I've only recently began to expand my scent horizons and had a question regarding quality. While no one would want to be accused of wearing "cheap" cologne, there are a number of hand made scents offered by some of our favored shaving suppliers priced very reasonably. Personally, I've found more than a few that I (and my wife) really like. I always thought expensive cologne was expensive because of the time required to get the scents blended correctly and the use of high quality ingredients. What's the difference between "cheap" and "inexpensive"?
Cheap vs. Inexpensive
- Thread starter letterk
- Start date
letterk said:
Inexpensive does not always mean cheap. A good example are the offerings from Sue and some of the Musgo Real scents. Taylor also has some great scents that I consider inexpensive but quality scents.
Over the years I have bought several of the Creed colognes. Some of them were close to $200. Contrary to what is said on basenotes, I do not like all of them. Some of them I actually think that they smell cheap. There are several others that are expensive that I have owned over the years and would not buy again. Not because I can't afford them but they just are not high quality scents.
Buy what you like and enjoy.
Cheap and good do not go togother. It's a salesman's cliche. Quality can be had at an affordable price. Consider the Arko soaps. Very popular and for $1.25, a real deal. Compare that to some of the top end soaps that are over $20. Are they THAT much better? No. In the long run, it boils down to what you like. The only cologne I wore on a daily basis since high school was Pierre Cardin. I still wear it from time to time. Cheap? Compared to some that I have. But I like it, and that is all that matters.
Randy
Randy
soulshine said:
Yes
Austin said:
I agree. The Musgo Real scents are great.
Many people thing more $$ equals better.
In some cases products cost more because they use more expensive ingredients. Unfortunately, more often than not its about marketing and packaging.
Many on-line vendors have great products at reasonable prices because they have low overheads, use inexpensive packaging (plastic versus wooden or metal bowls) and realize that most people won't buy something from an unknown vendor (especially if they can't sniff first) if its not priced right.
Also, I find that many on-line vendors who make soaps and other natural products care a lot about the quality of their products and want to provide customers with good value.
All this means is that are a lot of great inexpensive products out there if you look for it. Buy what and wear whatever you like - if you find something that does it for you that's well-priced, so much the better.
In some cases products cost more because they use more expensive ingredients. Unfortunately, more often than not its about marketing and packaging.
Many on-line vendors have great products at reasonable prices because they have low overheads, use inexpensive packaging (plastic versus wooden or metal bowls) and realize that most people won't buy something from an unknown vendor (especially if they can't sniff first) if its not priced right.
Also, I find that many on-line vendors who make soaps and other natural products care a lot about the quality of their products and want to provide customers with good value.
All this means is that are a lot of great inexpensive products out there if you look for it. Buy what and wear whatever you like - if you find something that does it for you that's well-priced, so much the better.
- Thread starter
- #9
I completely understand $ doesn't equal better (even though I have an MBA 
). And yes, I was referring to Sue's scents (and others) in my previous post. I use and enjoy all of her scents - I'm wearing New Spice right now. Her scents are definetely not "cheap"! My question was as to whether "top-shelf" scents were inherently better due to ingrediants or R&D. I don't know a lot about colognes and their history, which is why I asked. There are true "cheap"-smelling colognes out there which made me wonder why someone like Sue can make and sell something that smells so good for such a reasonable price.
). And yes, I was referring to Sue's scents (and others) in my previous post. I use and enjoy all of her scents - I'm wearing New Spice right now. Her scents are definetely not "cheap"! My question was as to whether "top-shelf" scents were inherently better due to ingrediants or R&D. I don't know a lot about colognes and their history, which is why I asked. There are true "cheap"-smelling colognes out there which made me wonder why someone like Sue can make and sell something that smells so good for such a reasonable price.
I agree that paying the price doesnt always get the quality that you should be getting. I have quiet a few expensive ones and i think they are only worth half the value. For instance i have one called guerlain(if i have made a spelling error, forgive me), i like the smell but it doesnt even last, and at 130 dollars i find it to be a bit of a rip off. Sometimes i dont mind splashing on my Old Spice which to me is up there with the best. Like you guys say its all about marketing and fancy boxes.
