Amoraexcena

I bought this for the S.O., who I like Dracul on as well as sweeter ones like Dorian. I think I have a new favourite though, because lately I like darker scents. Wet: yes, I suggest everyone brace themselves for the initial blast, because this one needs to settle before it shines. Dry: I think this has a tiny bit of the same musk as Black Temple Burlesque Troupe. Black musk... oh how I love you. I love Manilus because the woody aspect isn't overpowering (cedar sometimes goes pencil shavings on me but this is behaving), the leather isn't overpowering, the resins don't go powderey at ALL, and it's kept fresh by violet leaf (no violet flowers, I love violets (FAITH<3) and would recognize it if it were in here). I also get a tad of something metallic-smelling. I wish it were a tiny bit more spicey -a dash more nutmeg- but it's very, very comforting. Manilus is a great unobtrusive all-purpose nonsweet fragrance. I will like it more on the boy but I'll probably steal some for layering with BTBT, which smells awesome, btw.

I bought this one out of curiosity (hello orgasm, my bff) over a year ago now, and initially, it smelled exactly as I expected -fresh Snake Oil and O. I'm not the biggest fan of either and was thinking of keeping my bottles for investment's sake, with a vague idea of re-trying them and probably selling them in 3 years or so. BUT. I tried Womb Furie '10 today with my trusty tester toothpick as I aired out each of my bottles in my "Ageing" Box, just because WF smelled REALLY good in the bottle....and honestly, if it keeps getting better, I might just keep it. I'm similar to several of the previous reviewers in that my skin doesn't much like most of the lab's honey notes. There's a SLIGHT hint of play-doh- I'm guessing one of the honey's is turning a bit on my skin- but that's only if I sniff really closely. The throw is completely beautiful. A strong golden nectar that's lightly spiced, faintly musky, and mouth-wateringly sweet. It's undoubtably something I'd wear before sexing the SO. I think it's actually turning me on lol. For a nympho like me, this is awesome. Verdict: If WF comes out next year Lupercalia, I suggest everyone buys it. Even O- and SO- haters might find something in WF. I'm guessing the '11 version will likewise age really well. I'm kind of hoping it gets turned into a GC...or at least makes a yearly comeback. Everyone needs to try this!

Chaste Moon '10 was a very cool, luminescent floral to me, no jasmine or gardenia to my nose.

Clockwork Couture: Female has a similar feel - and it can still be ordered, I believe O_O I thought CC:F ran out ages and ages ago? ...i would trade my bottle of The Girl for CC:F anytime ;-; I want to try that one sooo badly! I'd guess CC:F is slightly similar to Faith, in that it's sugary and slightly floral... but Faith isn't a GC. Hmmmm are there any GC marshmallow-pinkcandy-floral scents? High-strung daisies kind of fits the bill minus marshmallow...

I am HAPPY. Midnight on the Midway is one of my favourite CD scents. It was recently discontinued and I was very sad. BUT! In my last order I included Vasilissa in an imp pack. It's REALLY similar to Midnight on the Midway: a very sweet floral with I think a pink musk base. Vasilissa is sweeter and MotM has a little more jasmine but without comparing them side by side I doubt I'd be able to tell them apart. yay<3 I had to share my happiness!

In the Imp: I smell a sharp, sour green apple tinged with eucalyptus. Wet on Skin: The apple fades to eucalyptus, spearmint and ice. It definitely goes herbal. Drydown: Lily of the valley and pine soap, with a melange of herbs. Very little apple.

In the Bottle: The '10 blend is certainly not very sweet (much less so than the '05). It's daffodil, heady iris, breezy tulips to begin with. On the Skin: It mellows a little into more breezy floral, sweetening a little as it dries. It's cold and crystalline. I definitely get a sense of white blooms glowing under a full moon. Drydown: The creaminess comes out a little, and thankfully this doesn't sour like so many other cream blends on my skin. It's a little more aquatic. Still a very cold floral lunar scent.

