For the past few years, perfume has been on something of a sugar high. Vanilla became impossible to avoid, followed by caramel, pistachio, marshmallow, coffee, milk, praline and perfumes that smell increasingly like something you could order from a bakery. I enjoy gourmands and own plenty of them, so I am hardly standing outside the party complaining about dessert.
Still, once an entire industry starts moving in the same direction, people eventually begin pulling away from it. That is how trends work. The more dominant an idea becomes, the more appealing its opposite starts to look. I think we are beginning to see that shift now. After years of sweetness, I am noticing more leather, tobacco, darker fruit, green notes, bitterness and structure. And suddenly, chypre is back in the conversation.
What Is a Chypre, Anyway?
Chypre is one of those perfume words people use with great confidence even when they are not entirely sure what it means. It is not a note like rose or sandalwood. You cannot smell a bottle and point to one ingredient and say, “There, that’s the chypre.”
It is a way of building a perfume. Traditionally, you have brightness at the top, usually bergamot, sitting against a darker foundation of oakmoss, labdanum and often patchouli. François Coty’s Chypre in 1917 helped establish the family as we understand it today, and Jacques Guerlain’s Mitsouko, released two years later, showed what could happen when fruit was placed inside that darker, mossy framework.
What I love about the structure is the resistance. Bergamot meets earth. Flowers have to contend with moss, resin or patchouli. Fruit becomes less juicy and more interesting when something dry is underneath it. Even the prettiest chypre usually has a little backbone, which may explain why I am noticing them so much right now. After years of perfumes designed to be lovable within ten seconds of spraying them, a fragrance that makes you lean in feels refreshing.
The Oakmoss Problem
You cannot talk about chypres for very long before oakmoss enters the conversation, usually followed by someone saying that it was banned. That is not quite what happened, although the reality did change perfume considerably.
Natural oakmoss contains atranol and chloroatranol, compounds capable of causing contact allergy in people who become sensitized to them. European regulation eventually prohibited those specific compounds in cosmetics, while IFRA placed its own restrictions on oakmoss extracts. The allergy concern was genuine, although most people wearing perfume were never allergic to oakmoss in the first place.
The consequences were much larger than the number of people actually reacting to it because oakmoss was everywhere in classical perfumery. When its use changed, countless formulas had to change with it. If you have ever smelled an older bottle of a favorite perfume beside a current one and wondered why the older version seemed deeper, greener or somehow more substantial, oakmoss may be one piece of that story.
Perfumers found ways forward. Treated oakmoss extracts can still be used, and there are modern materials that create mossy effects alongside patchouli, labdanum and woods. Sarah McCartney of 4160 Tuesdays makes another point that I think is just as important: regulations alone did not chase chypres out of department stores. Consumers changed too. Perfume became cleaner, sweeter and easier, and companies made more of what people were buying.
That seems much more believable to me than the idea that regulation single-handedly killed an entire fragrance family. The formulas changed, but so did our noses.
What Smells Old Depends on How Old You Are
This may be the most interesting part of the whole story. Perfume carries memory better than almost anything else, which also means our judgment of what smells “old” is deeply personal.
If your mother or grandmother wore a mossy chypre, one spray can put you straight back into her bedroom or the passenger seat of her car. You may smell the decade before you smell the perfume. But give that same structure to someone who grew up with vanilla body sprays, clean musks and modern fruity florals and there may be no grandmother in the room at all. There is simply a dry, green, strange perfume unlike most of what they have been smelling.
McCartney has noticed younger customers responding to chypres, including young men, and I don’t find that surprising. We are watching younger people discover old watches, archival fashion, vinyl, analog cameras and beauty products their parents’ generation discarded without ceremony. They are not experiencing these things as nostalgia because they were not there the first time.
There is also a little status in knowing the reference now. When everything new is available to everyone at the same moment, knowing what came before becomes its own kind of taste. Anyone can know which vanilla is viral this week. Knowing why Mitsouko matters requires a little more curiosity.
The Houses Have Noticed Too
Hermès gives us a very good current example. Christine Nagel created Barénia as her first chypre for the house, using butterfly lily and miracle berry against oakwood and patchouli. She then made Barénia Intense darker with leather and patchouli absolute. It smells contemporary because it is contemporary; nobody is trying to dress it up as a perfume rescued intact from 1947.
There are plenty of other modern examples. Chloé Nomade, Diptyque Eau Capitale, Chanel 31 Rue Cambon and Ormonde Jayne Woman approach the structure from completely different directions. One can be rosy, another green, another woody or leathery, which is why describing chypre as one particular smell has never made much sense to me.
Dior is doing something different and equally revealing. Francis Kurkdjian has gone into the house archives for Dioriginals, revisiting perfumes including Diorella, Diorling and Dioressence. I wrote recently about how complicated that kind of restoration really is. You cannot simply pull out an old formula and make it again as though the previous fifty years never happened. Suppliers disappear, materials change, regulations change and naturals change too.
What I find telling is that these two things are happening at the same time. One group of perfumers is using the chypre structure to make something unmistakably current, while houses such as Dior are looking at their own history and deciding that perhaps we threw away a few very good ideas on our way toward modernity.
Why Now?
I have been thinking about this a lot because I own more chypres than I realized. Once I started looking through my shelves, they were everywhere, from very traditional interpretations to perfumes that barely resemble one another until you pay attention to the structure underneath. I will save that list for another story because it deserves one.
What feels more important here is why I suddenly want to talk about them at all. I think the perfume market has become crowded with variations on the same pleasures: sweetness, huge diffusion, clean musk, woody amber, another gourmand twist. There are excellent perfumes in every one of those categories, but abundance eventually creates boredom.
Chypre offers a very different pleasure. There can be bitterness in it. There can be moss, earth, dry woods, leather and flowers that are allowed to have sharp edges. You occasionally have to live with one for a while before deciding what you think, which feels almost radical in a market built around first sprays and immediate reactions.
So yes, I think the chypre is coming back. Perhaps “coming back” is not quite right, because it never completely went away. What changed was our appetite for it.
The older perfume lover may smell a chypre and remember another time. The younger one may smell exactly the same perfume and think she has discovered something new. I rather love that. Perfume history has a funny way of waiting for us to catch up with it.
Leave a Reply