<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Talking Scents with Francis Kurkdjian</title>
	<atom:link href="http://intothegloss.com/2013/01/talking-scents-with-francis-kurkdjian/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://intothegloss.com/2013/01/talking-scents-with-francis-kurkdjian/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Jun 2013 21:39:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: kneelbeforetigers</title>
		<link>http://intothegloss.com/2013/01/talking-scents-with-francis-kurkdjian/#comment-18615</link>
		<dc:creator>kneelbeforetigers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2013 23:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://intothegloss.com/?p=10923#comment-18615</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[True... but they did carry Sunday Riley before any other larger retailer. They try, they try.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>True... but they did carry Sunday Riley before any other larger retailer. They try, they try.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SF City Editor</title>
		<link>http://intothegloss.com/2013/01/talking-scents-with-francis-kurkdjian/#comment-18608</link>
		<dc:creator>SF City Editor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2013 21:18:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://intothegloss.com/?p=10923#comment-18608</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I actually would feel like I was cheating on FK if I wore another fragrance, I&#039;m afraid I&#039;m in-love with Amyris, and it&#039;s my signature scent, until he makes another scent I fall madly in-love with.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I actually would feel like I was cheating on FK if I wore another fragrance, I'm afraid I'm in-love with Amyris, and it's my signature scent, until he makes another scent I fall madly in-love with.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SF City Editor</title>
		<link>http://intothegloss.com/2013/01/talking-scents-with-francis-kurkdjian/#comment-18607</link>
		<dc:creator>SF City Editor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2013 21:16:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://intothegloss.com/?p=10923#comment-18607</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sephora doesn&#039;t have any of the hard to find beauty essentials, everything they primarily carry is mass marketed and produced.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sephora doesn't have any of the hard to find beauty essentials, everything they primarily carry is mass marketed and produced.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SF City Editor</title>
		<link>http://intothegloss.com/2013/01/talking-scents-with-francis-kurkdjian/#comment-18606</link>
		<dc:creator>SF City Editor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2013 21:14:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://intothegloss.com/?p=10923#comment-18606</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How dare you say such a thing, FK is in a league all his own. And who cares about all of those analogies, we understand and get the point. Francis Kurkdjian is the &quot;Nose&quot;, the one true modern perfumer.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How dare you say such a thing, FK is in a league all his own. And who cares about all of those analogies, we understand and get the point. Francis Kurkdjian is the "Nose", the one true modern perfumer.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SF City Editor</title>
		<link>http://intothegloss.com/2013/01/talking-scents-with-francis-kurkdjian/#comment-18604</link>
		<dc:creator>SF City Editor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2013 21:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://intothegloss.com/?p=10923#comment-18604</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#039;m in love with Amyris too, it&#039;s the best scent I&#039;ve worn since I can remember, simply beautiful.  What I like about Maison Francis Kurkdjian is that he formulates simply and intelligently, without many of the ingredients I find are so mass produced, with Maison Francis Kurkdjian you get luxury.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I'm in love with Amyris too, it's the best scent I've worn since I can remember, simply beautiful.  What I like about Maison Francis Kurkdjian is that he formulates simply and intelligently, without many of the ingredients I find are so mass produced, with Maison Francis Kurkdjian you get luxury.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SF City Editor</title>
		<link>http://intothegloss.com/2013/01/talking-scents-with-francis-kurkdjian/#comment-18605</link>
		<dc:creator>SF City Editor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2013 21:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://intothegloss.com/?p=10923#comment-18605</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I agree.....me first : )]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree.....me first : )</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Claudia</title>
		<link>http://intothegloss.com/2013/01/talking-scents-with-francis-kurkdjian/#comment-15653</link>
		<dc:creator>Claudia</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jan 2013 21:53:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://intothegloss.com/?p=10923#comment-15653</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Incas created Machu Picchu with stones and matural material, no steel or glass and it stands today. A work of genius, an architectural masterpiece coveted by modern day architects. There was was a time when perfume was regarded in the same fashion. It&#039;s basis was pure, natural, and of botanical resources. Then the money grubbing whores came along to preserve scents and make them last longer or develop an unnatural scent from which does not exist in nature and hence we have what most people think of as perfume. True perfumes don&#039;t need to be stirred in a witch&#039;s cauldron as they do today. There are natural perfumers in this world that are considered artists. Any fool can create a scent based on chemicals. additives, and the kitchen sink, I mean have you smelled a Demeter perfume lately? Sounds like Francis is a little confined with his elements and may ne a little jealous of what other &quot;true&quot; perfumers are doing now.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Incas created Machu Picchu with stones and matural material, no steel or glass and it stands today. A work of genius, an architectural masterpiece coveted by modern day architects. There was was a time when perfume was regarded in the same fashion. It's basis was pure, natural, and of botanical resources. Then the money grubbing whores came along to preserve scents and make them last longer or develop an unnatural scent from which does not exist in nature and hence we have what most people think of as perfume. True perfumes don't need to be stirred in a witch's cauldron as they do today. There are natural perfumers in this world that are considered artists. Any fool can create a scent based on chemicals. additives, and the kitchen sink, I mean have you smelled a Demeter perfume lately? Sounds like Francis is a little confined with his elements and may ne a little jealous of what other "true" perfumers are doing now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: greenmachie</title>
		<link>http://intothegloss.com/2013/01/talking-scents-with-francis-kurkdjian/#comment-15617</link>
		<dc:creator>greenmachie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jan 2013 07:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://intothegloss.com/?p=10923#comment-15617</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I think you might be missing her point which is that there is legitimate concern about synthetic fragrances. Sure her analogy might not be 100%, but it&#039;s more accurate than Francis&#039; original. Even if its not the lead thats the chemical there are still so many chemicals (VOC, benzene, formaldehyde, etc.)  that her reference to the paint is not inaccurate.