I'm surprised Smut hasn't been mentioned: Three swarthy, smutty musks sweetened with sugar and woozy with dark booze notes. It's not overly boozy, it's got a similar honey musk to O while not being too much like a cun*, and DIFFERENT. Love it! and the 2010 version is getting some rave reviews....but another vote to Dorian if not!

Imp: Apple, grape and something gritty in the background- definitely the cinnamon bark. It's more woody, bark-like, than any other cinnamon I've found in BPAL. It's not Lyonesse, that's for sure. Wet on Skin: the tartness of the pomegranate is now apparent and the richness of fig just envelops you. What's interesting is that the throw on this smells like a mouth-watering juicy ripe purple fruit. Close up on the skin, it's spicier, slightly woody, and has a bit of an edge. Drydown: The tartness of the pomegranate and tamarind fade a little, leaving a softly glowing sweet fruit-juice-cloud-throw that's pretty impressive in strength and longevity. It's not like it's unbearably strong on my skin either... really intriguing. Images of a sunset in the Garden, licking the juice off your fingers after a long day of harvesting the last ripe fruit, leaning back against the bark of the tree...

Imp: as ciabonefish mentioned, this smells VERY exotically middle-eastern. Cardamom, nutmeg, maybe tumeric, caraway and tonka as well... Sweet but not vanilla exactly. Wet on Skin: it's a pretty strong spice in there, be wary of over-applying! I think I smell carnation, rose, and something else- amber is the usual culprit-making this go a little powdery on me. Drydown: a bit warmer, less sneeze-inducingly spicy. I'm definitely tempted to keep this for a while to age.

Imp: a vaguely sweet syrupy oil with a hint of cedar. Wet on Skin: The woods, definitely some cedar in there, are amping like whoa! But I love the smell of cedar so that's fine with me. The fig's in there just lightly sweetening this blend, but it's not fruity really, just a mildly sugary presence. It's a really relaxing blend. Drydown: Definitely cedar-dominating, with a hint of sweetness from the fig and touch of dark cocoa spicing things up that comes out in drydown. Not foody by any means. I think it's a pretty good gender-neutral scent, slightly on the feminine side. I quite like it, and once this imp runs out I'll consider a bottle.

Bottle: Rich, almost alcoholic intoxicating cacao and tobacco. It smells RAW. Not like the hot-chocolate-y Bliss, that's for sure. The dark oil definitely has a sinister edge. The label art is wonderful- a sexy bat-winged priestess with tentacles sensuously running around her curves, dancing... Wet on Skin: The blend sweetens up a little, along with some added spice that's quite reminiscient of SO. As mentioned previously, it's a cousin of Boomslang- but I'm not getting any of the strange, cloying off-putting sweetness of that blend, BTBT is a more subtle warmth. The tobacco is less raw, now it's a bit more like a fine cigar. The musk is smoothing this out, I think. It feels rounder and more wearable while being the epitome of night-time sexy. Drydown: I only used a dab of this, since it seemed like it could be an overwhelming blend. It's a stronger-than-average blend to be sure, but not so much that it's overwhelming, I could definitely slather more. As a matter of fact I'm tempted to add more on now- it's addictive and it's only bound to get better with age! I just popped it out of the box containing my last Yules and after giving it a good roll, I *had* to apply it asap. Once it is quickly absorbed by my skin, it's a sweet tobacco-incense blend with a hint of cacao and a heavy dose of musk. I usually like the far drydown best of most of Beth's blends (Shadwell is a great example: it's rich, warming condensed milk and soft leather in the far drydown, about an hour or two in, while kind of jarring upon initial application... others like Black Lace also come to mind) and BTBT is no exception: a BIG BONUS of this blend is that it reaches far drydown stage in a matter of minutes and stays there forever. This. Is. Brilliant. I hope it'll be resurrected in many future Yules to come!!!

It should be $12. It was slightly increased recently due to shipping price increases by the USPS.

