Famous lost men’s fragrances

[The Knize]

Aramis Havana original formulation. Guerlain Derby. Gucci Rush, for sure. Creed Cuir de Ruisse.

Creed does come out with re-issues from time to time. Creed Bois de Sandal was amazing.

 

[masonjarjar]

My vote would be Matchabelli for Men. If the cologne is as good as the aftershave, it should be outstanding. This doesn't get the attention of the lost Gucci's or YSL's Rive Gauche, but it's definitely worth it especially if you find it cheap.

 

[KUfan]

Gucci is a common theme here. Looks like anything top notch from them eventually goes away. I don't get their mindset. Geez, look at the victims, Rush, Envy, Nobile, Pour Homme, surely others now missed. Trouble is, the current fragrances which I am no expert on, likely would not be as well received as the scents they put to bed.

 

[razorboi]

Some of the fragrances submitted on this thread have not entirely been discontinued by the manufacturer. They exist as re-issues, re-formulations, even re-interpretations, but they share one common attribute...they don't have exactly the same formula as the original.
This is not because the manufacturer wants to disappoint us. It's often the case that the manufacturer cannot make the original formulation anymore because of ethical pressures, IFRA and other regulations, restrictions, or extinction of some of the components.
Real civet is no longer used. A synthetic is substituted, bowing to ethical concerns. Oak moss, formerly restricted, is now banned by as a skin irritant. Others, such as lyral [HICC](lily of valley), atranol & chloroatranol (tree-mosses) are also banned as of 2015. The IFRA now has its sights on coumarin (tonka bean), linalool (lavender), citral (citrus), limonene (citrus), birch tar (leather), and eugenol (clove, rose) to recommend for restriction or banning. Some manufacturers are reportedly reformulating in anticipation of bans.
Sounds like perfume makers are the victims of zealous regulation, doesn't it?
Think again.
The IFRA is the cosmetics industry's own regulatory body, created to ward off bureaucratic EU regulations from Geneva that were taking shape in the early 1970's.
The complaint to-day is that the agency is controlled by the large cosmetics conglomerates who are using questionable science to secure bans of these natural ingredients, which cannot be subject to intellectual property rights laws, so that they can re-formulate their iconic brands using synthetics, which can be so protected.
Thus, they can come after and shut down copy-cat fragrances and dominate the fragrance market.
It's the smaller fragrance manufacturers who don't have the resources for the costly research and development needed to reformulate with synthetics that get squeezed, to discontinue fragrances, or go out of business altogether.
All of this because purportedly 1-3% of Europe's population is allergic or potentially allergic to these components in perfumes. And no suggestion that these alleged allergies are serious, or that hospitalisation or death would likely result. At worst, they produce minor skin irritations. The risk to the population from these substances is minuscule compared to that of peanuts, whose proposed ban in the EU brought ridicule and derision upon the Geneva bureaucrats before it was quickly shot down.
It's a Kafkaeque pantomime where we are the losers, with disappointing new formulations and the old ones commanding obscene prices on the collector's market.

 

[The Knize]

Good write-up, razorboi.

Well-said, KUfan.

 

[the_edski]

Nautica Latitude Longitude (my signature scent in college, I have half a bottle left I will wear once or twice a year)

Bowling Green- original formulation (this was my dad's signature scent, along with Brut)

 

[The Knize]

<Bowling Green>

How do you think the available for cheap version of about 5 years ago compares to the original formulation? I have never had the latter. The former seems to me to not get enough love. It is a good scent. Grey Flannel--same maker--did not seem all that different to me over the years.

 

[ghostlife]

Down the road I bet we find out the synthetics they are replacing all these supposed irritants with are actually far more unhealthy. Similar to butter vs vegetable oil.

 

[FarmerTan]

Down the road I bet we find out the synthetics they are replacing all these supposed irritants with are actually far more unhealthy. Similar to butter vs vegetable oil.

I'll give 10 to 1 odds that you are 100 percent correct sir.

 

[The Knize]

It really does seem to me that if something irritates one's skin, one can cease using it.

I seem to have a skin reaction to most deodorants, including the supposed sensitive skin European ones and virtually all of the supposed "natural" ones. (I am prepared for the snarky jokes!) But it is easy enough to find things that do not irritate that seem to be effective. One could say that one should not have to take a chance on buying an expensive scent only to find out it is an irritant. But the regulation means that all of us have to buy scents that are not as good. (I am not saying we should be torturing animals for civet! That is a different thing!)

