Showing posts with label Houbigant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Houbigant. Show all posts

2/17/14

Fougère Royale, Part Two (Houbigant, 2010)



The wheel shown above is yet another super-subjective classification of fragrances, this time focusing on the specific oils used (in a very broad sense) to comprise them. By focusing on oils, the wheel excludes certain synthetics - coumarin is missing from the fougère category, for example - and there are truly limitations to how a fragrance is defined here. Some "spokes" are better defined than others - the oriental is described as a basic amber for example, with most of the oils and resins used for one type of amber listed. Yet subcategories like "floral oriental" and "woody oriental" aren't given spokes. It really couldn't get any vaguer or broader. I don't consider this wheel to be especially useful, other than in viewing the various classifications, and getting a very general sense of the primary notes used for some of them.

When smelling a fragrance like Fougère Royale, one has to keep a few things about fragrance classifications in mind. The most important thing is to remember that this reissue is a reinterpretation of a traditional woody fern from the nineteenth century that no longer exists. To get anything close to an accurate sense of how the original was supposed to smell, one has to rely on early twentieth century traditional ferns still in production, or still widely available. With Houbigant's fragrance, the best point of reference for me is Edmond and Theresa Roudnitska's Moustache. But there's something else to remember here: Fougère Royale wasn't reissued as a traditional fern - it is now an "aromatic fougère," replete with all the flourishes and extra trimmings of a typical aromatic. That means the fragrance can be referenced as a traditional fern, but must also be compared to aromatics. It pulls from both worlds.

Fougères are confusing to people because they're often unclear on the historical divide between the two different types. I can't tell you how many times I read reviewers and bloggers who compare the qualities and drawbacks of an aromatic fern to an old-school classical fern pre-dating WWII. It's a tricky comparison to make. I know of one blogger who consistently references "fougère accords" in fresh aromatic ferns, but almost never takes into account the difference between that accord and the fougère accord of a traditional woody fern. It's frustrating because old-school ferns often render lavender and coumarin very differently from their contemporary counterparts. What I like about Fougère Royale is that I smell a traditional "fougère accord" with a very hay-like, semi-grassy coumarin under a brightly-citric lavender note, but the accord is buttressed by extraneous notes of geranium, cedar, chamomile, labdanum, and musk. Its traditional prose is written not with a quill, but a contemporary Sharpie pen.

Fougère Royale is a triumphant fragrance because there are no corners cut, and the compositional editing was done with an eye on keeping the fragrance rich and beautiful, yet concise. In some ways it reminds me of an inexpensive designer fern, oddly enough Joop! Homme Wild, of all things. The sweetness of JHW is cut by a flurry of herbal lavender notes, filtered through a green gauze of violet ionones, which give it a slightly candy-like effect. I asked someone to give me their first impression of Fougère Royale on my skin, and the first thing she said was, "It's nice, sort of like candy." Now, when you smell traditional ferns like Moustache and Sandalwood by Arden, you don't get "candy" from them at all. This means that Houbigant's integration of floral notes is closer to being in the contemporary aromatic vein than the traditional one. Things like heliotrope, jasmine, and cyclamen are tucked in there, but they're very pert, closely-blended, and form an accord that is actually pretty commonplace in current scents marketed to younger guys.

Just smell how lavender and coumarin are blended in Moustache though, and you get a snapshot of the approach Flores-Roux took. A concise description of the fragrance can be found here, and I'll include a snippet:

"The opening is a gentle splash of citrusy notes and lavender and it takes a long time to evaporate. The dry down shows the musky animalic and fougère notes of this composition slightly sweetened by honey, amber, tonka beans and vanilla."

That's an excellent description of "vintage" Moustache, although the more recent "Concentree" is by many accounts spot on. If you try the reissue of Moustache in the modern rectangular bottle, you'll encounter a different fragrance altogether. I think the key word from the above description is "gentle." Moustache, like Fougère Royale, incorporates lavender in a manner that doesn't bludgeon you across the nose. The use of citrus and geranium in both FR and Moustache are very similar, and Roudnitska's composition showcases the note under a veritable feast of citrus fruits, mostly lemon and lime. Both fragrances eventually transition to a dry-grassy coumarin effect in their heart accords. The design work that was put into these two is flawless, intended to utilize familiar accords without resorting to predictable note placements, which makes for a more interesting wear of fragrances that should be pretty stuffy and boring. Although Flores-Roux used floral notes in a contemporary fashion, his integration of lavender and coumarin is from a traditional template. Arden's Sandalwood gives further insight into how lavender can be front and center, yet not smell isolated.