I found the Water of Notre Dame to be very "sparkling," if you can pull off lily of the valley without it curdling into soap like my own skin! my review: Water of Notre Dame: Imp: bubbling spring water, delicate rose and lavender water (one more flower scent in there I can't pick out- lily or maybe cherry blossom?), fresh-squeezed splash of lemon, a squirt of lime. Wet on Skin: the citrus amps a little, as well as something slightly spicey- maybe the floral I couldn't feel out was carnation? but still predominantly watery and definitely relaxing (even though I'm always stressed trying to pick out notes!). It's strangely energizing too though. Like a draught of cool water when you're parched. Drydown: this is absorbed into my skin SO fast. Good throw. Definitely keeping the imp, though something is curdling it a bit into soap- lily of the valley, you again!. The Lotus Tree doesn't get enough love imo, a fun, sparkling gourmand floral juice: Imp: vaguely sweet, vaguely floral, vaguely fruity Wet on Skin: suddenly, HONEY! But a very wearable honey, and honey notes don’t always work on me- maybe a white honey. It’s the nice nectar-sweetness, not the concentrated bee-honey sweetness. Drydown: back to being vaguely sweet, a really nice gourmand skin scent. Not much throw but I bet this would be great to sleep with. A very wearable, non-powdery, non-soapy floral with an O-like drydown! Other ones that deserve testing: Danube (though again, lily turned this into soap on my skin, but it's a lovely aquatic floral in the imp), Cheshire Cat (lavender didn't agree with me here, but again blame my skin) and Caliban (a nice gender-neutral aquatic).

Imp: quite herbaceous, prominent heliotrope and oakmoss. Wet on Skin: the peach immediately amps, making this blend much sweeter. The white musk definitely adds an ethereal quality to it; the feel is similar to The Girl. An elusive fairy… Drydown: A light, adorable juicy peach scent with a faint tinge of green. I get little or no bergamot in here (which I think is a pretty bitter citrus scent), which is fine with me. It's also the most closest-to-skin scent I've tried yet.

Imp: a deadly cross between almonds and anise: bitter almond, powerfully centre stage. Wet on Skin: a slight whiff of citrus touch: the austere bergamot stands right behind bitter almond as a supporting role. Drydown: Jasmine kicks out both bitter almond and bergamot, but leaves room for the other spices and incenses to take part. A complex drydown, warm like Morocco without the vanilla, gently floral, almost resinous with spices. A morpher, seriously.

I personally think there is a good reason why the lab does not say a clear YES or NO to the "all-natural" question. Maybe even more than one reason. Theoretical reason #1: First of all, because it is not actually a black&white issue. There is no legal definition of "natural," and therefore food labellers plaster this everywhere, including very processed foods, because there is some misconception that natural=good and synthetic=bad. Molecules that occur in nature can be exactly replicated in a lab (and as Turin's youtube link demonstrates, we can also create non-naturally occuring molecules). These molecules, both in vitro and in vivo, act exactly the same way in and on our bodies. There is no "memory" of the molecules' past; what matters is what the molecule actually consists of. Naturally occuring coumarin is carcenogenic no matter that it's found in tonka beans, 100% naturally- along with many other toxins in many different forms (poisonous mushrooms, toxic plants, frog/spider/snake venom...). Why do people think natural=good? In the western countries, our predominant religion is thought to have affected our perceptions of good/bad. People are sinful since the fall of Adam and Eve, and anything we touch or create can be considered corrupted, or "bad" (man, create?! that's God's job!!! etc). We all know the literature, I won't quote or cite examples where nature/animals are assumed "innocent," "pure," "good." Having a conscience and not being governed completely by instincts is apparently a vice in this era. Unlike the label organic, there are no guidelines nor governing bodies to enforce said guidelines for the label natural. For a food to be afforded the prestigious label of organic, it must meet specific federal standards set by the USDA. From the ground up: the soil must not have sewage or petroleum-based fertilizers, the crops must not have pesticides sprayed on them, they cannot by genetically modified organisms, any livestock must be fed 100% organic feed, and not injected with growth hormones or antibiotics. This is just for the USDA, and other non-governmental organizations have even stricter requirements for their organic stamp of approval. I'll come back to further significance of this later, it suffices at the moment to say that organic=legal term and enforced with fines, natural=nonlegal, vaguely defined term that totally depends on your perspective. If the lab were to make the normative statement that YES, they are all-natural, they would then be questioned incessantly (and we already excessively have, in this 17-pages-long-thread that I doubt jayne or many recent forumers have read in its entirety)- "well, what does that mean?" To what degree are you natural- essential oils only? Any "chemical-processing" aids? "Are you SURE they're all-natural, if you're sourcing anything from outside your lab?" It's a really big can of worms for a mostly-fans-operated forum. How much time do we want Beth out of her lab, not creating lovely oils but answering dry questions on a forum? The bolded question brings me to my next, Theoretical reason #2: The lab can't be 100% sure of all-natural ingredients, unless it actually picks all its crops and grows its herbs and spices etc- vanilla beans, sea kelp, spices from around the world, honey from its bee-farms. You see, I worked in a restaurant for a long time, and I understand the dangers of a "100% guarentee." For example: allergies. Obviously, allergies are not to be taken lightly, because people can die or health severely detrimentally affected. The restaurant, while being reknown for its "Never say Never" attitude to customer service, will never guarentee that the food is safe from, say, a nut allergy, unless it has made all sauces, breads, anything not whole in the dish from scratch INSIDE the restaurant. Even a huge chain with big purchasing power cannot feasibly vouch for the bread from the local baker- the restaurant cannot monitor whether or not the baker stays away from all nut products, all the time, in his bakery. There are too many big "What If?'s"- what if the baker's assistant ate a granola bar right before his shift, he washed his hands but some peanut crumbs were left on his apron? What if there are nuts in the vinaigrette-maker's shoppe, and he uses identical mixing spoons for all his dressings? Furthermore, and this brings me back to organics, even if the trusted sources Beth gets her building blocks from can be 100% be relied on to be 100% mistakes-free, 100% never change throughout their entire life of how they conduct their trade, and 100% stay "all-natural" to be whatever "natural" means to everyone , what happens when products are not organic? Pesticides on citrus fruit: many citrus essential oils are extracted from its outer skin by cold expression, I believe. How do you keep the pesticides away from the oil? So now there are possibly chemical compounds that are actually worrisome to our skin in the EO? Or does everything have to be wild for it to be natural? Honey: how do we know that the bees, even if they're not from a bee-farm, did not visit any non-organic home-garden flowers? The definition of natural, to me, is still in question. By guarenteeing for all their contributors, the restaurant would take a huge risk legally (and of course, morally- no one wants an anaphylactic shock, or DEATH, on their conscience). They could easily be sued if they guarenteed safetyfrom the allergy yet health problems occured. Similarly, the lab could be sued for false advertising and damages, trauma etc. if, say, a person with MCS (Multiple Chemical Sensitivity) had a reaction to an oil when it was labelled as "all-natural." The medical validity of MCS aside, someone with the psychological characteristics of MCS or odor hypersensitivity could sue. The USA is the Land of All Torts. And even if the lab wins, it could still have to shoulder the financial burdens of hiring lawyers, and implicit costs of time away from the lab. Theoretical reason #3: The lab WANTS you to ask questions if you're allergic or sensitive to a certain substance. If it's an allergy, chances are you probably know exactly what it is, perhaps even on a molecular level. I'm not going to pretend I'm any expert on the subject of chemistry/allergies, but someone who is Coeliac (autoimmune to gluten) probably knows they must be careful with gliadin, a prolamin (gluten protein.) They will then proceed to ask whether the oils they wish to purchase contain these proteins (maybe this is a bad example, I have no idea what topical application of gliadin does to someone with Coeliac, since it's a small intestine disorder and I think different from an allergy... but let's pretend it can be a topical problem as well). The lab can follow up with this specific request. Maybe they can do chemical tests to determine whether these proteins exist in the oils. Maybe they can ask the people who helped make the oil's components (picked the vanilla beans for the vanilla extract? ) to make sure there is no gliadin. They may or may not be able to 100% determine the existence of certain molecules in the oil. But at least the customer's question can be answered directly. There is a danger, if "reassuring" statements like "all-natural" are made, that people allergic/sensitive to certain non-naturally occuring chemicals will not ask the lab before testing the oil. If the orange-grower uses a pesticide that got in the essential oil, and the customer is allergic to something in this pesticide? This may seem far-fetched, but there is a small possibility of danger. Perhaps more likely, someone with a sensitivity to aldehydes joins the BPAL community. They have not read this entire thread. They read the "all-natural" label on the main website, and assume all BPAL products to date have always been "all-natural perfume," and free of aldehydes. They would come across one of the 3 "synthetic" prototypes, and encounter problems. Would the lab risk a customer's health, so that it can slap a superficially reassuring "all-natural" label on the website? Even saying that "BPAL all-natural" again, to answer a question in this thread, poses a risk- the newer members only read the recent threads and don't come across the names of the aldehyde-containing ones. I'm tired.... sorry for such a long post. Last words: carolsag, if you are truely concerned about an allergy or sensitivity to a certain substance (ex/cthulhu tentacles), or a category of substances (ex/all shellfish), I would specify exactly what it is that worries you directly to the lab and not try to rely on an "all-natural" label. Honestly I'm a little skeptical of or MCS/idiopathic environmental intolerance. If you're sensitive to something and unsure what it is exactly, go ask a doctor. Chances are, the substance can occur in nature AND is reproducible by the right chemical labs- either way, they'll affect you adversely and you should make sure you stay away from it. jayne, I doubt that Beth uses any of the synthetic materials listed in your wikipedia link. I also doubt that I should trust a wikipedia page that clearly needs more citations for verification as a definitive answer on the question of differences between synthetic vs natural perfumes. Now let's all rejoice!: Candles Moon!!! squee.