 

[razorboi]

It really does seem to me that if something irritates one's skin, one can cease using it.

I seem to have a skin reaction to most deodorants, including the supposed sensitive skin European ones and virtually all of the supposed "natural" ones. (I am prepared for the snarky jokes!) But it is easy enough to find things that do not irritate that seem to be effective. One could say that one should not have to take a chance on buying an expensive scent only to find out it is an irritant. But the regulation means that all of us have to buy scents that are not as good. (I am not saying we should be torturing animals for civet! That is a different thing!)

I, too, suffer acute reactions, but only to anti-perspirants, because they contain an aluminium-based compound as their active ingredient.
Thus, I can only use simple deodorants, which do nothing to stop perspiration...but perhaps that's not a bad thing.
I can't but think that artificially or chemically stopping the body's natural perspiration function is not healthy.
You may want to try a cream deodorant. They used to be common. Older gents will remember them from the 1960's and before. The introduction of roll-ons killed them off. They are all but gone to-day. One can still source a few on the 'net. They are generally for the ultra-sensitive market, because they need contain no ingredients to make them solid. Of course, they also contain no aluminium salts or compounds, so they are not anti-perspirants.

 

[The Knize]

I, too, suffer acute reactions, but only to anti-perspirants, because they contain an aluminium-based compound as their active ingredient.
Thus, I can only use simple deodorants, which do nothing to stop perspiration...but perhaps that's not a bad thing.
I can't but think that artificially or chemically stopping the body's natural perspiration function is not healthy.

I have something of the same thoughts on anti-perspirants as you do. I react to the simple deodorants as well as the anti-perspirants, though. Sometimes it takes a while. Arm and Hammer, Tom's, and Thai Crystal each worked for awhile without irritation before they suddenly became very irritating. Same thing on those European sensitive skin items.

Do you react to the residue dryer sheets leave on clothes? I seem to. My wife thinks that part is in my head.

By the way, while I do not react to many scents, old, new, in between, I have a pronounced reaction to anything with natural lime oils in it. Also true bay rum. The bay rum reaction also took a while to develop.

 

[razorboi]

I have something of the same thoughts on anti-perspirants as you do. I react to the simple deodorants as well as the anti-perspirants, though. Sometimes it takes a while. Arm and Hammer, Tom's, and Thai Crystal each worked for awhile without irritation before they suddenly became very irritating. Same thing on those European sensitive skin items.

Do you react to the residue dryer sheets leave on clothes? I seem to. My wife thinks that part is in my head.

By the way, while I do not react to many scents, old, new, in between, I have a pronounced reaction to anything with natural lime oils in it. Also true bay rum. The bay rum reaction also took a while to develop.

I've no problem with dryer-sheets, but I can only report on the brands I've used. Perhaps there's a hypo-allergenic option. Or, perhaps you should forego dryer-sheets for a while as a way of determining if those are the cause of your irritation. You know, people somehow lived perfectly fine without them for generations!
While you were responding, I was expanding my previous post, suggesting you try cream deodorants. Most of them are meant for sensitive skin, but not all. I looked on-line and noticed that Arrid Extra-Dry Anti-perspirant is still made as a cream. Who knew?
When I was a kid, I didn't have deodorant, so I used to powder my under-arms with baby powder, talc or corn-starch. It was a little messy, but quite effective.
Shame 'bout the Bay Rum, which is one of my favourites, but I suppose you can use the ones that are artificially derived.

 

[naughtilus]

Dolce & Gabbana Pour Homme , the original Euroitalia version.

 

[emwolf]

Do you react to the residue dryer sheets leave on clothes? I seem to. My wife thinks that part is in my head.

I was told by my optometrist to not dry my eyeglass cloths with dryer sheets because of the wood pulp in the dryer sheet will lodge in the cloth and scratch the lenses. I've since stopped using dryer sheets.

As to the deodorant issue, I too dislike antiperspirants and generally use them only for big meetings or speaking engagements. Other than that, a tuna fish sandwich under each arm...(with apologies to Steve Martin).

 

[the_edski]

<Bowling Green>

How do you think the available for cheap version of about 5 years ago compares to the original formulation? I have never had the latter. The former seems to me to not get enough love. It is a good scent. Grey Flannel--same maker--did not seem all that different to me over the years.

