Posted by: Sk | January 3, 2008

What about the composition of Chanel 5?


It’s not that difficult to get, along with the whole story of it. And the bottles, all along history. Personally, I wouldn’t leave that kind of information to wander along internet. It’s always possible to argue though, that the percentages a missing and the mixture in evolution. But it is a pyramid. So let’s see.There are 13 elements, divided in three sections. As Chanel said, it should be an ‘artificial’ perfume, it is to be supposed that the percentages are regulated. Thus: let us try a first mix with the upper elements, a second with the middle elements and a third one with the lower. After, we put the second mix into the first and the third into the second. How much of each? The first seem to be basis (3) than 4 and then 6. To equal parts: 1 to 3, 1 to 4, and 1 to 6. And then 1/3 to 2/3 and finally 2/3 to 1/3.If it isn’t true, it doesn’t matter. We’ll have made up a new perfume. Called Chanel counterfeit, thanks to Lagerfeld’s absolute devotion to secrecy and discretion. Chanel, because it is impossible not to recognize the origin, otherwise we may be accused of stealing. And counterfeit because … it’s obviously not the original.Contribution with Lagerfeld’s picture and thus agreement of … concerning my question sent a few weeks ago to Madame de la Fressange concerning the fact that a humble human being may think there are counterfeits because the same name appears with the same perfume on two different bottles. To which I got no answer, as certainly none to her disposition although she seems to have plunged into deep researches today  starting with asking English Google ‘parfume definition’, which luckily had the same mistake than my text on perfumes and universal disasters posted in so that, little informed about definitions she could amuse herself for a while with a funny story. If it weren’t her it was at least someone of a French speaking country, but what, may we not leave our narcissitic and egotistic fantasy be drawn by the suspicion it could be herself? Better to live in a dream.It seems, what tradition says, that one perfume belongs to one bottle and one bottle to one perfume, except if there is a new bottle coming out, in which case the older disappear. Example, quite striking: Chanel 5 itself.There the evolution of the Chanel 5 bottle all along history, where it becomes clear that you don’t change a bottle every 6 months (normally) and most probable, that two bottles are never commercialized at the same time. (Quoting the hooligan: “I still remember when the new Chanel 5 bottle appeared in 1986. And my mother said at that time that it was a great fuzz, because all bottles that were there before had to be retired, which was horribly expensive, reason why houses did avoid changing bottles far too often …)(Not only you loose your time writing e-mails, you then have to find the answer all alone by yourself.) Never mind, it’s an interesting story and you learn a lot about it all.To say, Madame de la Fressange, that the poor hooligan was really but really allowed thinking there were counterfeits, although perhaps the only truth is that … both Fressange and Fressange co were commercializing both perfumes each for itself on different distribution lines. Both without anyone’s permission on the other hand, but that is not our problem. Thus, all was nothing but one unique counterfeit … of itself.No, Madame de la Fressange, a counterfeit is not necessarily a ‘false’ one. To say, a perfume with a different composition. If I steal the composition from your perfume and copy the bottle and put it on the market, it’s still a counterfeit. Counterfeits are primarily determined by the attachment of the product to the legal owner. If there is no legal owner … even the original becomes a counterfeit. Hope it is you, anyhow, you’re more sympathetic to your admirors than the others, who can’t even sell fashion.The strange thing is that the double bottle goes along with the ’sosias’ appearing in Marrakech and seems to be attached to her strange evading logic. Without name, her logic may only produce … doubles. But you see, that in spite of the fact that you may think ‘transgressions’ to custom fascinating and marvellous, so that gladiola appear in Paris Roger Vivier shop against all use while Yves Saint Laurent introduces black with dark blue combinations that were until then … forbidden, you can state that customs seem though to have had the extraordinary virtue  to allow people not being confused concerning the meaning and value of things.What if a bad character taking gladiola in their original popular understanding (burial) as these put beside a picture whose colours are white/blue/red in Roger Vivier,  comments: you’re assisting to France’s burial. Of course, a less ironical commenter may easily say: bah, seems Inès de la Fressange profits of the occasion to remind French to respect customs! But it seemed it’d be all just a question of interpretation.What about then of learning on the same page that Chanel was living in Ritz from 1934 and on, so that she dind’t have to be sent there by any German officer, as information published in wikipedia maintains. Where did wikipedia get that information from anyhow?Researches on wikipedia’s sources have reached so far as to discover that information furthered on Betty Catroux and Yves Saint Laurent, is information provided by the same Betty Catroux on a video that appears in Youtube, what the encounter with Yves Saint Laurent is concerned, though it is still not visible where the family information comes from (I had other information, but I never impose my sources.) What about information on Inès de la Fressange, all trials included or information on Coco Chanel, with her 742 hypotehtical lovers (see the Spanish version)?Here two beautiful pictures of Coco Chanel, whose style will be irreversibly inspiring Inès de la Fressange…  I don’t know, but it looks as if the kind ‘never mind, don’t cross me in any case’ style did have slight variations in time.I swear I’m horribly tired today (I’ve caught a horrible flue). But in the meantime, what do you think about this quizz:600 and 100 after, isn’t it? = Falls of Jerusalem.

6-+-? six cents et cent, n’est pas? or six sans et sans, n’est-ce pas? Bad French!

Pictures not available


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: