Post: #41

(03-12-2017 5:15 PM)DrChocolate Wrote:  This may be a silly question. And my apologies if it is. But am curious.

When natural animalistic pheromones r abstracted from animals, r those animals suffering? Or r they still living? Thanks.

It's most likely that the animals were harvested for their furs as well as their glands...in older times when there was no substitute. Nowadays, their are synthetic analogs which mimic (at least scentwise) the natural raw materials. Because of this, it is generally illegal to kill the animals and unnecessary. Though some of this goes on in the black market e.g., Asia/Africa. For example, deer antlers are still revered as an aphrodisiac in China.
In the case of Ambergris which is whale vomit/excrement, the animals were not suffering. Nonetheless, ambergris harvesting was also outlawed...though I don't know whether that is still in place. Ambergris is rare to find on beaches, but some lucky hunters can get unreal sums of money for a soccerball sized blob.

Post: #42

(03-13-2017 3:46 AM)TheManInTheFedora Wrote:  It's most likely that the animals were harvested for their furs as well as their glands...in older times when there was no substitute. Nowadays, their are synthetic analogs which mimic (at least scentwise) the natural raw materials. Because of this, it is generally illegal to kill the animals and unnecessary. Though some of this goes on in the black market e.g., Asia/Africa. For example, deer antlers are still revered as an aphrodisiac in China.
In the case of Ambergris which is whale vomit/excrement, the animals were not suffering. Nonetheless, ambergris harvesting was also outlawed...though I don't know whether that is still in place. Ambergris is rare to find on beaches, but some lucky hunters can get unreal sums of money for a soccerball sized blob.

If the animal is not suffering, then am all for it. But if there's any slightest harm for the animal am against it.

From what I read, synthetic subtracts aren't as powerful as natural counterparts. Although they do do a fair bit of work.

Post: #43

(03-13-2017 3:51 AM)DrChocolate Wrote:  If the animal is not suffering, then am all for it. But if there's any slightest harm for the animal am against it.

From what I read, synthetic subtracts aren't as powerful as natural counterparts. Although they do do a fair bit of work.

Back in the old days, the animals did suffer as they were killed for their glands. Nowadays, the use of their sacs has largely been supplanted by synthetics (at least in the western world). This is especially true of the perfume industry, not really for the pheromones.

You are right in the extent that the naturals are better because most likely complex groups of fragrance chemicals with pheromonal compounds were extracted and not simply just fragrance isolates (excluding pheromones) e.g., civettone being the synthetic as opposed to the whole civit gland being processed with not only civettone, but also a plethora of other scent chemicals as well as perhaps, pheromones.

Nowadays, even if one were to obtain the naturals (which is not impossible) the price can be prohibitive as sourcing/processing is expensive. Vegetable sources of musk have been obtained e.g., ambrette seeds which have musky aroma. The ambrette seeds are cheap and animals were not harmed. You can find this in Chanel Egoiste pour homme (NOT Egoiste Platinum; totally different scent) which has a musky drydown along with sandalwood, coriander notes. The ladies would love this on an elegant man who is dressed in a killer suit.



I know that you prefer the natural essential oils, but this one is good. You can use the oils (sandalwood) to enhance the longevity of this scent. Just a thought.

Good Luck Doc, and keep up the cool reports. I enjoy reading them!