Imp: very gentle rose Wet on Skin: gardenia, white rose and other gentle florals, thank god this white rose stays true. Drydown: Honestly I don’t know what the flowers in the description really smell like on their own. This is a very gentle, inoffensive “young blooms” scent. Evocative of a young maid in a pretty white summer dress picking wildflowers.

Imp: vaguely sweet, vaguely floral, vaguely fruity Wet on Skin: suddenly, HONEY! But a very wearable honey, and honey notes don’t always work on me- I suspect white honey. It’s the nice nectar-sweetness, not the concentrated bee-honey sweetness. Drydown: back to being vaguely sweet, a really nice gourmand skin scent. Not much throw but I bet this would be great to sleep with. A very wearable, non-powdery, non-soapy floral! I don't understand at all why this isn't more popular.

I believe there's some discrepancy here between what you are saying. So is BPAL luxurious-expensive-overpriced for you, at $25 for 6 ml? Or is it all produced at the "same very low price"? If it is really too expensive for you, then I recommend you really research what blends to try. Go to the Sales pages where people will sell pre-tested General Catalogue scents for as low $1 each sometimes. I will be happy to swap with you actually, most of the imps you ordered I use regularly. I can't imagine BPAL being "too cheap," just take a look at the economics. There is no "marketing" division at BPAL; they don't hire Charlize Theron or Catherine Zeta-Jones, they don't invest millions in commercial production and airtime. How do we find out about BPAL? Probably word of mouth. Cost? $0. And of course, there is the "brand name" price mark-up of the haute couturier perfume houses. You mention the free samples you recieve at department stores and boutiques. I also love to collect these (so portable!)- I spend thousands of dollars yearly on skincare and fragrances at The Bay (local department store) so I don't feel guilty at all. And I certainly shouldn't, because these samples and "free gifts" are all considered part of advertising and incentive, and sample costs are incorporated into the costs of production, which basically means I (consumers) pay for it in the long run. Because of a high production cost, each perfume must sell else the firm (the brand) sustains heavy financial losses. If they released more perfumes, there is a)less "hype" b)market saturation and demand does not keep up, "failed" perfume recuperative costs, c)more production costs of bottle design, packaging, etcetcetc. Don't forget, there is also a huge company that has to be financed behind all this- the many levels of management and shareholders(investment debt and interest) that have to be paid out, unlike a family-owned business like BPAL where the owner=creator. Big-name brands certainly *could* release a wider variety, I'm sure they possess the talent. But that means hiring more Keira Knightleys and even more commercial costs. Beth (and Brian) can afford to be creative because there arn't any crazy costs they incur with every scent they want to release. FYI: Knightley got 500,000 pounds for a 1-year contract with Chanel, Theron recieved around $5 million for 3 years with Dior. $15 for 5ml. My Miss Dior Cherie was $100 for 100ml. $3/ml versus $1/ml. BPAL is more expensive per ml, but it really lasts me MUCH longer because it has less fillers, of this there is no question. I spray on Burberry London about 3~4 times, probably the equivalent of about 2~3ml. I need barely a drop of my favourite BPAL, Black Lace. While I love both kinds of fragrance still, lately I have been spending increasingly more on BPAL than on commercial perfumes. This completely comes down to preference and skin chemistry. To me, BPAL is certainly worth the difference in price. I also love the concepts and variety it offers. BPAL does not actually produce hundreds of new fragrances a year. As others have said, it "resurrects" old favourites from past years, sometimes every year -Snow White, Rose Red etc. The Lab will also expand on a "classic" such as Snake Oil, and make variations -there is a Snake Pit, SO's many little cousin-snakes, and limited editions such as Womb Furie (Lupercalia) and Cake Smash (forum-only) that will also use this popular oil as a background or base. I'm sure you know Dior does a somewhat similar reproduction scheme with Poison. So rest assured, Beth's talents are not being overly stretched. And anyway, if you considered how many fragrances a year LVMH produces, which owns Dior, Marc Jacobs, Guerlain, Benefit, Fresh, Acqua di Parma, Kenzo, and Givenchy, then BPAL probably isn't actually that far off. BPAL is made from EOs, distillates, accords, bouquets. It is all-natural and even vegan except for honey, though with your skin chemistry that allows for alcohol etc, I don't really see why it makes too much of a difference. The Lab has produced some of its own "basic building block molecules" although to my understanding this is minimal nowadays, with such a large fanbase and ever-growing orders to fulfil, they are supplied with components from trusted sources and Beth makes her own accords and bouquets. There used to be a "single-note" line, jayne. We used to be able to buy Beth's fabulous, original accords that smelled very different from other companys' single notes- this was discontinued a while back. There is a huge premium on this single-note line nowadays, and they are only available occasionally on Ebay for a lot more than their original prices. Beth's Vanilla Single Note would probably auction well over $100. edited for grammar :x

Bottle: candy-flavoured cough syrup. Wet on Skin: super-sweet candy-berry-floral, no hint of vanilla for me. Drydown: I think it’s the honeycomb ruining it for me… much prefer its cousin, Candy Phoenix.

Bottle: artificially flavoured candies. Wet on Skin: oooh, it’s pomegranate juice and black currant juice candies! Not so artificial anymore mmmm. Drydown:Very sugarey pear and apple to support the dominant tart dark berry juice. Deliciousss! A better version of Pink Phoenix imo

Bottle: berry flavoured cough syrup. Wet on Skin: sun-warmed blueberries and raspberries over musk, and that delicious orange blossom honey drizzled all over. Sweet and tart! Drydown: mmm berries, staying quite true on me from the wet stage.

Grapefruit, red currant, dark musk, Roman chamomile, delphinium, and lavender. Imp: grapefruit! mmm Wet on Skin: herbs… why, chamomile, why… No more grapefruit. Drydown: sweet… cat pee? Something a bit nauseating in there… fermenting fruit? Oh and… lavender. I don’t like lavender 99% of the time (TKO is the 1%) and unfortunately this is no exception.

Bottle: vanilla cupcake! Less overpoweringly sickly sweet than Beaver Moon ’07. Wet on Skin: a softer, realistic vanilla cupcake, with cream cheese frosting. Drydown: a nice, sweet, comforting bakery scent. A keeper!