The new stuff seems a little artificial and synthetic. Like they tried to analyze the old stuff and make a carbon copy but lost something in the process. It's not bad, but its just not "it".

 

[The Knize]

I prefer not to use dryer sheets at all! I do not like the feel of clothes that have been dried with dryer sheets.

For deoderant, I generally use what I use for aftershave, which is a 50-50 mixture of witchhazel and 70% isopropol alcohol. I generally shower with Mysore Sandalwood Soap, which I think helps, too. As I recall there are roll-ons I seem to do okay with. I have thought about trying cream deodorants. What I am doing does seem effective enough for now.

Thanks for the notes on Bowling Green. I am not surprised that it would be reformulated to be more artifical. A shame. Great scent.

 

[cbalducc]

Some of the fragrances submitted on this thread have not entirely been discontinued by the manufacturer. They exist as re-issues, re-formulations, even re-interpretations, but they share one common attribute...they don't have exactly the same formula as the original.
This is not because the manufacturer wants to disappoint us. It's often the case that the manufacturer cannot make the original formulation anymore because of ethical pressures, IFRA and other regulations, restrictions, or extinction of some of the components.
Real civet is no longer used. A synthetic is substituted, bowing to ethical concerns. Oak moss, formerly restricted, is now banned by as a skin irritant. Others, such as lyral [HICC](lily of valley), atranol & chloroatranol (tree-mosses) are also banned as of 2015. The IFRA now has its sights on coumarin (tonka bean), linalool (lavender), citral (citrus), limonene (citrus), birch tar (leather), and eugenol (clove, rose) to recommend for restriction or banning. Some manufacturers are reportedly reformulating in anticipation of bans.
Sounds like perfume makers are the victims of zealous regulation, doesn't it?
Think again.
The IFRA is the cosmetics industry's own regulatory body, created to ward off bureaucratic EU regulations from Geneva that were taking shape in the early 1970's.
The complaint to-day is that the agency is controlled by the large cosmetics conglomerates who are using questionable science to secure bans of these natural ingredients, which cannot be subject to intellectual property rights laws, so that they can re-formulate their iconic brands using synthetics, which can be so protected.
Thus, they can come after and shut down copy-cat fragrances and dominate the fragrance market.
It's the smaller fragrance manufacturers who don't have the resources for the costly research and development needed to reformulate with synthetics that get squeezed, to discontinue fragrances, or go out of business altogether.
All of this because purportedly 1-3% of Europe's population is allergic or potentially allergic to these components in perfumes. And no suggestion that these alleged allergies are serious, or that hospitalisation or death would likely result. At worst, they produce minor skin irritations. The risk to the population from these substances is minuscule compared to that of peanuts, whose proposed ban in the EU brought ridicule and derision upon the Geneva bureaucrats before it was quickly shot down.
It's a Kafkaeque pantomime where we are the losers, with disappointing new formulations and the old ones commanding obscene prices on the collector's market.

Yeah, regulation benefits the big guys.

 

[guitarslinger]

Preface: I think having to reformulate classics is a crime. I also hate the idea of a self-regulating agency that only benefits the big guys. That said,.....

"Big guys" are in business to sell lots of products to lots of people. Deodorants from Unilever and Proctor and Gamble have NEVER irritated my arm pits.

OTOH, ANY crystal. nearly any mom and pop essential oil deodorant. any arm and hammer. anything at the healthfood store, etc has burned the crap out of my arm pits. Like giving me red scars. I'm allergic to natural oak moss, and many other things, apparently

There's a reason the big guys can sell so much stuff to so many people. It's made not to irritate skin.

I don't know where this whole "synthetics are more irritating than natural stuff" myth started, but it's nearly NEVER true for me. Natural = 100x more likely to cause an allergic reaction with my skin.

 

[The Knize]

nearly any mom and pop essential oil deodorant. any arm and hammer. anything at the healthfood store, etc has burned the crap out of my arm pits. Like giving me red scars.

I am glad I am not alone, guitarslinger. Maybe not scars, but read streaks. Same re crystals. Although at first they were fine with me. I have reactions to some of the big guy products, too. Right Guard does not bother me. Real oak moss does not bother me. At least not in frag concentrations.

But natural may be just as likely to irritate. I do not agree 100x. I think citrus oils are irritating for most people. Most commercial shampoos seem to promote dandruff for me. I use a shampoo bar from India that is the only thing that keeps dandruff away for me.