And I don&#039;t think anyone is making a point that all natural materials are better, I don&#039;t think anyone is mistaken for example that rubbing poison ivy or pine needles as you said, a natural ingredient is going to be better than absorbing a few chemicals. 

There are many not so great synthetic fragrances that are used, and to be honest the example you cited, geraniol is a commonly used naturally derived fragrance that is used in many natural products, I think we might be working on two different definitions of what constitutes synthetic and what does not. For me, synthetics are things such as Galaxolide and TonalideI which can bind and stimulate human estrogen receptions, and not geraniol which is mostly derived from natural botanicals. 


And you&#039;re right, some flower absolutes are derived from chemical solvents  but I don&#039;t think the original poster was advocating the use of that over synthetic fragrance either, and for many natural beauty people, those absolutes constitute chemical ingredients as well. 

It seems you&#039;re picking on her for things she didn&#039;t really say at this point. Let&#039;s just step away and you can keep producing your fragrances and people who don&#039;t want synthetics can have their options and everyone is entitled to their views.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think you might be missing her point which is that there is legitimate concern about synthetic fragrances. Sure her analogy might not be 100%, but it's more accurate than Francis' original. Even if its not the lead thats the chemical there are still so many chemicals (VOC, benzene, formaldehyde, etc.)  that her reference to the paint is not inaccurate.</p>
<p>And I don't think anyone is making a point that all natural materials are better, I don't think anyone is mistaken for example that rubbing poison ivy or pine needles as you said, a natural ingredient is going to be better than absorbing a few chemicals. </p>
<p>There are many not so great synthetic fragrances that are used, and to be honest the example you cited, geraniol is a commonly used naturally derived fragrance that is used in many natural products, I think we might be working on two different definitions of what constitutes synthetic and what does not. For me, synthetics are things such as Galaxolide and TonalideI which can bind and stimulate human estrogen receptions, and not geraniol which is mostly derived from natural botanicals. </p>
<p>And you're right, some flower absolutes are derived from chemical solvents  but I don't think the original poster was advocating the use of that over synthetic fragrance either, and for many natural beauty people, those absolutes constitute chemical ingredients as well. </p>
<p>It seems you're picking on her for things she didn't really say at this point. Let's just step away and you can keep producing your fragrances and people who don't want synthetics can have their options and everyone is entitled to their views.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Greencourt</title>
		<link>http://intothegloss.com/2013/01/talking-scents-with-francis-kurkdjian/#comment-15615</link>
		<dc:creator>Greencourt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Jan 2013 23:56:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://intothegloss.com/?p=10923#comment-15615</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Please see my comment above - many synthetics are made from natural materials: like plucking a carrot from a soup. And plenty of so-called natural plant materials (see virtually all flower absolutes) are extracted with chemical solvents which *are* actually toxic.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Please see my comment above - many synthetics are made from natural materials: like plucking a carrot from a soup. And plenty of so-called natural plant materials (see virtually all flower absolutes) are extracted with chemical solvents which *are* actually toxic.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Greencourt</title>
		<link>http://intothegloss.com/2013/01/talking-scents-with-francis-kurkdjian/#comment-15614</link>
		<dc:creator>Greencourt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Jan 2013 23:51:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://intothegloss.com/?p=10923#comment-15614</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Your analogies are not altogether true. I&#039;m a perfumer, and I use synthetic ingredients. 

First off, synthetics have to be made from something. Sometimes they are made from scratch with &quot;chemical&quot; compounds. Other times, they are actually taken from natural materials. For instance, there is a molecule called geraniol that you will find in 90% of all perfumes. (It&#039;s also IFRA mandated to label this ingredient, so you will see it on the ingredients lists for many perfumes and bath products.) Geraniol is essentially the scent of rose. Roses have hundreds of molecules that account for their scent, but since geraniol is found in huge amounts in rose, smelling the single molecule is like seeing a photo of a rose (think of the photo as being in lo-fi - although you don&#039;t get all of the tiny details around the edges, you still fully understand what is depicted in the picture). Geraniol is also found in very large amounts in many other flowers, and in rosewood. 

