolo; photographic images from Wikimedia]