Creation and inspiration are at the center of any art form. From an outside perspective, the key to understanding the artist’s process seems to begin with knowing where inspiration comes from and what is the starting point of any creation. For perfumers, the questions would maybe focus more specifically on the choice of certain notes instead of others to illustrate an idea, and the process that leads to the development of an accord (i.e. a mini perfume of sorts composed of various raw materials) around which the perfume is built.
There are many answers to those queries and many more questions of course one could ask about scent creation. If we look at the current perfume market for answers, there is both a multiplication of the offer in terms of the sheer number of scents that are released and, at the same time, less diversity in terms of olfactive experience. In other words, there are more perfumes that come out every year, but they tend to resemble each other.
So where does that leave creativity, and where does one to start to develop something new?
One obvious route to take when embarking on a new project, is to look for inspiration in the past. In perfumery, as with most art forms, some creations stand the test of time while others fall by the wayside, judged years down the road as mere illustrations of their times instead of landmarks for posterity. For a perfumer, looking back at what has already been created is arguably as necessary as going to a museum for an apprentice painter studying the techniques of artists that have come before him. So in a way, pure creation is a fallacy, as we never create in vacuum.
In perfumery, when looking back, the intention is first to understand how a specific scent is constructed, what gives it its unique olfactive profile and what (new) raw material is being used and to what effect. Then the aim is, or should be, to modernize it and take it in a completely new direction, with a view not to copy but to pay homage to the creation by offering a fresh take on a familiar theme.
For this purpose we will look at two remarkable fragrances, one created nearly 100 years after the first: Shalimar by Guerlain and Le Lion from Chanel’s Les Exclusifs range. I obviously do not possess either of the perfumes’ formulas, it goes without saying, so these are my personal observations made by smelling and comparing both scents.
Shalimar by Guerlain is a truly iconic fragrance that heralded the advent of a whole new family of perfumes: the amber-oriental scents, and is possibly one of the ten greatest fragrances ever made. Created in 1925 for the World Exhibit in Paris by Jacques Guerlain, it is meant as an ode to the heart and inspired allegedly by the love story between India’s Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan and his beloved wife Mumtaz Mahal, whose untimely death inspired the construction of the Taj Mahal. The name “Shalimar” itself is derived from the “Gardens of Shalimar,” a Persian term that means “abode of love.
The distinctive feature of the perfume is the combination of an overdose of vanillin, and/or probably ethyl vanillin (at the time, a newly created synthetic molecule with a scent profile typical of vanilla ice cream) and bergamot. Apparently, upon first smelling the perfume, Ernest Beaux, Chanel’s perfumer and creator of the iconic N.5, said: “when I use vanilla I make crème caramel, when he [Jacque Guerlain] uses vanilla he makes Shalimar” paying a huge compliment to his rival’s masterpiece.
So it is fitting that nearly a 100 years later, Chanel should “respond” with Le Lion, its own version of the Shalimar structure, this time inspired by the astrological sign of the brand’s creator, Gabrielle Chanel.
Part of Chanel’s Les Exclusifs range, and created by Olivier Polge in 2020, it bears a striking resemblance to Shalimar. I thought I would delve into both compositions to see what links them, what differentiates them and explore whether Le Lion is a dupe, a modernized version of the famous Shalimar structure or completely new exploration of a familiar theme.
So where and how did the creator of Le Lion, Olivier Polge, start?
Chanel apparently started the creative process by looking at another of its perfumes, Coromandel, also from the Les Exclusifs range. Coromandel is a warm patchouli-centric amber fragrance and it is true that Le Lion, unlike Shalimar, features a heavy dose of patchouli, immediately detectable in the opening notes (patchouli is the typical musty, wet leaves, walk-in-the-forest smell that many people associate with hippy perfumes).
What Le Lion clearly shares with Shalimar is the same bergamot and lemon fizzy opening paired with the sweet vanillin/ethyl vanillin base that creates this beautiful addictive signature smell.
In terms of differences, in addition to the patchouli, which is probably present in minimal amounts, if at all, in current day Shalimar, there is a greater emphasis on smoky notes in the Chanel composition. Shalimar, in its modern iteration, is not very smokey although the original 1925 formula allegedly was much more leathery and smokey, featuring more prominently incense, birch tar and civette.
Neither scents are floral per se but there are of course some floral notes to round off both compositions and herein lies another notable difference. Shalimar seems to put the emphasis on neroli with its slight bitter indolic character, while in Le Lion, neroli is replaced by a more prominent jasmine note (probably using an abundance of the synthetic molecule of hedione to give radiance and projection), lending a creamy, solar effect to the composition. The Guerlain scent is also powderier, which possibly due to a higher percentage of methyl ionone used, typical of the violet/iris accord, and also to lashings of tonk bean absolute and coumarin (a synthetic molecule also present in tonka that smells sweet, powdery and almondy) which lend to the composition a more vintage feel.
Finally, Le Lion also probably contains a series of synthetic musk molecules (instead of the animal notes present in Shalimar) that give the perfume a cosy, glossy and luxurious feeling, as well as longevity.
The dry-down of both fragrances is also quite different, with Le Lion boasting greater longevity on the scent strip, its sweet amber notes lasting well over a day, while Shalimar has a powderier and shorter-lived presence.
So my personal feeling is that Le Lion is a successful reimagining of the Shalimar structure, modernized by minimising some aspects and emphasising others. The addition probably of some synthetic ambery materials and musks, as well as the inclusion of a noticeable smokey effect through the use of modern synthetic molecules rather than the naturals used in the 1925 Shalimar creation, all contribute to making Le Lion distinctive from its predecessor.
What is the verdict on Le Lion? In a nutshell, the basic structure is the same but the overall feel of the fragrance is definitely that of a 21st century creation versus a 20th century one. What are your thoughts on both scents? Is Shalimar dated? In a way, one wonders if Guerlain might not also think so, bearing in mind the plethora of “flankers” (i.e. a new version of an existing scent that still bears an olfactive resemblance to the original but with added twists) it has given us over the years, not to mention the yearly “millésime” limited editions, which all seem intent on keeping Shalimar relevant to modern day customers. Given all this, it would be ironic if Chanel managed to create, possibly unwittingly, Shalimar’s true modern flanker for the 21st century.