FINALLY A WINNER!

I've been negligent about keeping up with the random drawings, but finally got around to doing it today. The previous batch of samples was unclaimed, so the winner gets a double portion plus some carded samples.

This Monday's winner is NELLE 25.

To claim your big jackpot, just send me an e-mail at olympicorchids at gmail dot com or PM me on the Olympic Orchids Facebook page.

Look for a new drawing next Monday.

MONDAY MADNESS: CARDED SAMPLES AND WINNER OF LAST WEEK’S DRAWING

The winner of last week’s drawing is: JAMES WEAVER

To claim your winnings, please e-mail olympicorchids at gmail dot com or leave a PM on our Facebook page.

Today is another opportunity to continue the clearing of my stashes of samples. A lot of them are loose, so they don’t take up much room, at least not individually. However, a lot of them are also on cards of various types. Most of the cards are the classic “book”- type, with the sample hooked over holes or inserted between folded cardboard protrusions along the spine of the “book”. Others are just a card with a hole punched in it so that the sample often falls out. That’s OK if the vial is labeled, but not good if it isn’t. A few are in their own little organza bags with the name on a big card tied with a ribbon around the top of the bag. These vials usually aren’t labeled. As a consumer of samples, my plea would be, “please label the vial itself”.

This week’s giveaway will be a mix of 100 g of “normal” samples and a handful of carded samples. To enter the drawing, all you have to do is leave a comment about your opinion of carded samples.

[photo is from a vendor's pic that showed up in a basic Google search]

WHAT DO WE MEAN BY “SOPHISTICATED” PERFUME?

A couple of weeks ago I was surprised to hear a colleague describe several perfumes as “sophisticated”. My surprise was due to the fact that I personally perceived these compositions as being random mash-ups of common materials without regard to balance or overall wearability, and not very enjoyable. I’m sure we all have our own definitions of “sophisticated”, but the first ones I found in a Goggle search are as follows:

1) having, revealing, or proceding from a great deal of worldly experience and knowledge of fashion and culture;

2) (of a machine, system, or technique) developed to a high degree of complexity.

Did the perfumes in question fit either of these definitions? Not in my book. The first definition would imply that they fit into some highly developed socio-cultural schema that is the result of everything that has preceded them, and that each makes a coherent additional and novel statement based on that body of knowledge. The second would imply that they were technically well put-together in such a way as to intentionally evoke complex thoughts, emotions, and other states. After all, a perfume could be thought of as a “machine” designed to influence out physical, mental, and emotional state in a pleasurable way. The term can even be applied to the natural world. When I searched for images epitomizing the term “sophisticated”, these wings of an African beetle kept popping up as an example of a sophisticated design for flight.

In all cases, “sophisticated” is in many ways a moving target, very much of the moment, but in other ways a fixed quality. Junk is junk and kitsch is kitsch no matter when and where it was produced, but does that mean that the junk and kitsch are not sophisticated? Is a perfume with 942 ingredients more or less sophisticated than one with 15? Or one that consists of a single material? Is a creation designed to shock sophisticated? Is it sophisticated the second or third time around? Is a badly constructed perfume made by an upscale designer house more sophisticated than the same perfume made in a dilettante’s kitchen? This question is analogous to the question I often ask myself when I see pictures on Vogue of designer garments that look like they were failed experiments in an elementary school sewing class, or embarrassing Halloween costumes. Can context create the aura of “sophistication”, or is some intrinsic quality necessary? Can something be too “sophisticated” to be of any practical use?

I know this is an unanswerable question given that we cannot really even define “sophistication”, but to me it’s an interesting issue to think about. Readers, how do you define “sophisticated”?  Can a perfume be “sophisticated”? If so, what would make it that way? If not, why not?

[First cartoon by Rube Goldberg; beetle wings from Wikimedia; fashion photo one of the first that I found when opening catwalk images on Vogue - it's good enough to make the point]