# Jo Malone and other poncy perfume shops



## L8_0RGY (Sep 12, 2003)

my mum said she wanted this jo malone cologne that had coffee mixed with it so i went in there today to buy it and was shocked to see the prices!!!!!

150ml plastic bottle for Â£22 or 
slightly bigger bottle for Â£44

I thought i can't just get her this it's tiny so i got the matching handcream to go with it which was again

150ml plastic bottle for Â£22 or Â£38 (roughly) for 300ml

What a rip off. 150ml will only last about a week yet the shop was packed full with people and had to wait about 15 minutes to buy my overpriced cafe au perfume


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

Stinge - remember its the thought that counts - Xmas is all too comercial - buying for buying sake :-[


----------



## R6B TT (Feb 25, 2003)

Never heard of Jo Malone - guess it must be posh.

Why not buy some Avon Cologne and stick some Nescafe in it or a Starbucks espresso if you are feeling flush.


----------



## L8_0RGY (Sep 12, 2003)

I'd never heard of it either, it's a poncy shop on Sloane Street, just off Kings Roads in Chelsea.

My mum was thrilled with it and she too admitted everything was overpriced in there.


----------



## imster (Apr 26, 2003)

Talking of rip off shops anyone heard of "sweaty betty" (i think???) its in canary wharf. I went in there and saw a pair of Puma sweat bottoms for Â£50!!! I saw the same bottoms for Â£20 at JJB sports!


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

If it was scent that you're talking about then I don't think that's that unreasonable.

The stuff I got for my missus was Â£78 for 100ml.

Did you mean something else?


----------



## t7 (Nov 2, 2002)

blimey Kell - what did you buy?    100ml of parfum?


----------



## nutts (May 8, 2002)

"Parfum" would have probably cost significantly more, especially for a top brand.

You may pay Â£40+ for <10ml...

For something like Chanel no 5, 100ml of the Eau de Parfum would typically cost Â£70-Â£80...


----------



## t7 (Nov 2, 2002)

> "Parfum" would have probably cost significantly more, especially for a top brand.
> 
> You may pay Â£40+ for <10ml...


wow - it had better do something pretty impressive at that price (apart from suffocating people when you share a lift..)!


----------



## R6B TT (Feb 25, 2003)

> wow - it had better do something pretty impressive at that price (apart from suffocating people when you share a lift..)!


Rapid Knicker removal I guess ....


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

It was something which she used to wear when we fisrt met and has just rediscovered.

Issey Miyake.

I thought it expensive too, but IIRC 'proper' perfume or parfum (if you're from Leeds) is double that price for about a tenth of the amount.

That was what I was questioning, whether the 150ml was a typo and should have read 15ml.

150ml is a big bottle, in fact I've never seen a 150ml bottle of perfume.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

I just love the concept of women putting scents, based on the excretions from deers' anal glands, behind their ears. What price vanity?


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

Let me guess, you prefer women to smell of BO then Gary?


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

> Let me guess, you prefer women to smell of BO then Gary?


I think you may be confusing the use of soap, water, and antiperspirants/deoderants - all designed to cleanse and protect the body from bacteria that leads to BO; with the use of expensive musk-derived pure perfumes and eau de toilettes designed to applied to pulse points on the female wrists and neck. Â The latter I presumed to be the point of the initial post.

One is for basic hygene. Â The other is to allure members of opposite sex. Â The two do not serve as substitutes for one another and should not be confused.

For the record I would not want a woman to smell of BO, Â and far less so BO masked with perfume, even if that might be your preference Kell.


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

So you'd prefer her to smell of soap which is derived from animal fat instead?


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

> So you'd prefer her to smell of soap which is derived from animal fat instead?


That reply does not do your intelligence much credit. 

Wot, like coal tar soap? Or the many vegetable based products on the shelves? Â I think you'll find that coconut oil is used at least as much as rendered animal fat in the manufacture of modern soaps.

Feeling a tad obtuse today are we Kell? Â


----------



## t7 (Nov 2, 2002)

Surely the point is that you smell of something that _inspires_ your partner.. and that you like yourself 

and if it costs Â£80 per 10ml then so be it :


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

> Surely the point is that you smell of something that _inspires_ your partner.. and that you like yourself
> 
> and if it costs Â£80 per 10ml then so be it Â :


To do a Kell, would you use it to mask BO? I'd see that as a separate issue.


----------



## t7 (Nov 2, 2002)

> To do a Kell, would you use it to mask BO? Â I'd see that as a separate issue.


I choose never to smell of BO becasue I don't like it - so "no" to your question.

If I did like the smell of my slightly unwashed armpits and so did my partner (and I'm not so stinky as to be offensive to third parties), what's the problem?

L


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

Oh I see, I wasn't aware that it's OK for you to base your observations on one single way of making perfume with real Musk (which incidentally is testicular secretion not anal) that is now all but obsolete in this PC world and with the advent of synthetic chemicals, while it's not OK for me to base my observations on the fact that soap has been made with animal fats since 3,000BC and continues to be done so to this day alongside other methods.

Add to that the fact that Perfume's original uses were as much religous as vainglorious and its progression through the ages led it to be used only by the rich after bathing and by the rest of the populace to mask the smells that they couldn't remove by bathing - because they couldn't afford to bathe.

Now who's being obtuse?


