Perfume and Luxury: Articles from Sunday Times


An article in the Sunday Times explores the trends in perfumery and the return to luxury. Among the most luxurious fragrances the author names the newest Lalique Le Parfum, “sensual white blossoms on top of a luxurious, soft base,” Armani Privé collection, Hermès Hermessence range, and The Different Company. Last, but not least is Clive Christian No. 1. Launched in a Baccarat crystal bottle decorated with an 18ct-gold collar, with a 5ct brilliant-cut diamond, it is going to be available for £115,000. This makes JAR fragrances seem like a bargain.

What are the top 20 finest things a man can own? Find out in the article by Tom Stubbs. Czech & Speake aftershave makes the list.

Although not directly dealing with perfume, the same issue has an interesting article on what constitutes luxury and pampering for different people. Indulging can mean a variety of things, as one would expect.

The same issue also has a few recommendations on the perfect gifts, DYI presents, last minute gifts, and shopping for antiques.


  • Archived under: News


  • KS: V: do these articles ignite some faint rebellion in your “soviet” soule…or what remains of it? AH! Whenever I read these articles on “luxury” I sometimes feel like taking to the barricades myself! This time of year is too filled with outlandish consumerism as it is…why must Clive Christian make me puke too? I’ve spent a lost weekend in front of the fireplace, going thru a huge stack of magazines I’ve let gather too long…and I’m simply astounded at the range of THINGS that are made in the names of “luxury” or “decor” or “Lifestyle.” Certainly only the blandest, most mass marketed scents get plugged in the media. Thank goodness for you and Robin! Grumpily yours, K November 28, 2005 at 1:15am Reply

  • BoisdeJasmin: K, yes, I browsed through a bunch of magazines this weekend too, and I got tired of reading the same thing over and over again.

    Incidentally, every Christmas season heralds predictions of a return to luxury. I have read fashion magazine articles from the turn of the last century, and they do not differ that much from the current ones. November 28, 2005 at 1:26am Reply

  • Judith (lilybp): Interesting article–and it makes me feel simultaneously disgusted and hypocritical at the same time. On the one hand, the Clive Christian seems clearly over the top, but on the other, I own bottles from several of the other lines they mention (The Different Company, Armani Prive, Hermessence). So it seems I have to admit that for me, at least, it’s simply a question of where you draw the line. And where do you? I don’t know–but well before Clive Christian, I am sure (actually, even the “everyday” CCs in Nieman’s seem over the top to me). November 28, 2005 at 7:47am Reply

  • mikey: I think Clive Christian is a classic example of image over substance, ideal for the nouveaux riche with more money than taste, think footballers’ wives. I think the phoney history behind it all is absolutely hilarious. Is seems as though the company uses the “finest ingredients” just for the sake of it and not because of their qualities. November 28, 2005 at 8:30am Reply

  • kaie: Clive Christian makes me laugh too. Too pretentious! Who would want a diamond on their bottle??? November 28, 2005 at 8:48am Reply

  • linda: This is really funny. “At £115,000, it is a perfume fit for the gods.” Yeah, at that price it better be! November 28, 2005 at 9:15am Reply

  • Gail Adrian: Perfume is a way to connect with the soul. More than a status symbol, it provides us with a glimpse of ecstatic sensuality. I hope those that pay large for their scents are getting that experience. Gail November 28, 2005 at 9:57am Reply

  • parislondres: I loved the third article by Shane Watson and the concept of negative luxury – brilliant and rather true.

    🙂 November 28, 2005 at 10:36am Reply

  • BoisdeJasmin: J, I always found CC to be too ostentatious for my tastes, and the fragrances did not please me enough to consider them seriously. Where does one draw a line? I think that diamonds on the bottle is where I draw mine. 🙂

    Like you, I also love many of the fragrances mentioned in the article. November 28, 2005 at 12:19pm Reply

  • BoisdeJasmin: M, I would have been kinder disposed towards the line had CC not discontinued all of my favourite Crown Perfumery fragrances. Some fragrances in the line are actually similar to Crown Perfumery products, however the price is just too prohibitive. November 28, 2005 at 12:20pm Reply

  • BoisdeJasmin: Kaie, I prefer diamonds in my jewellery, rather than on my perfume bottles. 🙂 November 28, 2005 at 12:21pm Reply

  • BoisdeJasmin: L, so true! November 28, 2005 at 12:22pm Reply

  • BoisdeJasmin: Gail, I suppose that perfume can mean so many different things to people, although when it is reduced to a status symbol, it makes me sad. However, this goes for anything–art, music, etc. November 28, 2005 at 12:29pm Reply

  • BoisdeJasmin: N, I find her comment interesting when she says that “Negative luxury has already had an impact on the lives of those of us who aren’t so accustomed to conventional luxury that we feel the need to escape it.” I have never thought about it this way, but it is true. It actually made me think of Marie Antoinette, Queen of France playing shepherdess in her rustic Hameau in Versailles. Of course, not exactly the same thing, but it is interesting to find parallels in other historical periods. November 28, 2005 at 12:33pm Reply

  • Mosaic: perfume is the pair of the jewelries an it could make brilliant creation…. April 17, 2007 at 11:32pm Reply

What do you think?

From the Archives

Latest Comments

Latest Tweets

Design by cre8d
© Copyright 2005-2024 Bois de Jasmin. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy