Friday, March 15, 2013

Had Some Work Done: Halston


Even when I was a kid and I knew nothing more about perfume than the fact that I liked it, I could see a through line from Halston, which came out in 1975, to Lauren, which came out three years later. The name Bernard Chant meant nothing to me, but the perfumer's signature was all over both. They shared a pillowy, woody warmth I now recognize as one of Chant's trademarks, a quality that carries over into Aromatics Elixir, Devin, Aramis, Aramis 900, Alliage, Cinnabar, and even his sparkling (maybe blinding) white Estee. The advertised personas of Lauren and Halston couldn't have been more far removed from each other - Halston had the decadent whisper of Studio 54 carnality; Lauren looked forward to the buttoned down reserve of the eighties - but every girl and woman I knew seemed to wear both, and their heady effects, unique among chypres, whatever their diverging promoted fantasies, seemed interchangeable to me.

Ask almost anyone who wore them or smelled them then what they smell like now and they'll invariably tell you Halston and Lauren have been butchered beyond recognition by cost-cutting reformulations. They'll say neither is worth bothering with. I can't argue a case in favor of present day Lauren, which definitely smells not only gutted but entirely rethought to me, but I part ways with popular opinion when it comes to Halston.

For a long time, I agreed, if mainly on principle, and railed at the perfume powers that be, though I took great pleasure from any version of Halston I got my hands on. The ten to twenty dollar iteration available in drugstores over the last ten years or so seemed very much like what I remembered from the mid seventies, if sharper and brighter. The husky voice Halston once hummed in seemed to have become a little shrill, the woody warmth a little cooler, but all the basic parts still seemed present, if spinning in slightly different directions.

This week, I ordered a vintage bottle from Ebay, a collectible edition with silver in place of the iconic plastic bottle parts. Spraying it on, I was surprised how little has changed, compared to what I've been led to believe. I won't argue Halston hasn't changed - at all - but I will argue that it's changed a lot less than people say. I would also argue that the changes in the formula have less to do with cost cutting, and more to do with regulations, which isn't to say cost of production hasn't been an issue in the changing face of Halston; it's just to say no more than in most fragrances.

For the most part, I'm surprised at the apparent pains taken to preserve the spirit of the original perfume. Plenty of people raised their voices at the prospect of alterations to the cherished classics at Guerlain, but who was going to make a fuss over the long-forgotten, drastically demoted Halston brand? Clearly, no one had to bother much trying to keep the thing intact. The fact that anyone did seems pretty commendable to me.

The biggest difference - and I realize that, to some, it's all the difference in the world - is the absence now of natural musks in Halston. Again, can't argue here that those musks don't make a difference. You spray on old Halston and those musks give it something special, something deep and resonant. But, risking heresy, I have to say I've never found myself pining much for those old natural musks. I appreciate their presence in vintage perfumes. I discern the difference. But to me those musks, however much they flesh out their host perfumes, have the adverse effect of poorer longevity on my skin. They're so "natural" that they become a sort of second skin, and after about thirty minutes they disappear. I tend to like more presence in a perfume. I don't mind it smelling perfumey, if perfumey means more "there". My lifestyle doesn't find me "sweating it out" on the dance floor these days, and certainly old Halston must have reactivated once it hit the mesmeric glitter ball reflections bobbing around at discotheques like Studio 54.

Other obvious, inevitable differences would be the subtraction of the better half of the original formula's oakmoss, now restricted down to a bare minimum, and, I'm guessing, higher grade sandalwood. You can't fault Halston's new owners for downgrading when it comes to sandalwood, when even high end lines are doing the same, with similar, sometimes even less thoughtful, results. That said, I admit there has been, in all the various redesigns of Halston, a pronounced dullness, a crudeness missing from Bernard Chant's original construction. Until now.

I love vintage Halston, but I prefer the version I got yesterday from the drugstore, which seems to be, judging by the label on back, the most recent formula. After a few sharp minutes, it smells remarkably similar to the collectible edition - so much so that I'll take the much more affordable reformulation over the cherished vintage. Oddly, this latest iteration is closer than ever to the fragrance my sister and all her friends seemed to be wearing way back when. It has the added bonus of enhanced projection. All that woody splendor feels amplified and sort of sings off the skin, radiating in peachy herbal waves from the body. It doesn't need heat to liven it up like a refreshening late night bump of coke. For the first time, vintage or more recent, I can discern Halston's constituent parts - balanced lines of marigold, rose, cedar, pathcouli, vetiver, ylang, and jasmine. It lasts more decently than most of the niche fragrances I own, and feels a lot more satisfying overall. Nothing smells like Halston these days - with the exception of this reformulation. And frankly, no "new chypre" smells more like a chypre is meant to smell than this cheap little denigrated number. I'd wear this stuff over any number of contemporary so called chypres any day, and consider it far more valuable in many ways than their drastically opposed price tags would suggest.

If the throwaway, disrespected drugstore Halston can make chypre smell this good in the present tense, it begs the question: why are the larger, more respectable corporations charging so much to make it smell so impeccably foul?

(How to tell which version you're dealing with: The version I tend to like the least has the name Halston printed on the glass of the bottle. The ingredients listed on the back of this version's box go something like, "alcohol, fragrance, water" and a few blues, yellows and reds, each followed by a distinguishing number.  This version is manufactured by EA Fragrances Co., but slightly earlier versions (early middle period, let's say) list FFI Fragrance International.  The slightly earlier, FFi version is even less preferable to me than the allegedly wretched EA version. Go figure. Earliest versions of the fragrance list Halston as the manufacturer. These versions will tend to have all natural musks and oakmoss ratios intact. They smell the richest, the most plush. The most recent version returns to the blank bottle, sans imprint of the brand name, and everything but the kitchen sink is listed on the back of the box. Middle period boxes have, on the inside, a pattern of interlocked H's. The most recent formula, and late middle formula, has this as well, but the cardboard sleeve containing the perfume, nestled inside the box, is plain, whereas during the early middle period, the cardboard sleeve bore the pattern as well. Of the middle period, I probably prefer late FFI version, which smells more like a chypre than its younger EA sister. If you go hunting on Ebay, your best bet is to stick with bottles still in their boxes, so that you can communicate with the seller about these various distinguishing characteristics. But I recommend the most recent version as well, and it's available at most drugstores. Got all that?)

19 comments:

  1. You know, I think the fact that you rarely see capital-C chypres anymore has as much to do with the fact that they've gone out of fashion, especially among young women, as it does with the oakmoss restrictions. My bottle of Paloma Picasso from a few years ago is mega chypre-y.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think you're right. I just wish they'd stop calling these things chypres at all. Part of it isn't just the oakmoss but the squeaky clean patchouli they're using these days, so stripped of everything that makes patchouli interesting to me that it might as well be called dirt, though dirt makes it sound more interesting than it is. If only. I can't think of one so called chypre I've smelled in the last few years that didn't smell more like a fruitchouli or a fruity floral gone to finishing school to me.

    I LOVE Paloma Picasso. Is that - what? - an animalic chypre?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I guess technically it's animalic but it just smells really lush to me. I think the "chypre" part is very similar in So Pretty, but SP is less floral and more cassis-y.

    The only "modern chypres" that smell like chypres to me are things with galbanum, regardless of the base, but I think I just associate galbanum with chypres!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Which Picasso do you have, edp or edt? They're both pretty different to me. The edt feels more vanillic; the edp a little stranger. Once I found a vintage bottle in an old drugstore, and it was shocking how animalic it was. Almost foul - which I liked. I guess that's why I think of it as primarily animalic, even though neither version I have is anywhere near as skanky as that one was.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It's EDT and not very old, so that would explain it. It's like a makeup chypre with honeyed jasmine, but not sweet compared to most florals these days.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I like both concentrations. You should check out the edp if you find a reasonable bottle. It's very nice.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This is so good to hear about Halston! I used to love it, and now you've given me reason to reacquaint myself with it. Seems to me someone else mentioned that Halston hasn't changed much over the years ... I'm thinking it was Beth from Perfume-Smellin' Things.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Katy McReynoldsMarch 15, 2013

    After watching the excellent documentary about Halston's life, Ultrasuade, I have been craving a reaquaintance with his signature fragrance. I have been quite reluctant to slip down the vintage frag rabbit hole because my obsession with modern perfumes is bad enough. Now I can just pop over to the drugstore and be done. I love Paloma Picasso and Niki de St Phalle. I always think I have a troubled history with chypres because I do not care for many of them. Maybe I just like the really good ones!

    ReplyDelete
  9. I really was surprised to smell the original, Suzanne. I'd just imagined that the reformulations were miles away. They're not exact replicas but they're not chopped liver, either.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Katy, you DO have good taste in chypres. I see a common thread in those. They're all more woodsy than your average chypre, and more herbal I think too. I'm not a massive fan of chypres in general, though I think they're perfectly lovely. I do like them when they have a raspy quality to them - and probably loads of patchouli!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hi Brian,

    I might be wrong-since I can't see the bottle you mention, but the Halston bottle with silver metal instead of plastic is "Halston Couture" a Halston flanker from the late 80's.

    You will find photos of both on fragranitca, which lists Couture as a Wood Chypre and Classic as a Chypre Floral. Perfume Intelligence classifies Halston Couture as a "green chypre fragrance". Hope this helps.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hiya, Natasha. I believe that for a brief time several halston frags were released with silver trimmings. I own halston couture, and really like it. I also own a halston men's frag, forget the name at the moment, which also has the silver top. The bottle I recently got off eBay is definitely Halston Classic, not Couture. I made sure before buying by clarifying because I was convinced it must be Couture. The box says Collector's edition and the juice isn't anything like couture. It's definitely classic.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Just looked it up: the Halston men's collectible was called Halston Limited. Like Couture, it's very woody. It's similar to z-14 but much more herbal. It was released in 1987, and Couture was released in 88, so I'd venture a guess that my Collectible Classic from Ebay dates from around that time as well, making it late early Halston Classic I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  14. My sister (the same one who had given me Jolie Madame, Je Reviens and Cabochard) gave me Halston for Christmas when I was eighteen. I found it a little intimidating then, but eventually I did learn to appreciate it and used it all. Then, a few months ago, I won an auction for Halston natural spray cologne (no box, unfortunately). The sticker on the bottom of the bottle says Halston Fragrances, Inc. Even though it's a cologne, it has plenty of presence--plenty of sandalwood and oakmoss. Not sure about the musks but I am enjoying it.
    Nice to see you posting again, I've missed you, Brian.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hi there, Queen. I thought of you the other day. I've been scouring ebay for oldies but goodies, and found a vintage bottle of Toujours Moi, circa maybe seventies or eighties, when it was still manufactured by Corday. It's a massive bottle, something like I think 5 ounces, perhaps 6(?), and the box has swirly unicorn and nymph designs on it. The cap on the bottle is a sort of mother of pearl approximation.

    And the juice smells incredible - much like the modern version up front but about 30 minutes in it takes on a much more earthy aspect. Amazing stuff - and I've got you to thank for turning me on to it. Guess what? I see a lot of similarities to Habanita.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Congratulations on the nice score, Brian! I have all but given up on ebay for those oldie-goodies. Actually, I haven't been buying anything lately but am determined to enjoy and sample what I already own. Hmm...I think I will have to do a side-by-side comparison of Habanita and TMoi. There is something very special about both of those frags. I love the swirly unicorn/nymph theme. I think it somehow derives from the fable and that famous French tapestry with the unicorn on it. Have a lovely weekend. XO

    ReplyDelete
  17. Halston was my signature fragrance for a couple of years, and I still have the bottle (about 10 mls left). It got a little cooked, as I left it out in the light in those days, but once the slight "old aldehydes" off note disssipates it's Quite The Thing, with just about every note there is and that plushness you mention.

    Think I'll wear it today.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Oops, my bad! I didn't know there were several different Halston bottles.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I remember not liking Halston back in the day - like you, I notice a lot of animalics in there - but I wonder how I'd do with it now. (I still don't get on with Paloma or Niki, don't know why. Maybe they're not floral enough for me?) And that bottle shape always looks vaguely like a sex toy to me.

    But anyway, I came here because I just, JUST NOW, smelled Z-14 at the drugstore. I immediately bought the thing, and only partly because it was half off in their sale; mostly I bought it because smelling it made my eyes roll back. I mean, I was standing there breathless trying not to swear out loud in front of the sweet little old lady clerk. I know that's an old formula, but it somehow doesn't smell dated to me the way that, say, Brut (which I like) or Drakkar Noir (which I also like) do. I'm not getting Boogie Nights here, either, just Wow, this smells dark and manly to me.

    Hope you're doing well.

    ReplyDelete