To understand Fougère Royale is to understand both traditional and aromatic fougères. The world of Atkinson's Lavender, Mennen Skin Bracer, Silvestre, the original Fougère Royale, Moustache, Sandalwood, Caron Pour un Homme, and Dunhill is connected to the separate world of Azzaro PH, Drakkar Noir, Jazz, Eternity, and Cool Water. The connection points are "bridge scents," fragrances like Pino Silvestre, Loewe for Men, Brut, and Paco Rabanne PH. These "bridges" maintain more traditional elements than their offspring, but also show evolutionary signs of breaking from tradition in their compositions. Only when a full understanding of this historical lineage is achieved can something like Fougère Royale be appreciated, because it is an olfactory homage to the past and present.

1/29/14

Fougère Royale, Part One (Houbigant, 2010)



This is a first impression review of Fougère Royale (the 2010 reissue, not the original). I received my sample earlier today, and I've been wearing it for a few hours. My interest in this fragrance stems from a deep love of fougères, both traditional and aromatic, a genre of masculine perfumery that never ceases to amaze me. This fragrance has come under a lot of fire since its release four years ago, mainly because they named it "Fougère Royale" and set the bar about as high as it could go. Everyone expected this thing to smell like the original 1882 fougère by the same firm, just freshened up a little bit for the modern world with newer chemicals and perhaps an extra note here or there. Instead, Houbigant created an entirely different fragrance, an aromatic fougère, which is a real change-up. It disappointed people.

Some of my readers may be unfamiliar with what an old-school traditional fougère smells like, so I'll offer two good examples. One of the original fougères was a feminine "sweet floral," as the H&R Genealogy calls it, a little barbershop scent called Canoe, which was released in 1935 to compete with Liz Arden's Blue Grass. It wasn't long until guys appropriated Canoe (they weren't interested in Blue Grass), and it has since become the reference fougère for wetshavers, beloved by many a badger brush-wielding family man. It's basically a brisk snap of lavender, followed by a super-powdery coumarin and musk base accord. The other traditional oldie is Pinaud's Clubman Aftershave-Lotion. Same thing, but with more rose and a vanillic coumarin.

If you know these two fougères, you know what a traditional fougère is supposed to smell like. The wonderful thing about traditional ferns is that they're cheap, but they smell great. There's nothing about the fragrance structure that demands a premium budget. You just need a healthy shot of linalool, some geraniol for floral depth, coumarin, and your pick of any bland white musk. Combine those elements, and voila - you have a fougère. The last of the commercially successful old-fashioned ferns was Brut, which was eventually marred by the banning of musk ambrette, though it still smells quite good today. In a way, Brut was the precursor to the aromatic fougères of the seventies and eighties, with its clean-dirty herbal musk presaging things like Azzaro Pour Homme, Kouros, and Lapidus.

Interestingly, the 2010 version of Fougère Royale smells somewhat removed from the barbershop fougères I've described, yet it uses the same structure. I believe it references a different kind of old-school fougère, something a bit less coumarin-focused and sweet, something woodier, more herbal, more "outdoorsy." Think of Worth Pour Homme, Moustache by Rochas, and Patrick by Fragrances of Ireland, and you have a better idea of the kind of fragrance Rodrigo Flores-Roux created. I've read about his thought process in approaching this fragrance, and it sounds like he wanted to adhere to traditional fougère conventions without succumbing to the same-old, same-old. He also had a sizable budget to work with, so the materials at his disposal were of much higher quality than anything coming out of Idelle Labs.

There's a warm glow in my heart as I smell this fragrance today. For the first time in a long time, I'm smelling an expensive semi-niche perfume that feels like it's deserving of its exorbitant price-tag. This is the sort of thing I wish Creed would release, a straight-up woody fern with elegant floral and herbal flourishes. It's not a very complicated scent, really - we're talking about a strident, super-bright bergamot, lavender, and geranium accord in the top notes, which still reminds me of aftershave, despite the oils used. The mid brings a hay-like coumarin accord, with its dry, grassy quality balanced by patchouli and chamomile, a simple but effective arrangement. It smells green, fresh, and refined. I don't get an excessively powdery quality from this combination of notes, although there is a bit of a talcum powder edge, hinting at the oldies mentioned above.

The musk in the base is a mite cleaner than I would have liked it to be - I wonder why the perfumer didn't use a more animalic note here - but ultimately the base is mossy and warm, and very, very masculine. The men of yesteryear weren't inclined to wear fragrance, so if they did indulge, it was with something not to be mistaken for "ladies perfume." There's no mistaking Fougère Royale for anything other than a man's scent, and a very conservative one at that. I'm reminded quite a bit of Moustache as I smell this, and I wonder how my impressions will develop in the days to come. All I can tell you right now is that this is a very good fougère, and I'd like to own it. It is beautiful, a special composition made by a talented nose who knew what his formula had to live up to. He delivered it. Thank you Rodrigo, and thank you Houbigant.