Especially the last few years i find that some of these fancy aftershaves have been watered down. Maybe its part of the marketing ploy?
Especially the last few years i find that some of these fancy aftershaves have been watered down. Maybe its part of the marketing ploy?
This is a great item to discuss. I think that the price does not always have much to do with the quality of the product. There may be cases where the fragrance is indeed costly to make. But I think quite often when a colonge is expensive we are paying for the brand, and for a world wide marketing campaign. Also, I think they jack up the price because - as was mentioned here before - people simply feel better aboutthe product when they pay more for it. There are many, many fragrances that cost a lot that I would never want. And there are also some totally cheap colonges and aftershaves that I love.
"Better" is subjective. I am not a chemist or otherwise a fragrance expert - except I know what I like.
Cologne is nothing more than smelly stuff mixed in in an alcohol carrier.
The smelly stuff is usually essential oils (natural and more expensive generally) or fragrance oils (synthetic). Most of the stuff used to make cologne is not that expensive, but the prices do range - this is why Mamma Bear and Charles at QED charge more for some soaps with EOs than others.
So, if we assume that the cost of the ingredients is relatively modest (which explains why Sue can stay in business), the question is what makes a product smell "cheap".
I generally think that some of the commercial aftershaves at the lower end smell 'cheap', but that is personal preference - the smells are strong and synthetic, no natural EOs or quality fragrance oils here. But even here, there are good products, Old Spice remains popular, Addidas makes some decent stuff, Proraso and Tabac are mass market in Europe, and while these are higher quality products than Brut or Skin Bracer, I think the difference is in the blend. While personal tastes vary, I think its the skill of the blender that makes the biggest difference - too much of any single scent or "note" can transform the sublime into the smelly.
I've never tried her products, but I think the reason why Sue and others consistently make great smelling products is that they have a good nose and a light hand. Their prices are reasonable because they keep overhead low and aren't trying to gouge their customers.
Just my long two cents.
Cologne is nothing more than smelly stuff mixed in in an alcohol carrier.
The smelly stuff is usually essential oils (natural and more expensive generally) or fragrance oils (synthetic). Most of the stuff used to make cologne is not that expensive, but the prices do range - this is why Mamma Bear and Charles at QED charge more for some soaps with EOs than others.
So, if we assume that the cost of the ingredients is relatively modest (which explains why Sue can stay in business), the question is what makes a product smell "cheap".
I generally think that some of the commercial aftershaves at the lower end smell 'cheap', but that is personal preference - the smells are strong and synthetic, no natural EOs or quality fragrance oils here. But even here, there are good products, Old Spice remains popular, Addidas makes some decent stuff, Proraso and Tabac are mass market in Europe, and while these are higher quality products than Brut or Skin Bracer, I think the difference is in the blend. While personal tastes vary, I think its the skill of the blender that makes the biggest difference - too much of any single scent or "note" can transform the sublime into the smelly.
I've never tried her products, but I think the reason why Sue and others consistently make great smelling products is that they have a good nose and a light hand. Their prices are reasonable because they keep overhead low and aren't trying to gouge their customers.
Just my long two cents.
I think this is an excellent topic that can be applied to any product or group of products. In the wet shaving world alone, you could take the same concept and apply it to creams or brushes or whatever. I think that Suzuki certainly makes some good points.
Interestingly, while EMMV to some degree, it also seems that a majority will often times group around the same belief as to whether or not a product is quality or "cheap".
Another phenomenon that I find interesting is when a product like Proraso, Lucky Tiger, or Pinaud remains popular for many years yet refuses to "jack up" the prices.
Interestingly, while EMMV to some degree, it also seems that a majority will often times group around the same belief as to whether or not a product is quality or "cheap".
Another phenomenon that I find interesting is when a product like Proraso, Lucky Tiger, or Pinaud remains popular for many years yet refuses to "jack up" the prices.