Synthesized geraniol is not made from a pile of phthalate monster molecules. Synthesized geraniol is made from pine sap. The molecule itself is but one &quot;branch&quot; of a natural material, and a bottle of geraniol that has been made &quot;synthetically&quot; from pine sap and a bottle of geraniol that has been taken from rosewood are chemically identical, save for small variations in trace elements. Is one branch of a tree any less natural than the tree it came from? Kurkdjian was correct to choose steel and glass for his comparison.

Also, lead is a natural element.

Synthetics also aren&#039;t used simply for their power. Many synthetics are gone in 15 seconds, and many naturals (sandalwood, oakmoss, ambergris, civet) last for weeks. Indeed, the whole reason many perfumers even use synthetics is because people actually have a taste for transparent, easy-smelling, fresh, non-irritating perfumes. Ck One? So synthetic. Acqua di Gio? So synthetic. Eau Sauvage? Synthetic, synthetic, synthetic. In that case, you are correct that people have a taste for things that don&#039;t smell like the human body. However, that&#039;s mostly in America and Japan. In France, the Middle East, etc, there is a huge taste for sweaty, raunchy scents that are the scent of skin. These are made with synthetic musks.

In times of opulence or reduced bathing, perfumes were so strong they would knock. you. out. And they were natural. And, in some cases, they were actually made to emphasize certain &quot;dirty&quot; smells. People didn&#039;t only wear perfume because they were trying to mask something, it was also a status symbol and a sexual symbol. They used cat s**t for lastingness, musk from deer for sensuality, and would lay waste to fields of jasmine and endangered sandalwood trees for richness. The taste for lighter perfumes went hand in hand with the development of synthetics.

And a huge number of &quot;natural&quot; materials used in perfumery like some flower absolutes are taken from plants using toxic solvents like hexane and benzene. Even so-called natural perfumery is removed significantly from the pastoral and non-technological, and is many significant steps from bruising some pine needles and rubbing them on your wrist (which would cause skin irritation, anyway.)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Your analogies are not altogether true. I'm a perfumer, and I use synthetic ingredients. </p>
<p>First off, synthetics have to be made from something. Sometimes they are made from scratch with "chemical" compounds. Other times, they are actually taken from natural materials. For instance, there is a molecule called geraniol that you will find in 90% of all perfumes. (It's also IFRA mandated to label this ingredient, so you will see it on the ingredients lists for many perfumes and bath products.) Geraniol is essentially the scent of rose. Roses have hundreds of molecules that account for their scent, but since geraniol is found in huge amounts in rose, smelling the single molecule is like seeing a photo of a rose (think of the photo as being in lo-fi - although you don't get all of the tiny details around the edges, you still fully understand what is depicted in the picture). Geraniol is also found in very large amounts in many other flowers, and in rosewood. </p>
<p>Synthesized geraniol is not made from a pile of phthalate monster molecules. Synthesized geraniol is made from pine sap. The molecule itself is but one "branch" of a natural material, and a bottle of geraniol that has been made "synthetically" from pine sap and a bottle of geraniol that has been taken from rosewood are chemically identical, save for small variations in trace elements. Is one branch of a tree any less natural than the tree it came from? Kurkdjian was correct to choose steel and glass for his comparison.</p>
<p>Also, lead is a natural element.</p>
<p>Synthetics also aren't used simply for their power. Many synthetics are gone in 15 seconds, and many naturals (sandalwood, oakmoss, ambergris, civet) last for weeks. Indeed, the whole reason many perfumers even use synthetics is because people actually have a taste for transparent, easy-smelling, fresh, non-irritating perfumes. Ck One? So synthetic. Acqua di Gio? So synthetic. Eau Sauvage? Synthetic, synthetic, synthetic. In that case, you are correct that people have a taste for things that don't smell like the human body. However, that's mostly in America and Japan. In France, the Middle East, etc, there is a huge taste for sweaty, raunchy scents that are the scent of skin. These are made with synthetic musks.</p>
<p>In times of opulence or reduced bathing, perfumes were so strong they would knock. you. out. And they were natural. And, in some cases, they were actually made to emphasize certain "dirty" smells. People didn't only wear perfume because they were trying to mask something, it was also a status symbol and a sexual symbol. They used cat s**t for lastingness, musk from deer for sensuality, and would lay waste to fields of jasmine and endangered sandalwood trees for richness. The taste for lighter perfumes went hand in hand with the development of synthetics.</p>
<p>And a huge number of "natural" materials used in perfumery like some flower absolutes are taken from plants using toxic solvents like hexane and benzene. Even so-called natural perfumery is removed significantly from the pastoral and non-technological, and is many significant steps from bruising some pine needles and rubbing them on your wrist (which would cause skin irritation, anyway.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