----------



## nutts (May 8, 2002)

Quite a lot of "animal fats" used are actually woolgrease extracts or more commonly its refined end-product Lanolin.

In todays modern soap making processes, subcutaneous fats are hardly ever used.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

> Oh I see, I wasn't aware that it's OK for you to base your observations on one single way of making perfume with real Musk (which incidentally is testicular secretion not anal) that is now all but obsolete in this PC world and with the advent of synthetic chemicals, while it's not OK for me to base my observations on the fact that soap has been made with animal fats since 3,000BC and continues to be done so to this day alongside other methods.
> 
> Add to that the fact that Perfume's original uses were as much religous as vainglorious and its progression through the ages led it to be used only by the rich after bathing and by the rest of the populace to mask the smells that they couldn't remove by bathing - because they couldn't afford to bathe.
> 
> Now who's being obtuse?


You are Kell. And rather stupid to boot.

Firstly you respond to what I considered to be a light and pithy comment I made about women and perfum, seeming to confuse fact that modern women use both parfum (incidentally the French term for pure oil-based perfume) and deodrant for different purposes, and thereby implying that I might actually prefer smell of BO. Right. :

Then you suggest that all or the majority of soaps are made from animal fats - neatly side-stepping or being obtuse to fact that the ancient Egyptions and Greeks are credited with using vegatable oils (mainly olive) as the first known 'soaps' many years before animal fats were used - as if your wit implies some sort of hypocrisy on my part were I to find it acceptable or in some way not highly amusing your observation that a woman might use an animal-fat soap to cleanse herself. Okay. :

During this time, one female member has concurred that deoderising and perfuming are indeed different issues. Another (male) has pointed out inaccuracy of your rendered fat soap analagy in context of modern soap production. Fine. :

You then come back with a Google-type potted history lesson concerning historical uses of perfume, illuminating not very much but the bleeding obvious. Whatever. :

But you peak by suggesting that true musk comes from the balls of a Musk Deer. Well not so according to Charles Darwin (Descent of Man Chapter 18 - Secondary Sexual Characteristics of Mammals), who at least seemed to know what the fuck he was on about,

_"In the adult male musk-deer (Moschus moschiferus), a naked space round the tail is bedewed with an odoriferous fluid, whilst in the adult female, and in the male until two years old, this space is covered with hair and is not odoriferous. The proper musk-sack of this deer is from its position necessarily confined to the male, and forms an additional scent-organ."_

That is why it is considered an anal gland - something to do with being near the tail of the Musk Deer in this case. Not from the nuts as you suggest. Funny. :

Now before you reach for the Google oracle, many animals, including the skunK, have musk glands located on various parts of the body- abdomen, arse, feet, legs, head, horns (yes again) - and these include deer, antelopes, beavers (yes), civet cats, alligators, badgers, rats and so on. Some of these have found their way into scents as Musk Deer musk substitutes for the perfume industry as have also synthetics.

But the true French Parfum Houses (Chanel, Dior, Guerlain etc) as opposed to the Nouveau Arrivistes ( D&G, Gaultier etc) still use only pukka anal Musk extract in the manufacture of their products, hence the relative expense. And it was that which originally amused me to post about women applying anal gland extracts behind their ears, and that also confused you to think about BO.

I am sorry that my initial observation did not amuse you. :-*


----------



## nutts (May 8, 2002)

And wasn't necessarily correcting Kell... I was mearly adding fact to this "my balls are bigger than yours" discussion... if you pardon the pun ;D


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

Neatly sidestepping the argument about perfume not being used to mask the smell of BO, of course.

The fact I was referring to with the soap argument is that while you say "what price Vanity?" in relation to spraying deer's anal glands behind your ears, then I also say what price vanity to scrubbing yourself clean with Lard.

But that's OK, if you were to just admit that perhaps on one occasion someone other than you might have a valid point of view then it wouldn't give you the opportunity to wax lyrical at every turn.

I, on the other hand, am quite happy to admit when I'm wrong in that I had always believed Musk to have from beneath the foreskin of the male deer. [smiley=dunce2.gif]

In checking this in my dictionary (not from Google as you mistakenly suggest) I misread the bit where it says that the sac is testicular _shaped_ and is where the origin of the word comes from: the Persian Musk (accent over the s which I can't do) from the Sanscrit Muska meaning 'scrotum'.

In actual fact I did not miss the humour in your post but you obviously missed the humour in mine in your rush to post your pithy and pendantic reply.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

> The fact I was referring to with the soap argument is that while you say "what price Vanity?" in relation to spraying deer's anal glands behind your ears, then I also say what price vanity to scrubbing yourself clean with Lard.


"What price vanity?" Â Well about 50p for lard based soap versus say up to Â£150 for a Musk gland French perfume. Â Â So not really too much comparison. Â The initial point did appear to me to be about _expensive_ Â perfumes and not the cheap soap analagy that you ran with. Â Ho hum. :



> .
> 
> In actual fact I did not miss the humour in your post but *you obviously missed the humour in mine *in your rush to post your pithy and pendantic reply. Â


Did I really?



> ... your *wit*....
> 
> I am sorry that my initial observation did not amuse you. Â :-* Â Â Â


Looks like an acknowedgment of humour to me. Â : Your use of 'pithy' Â might also imply recognition of humour. Â You are indeed a man of contradictions - but aren't we all?

Pedantic? Well if sarcastic correction and pointing out of inaccuracies is pedantry, then Guilty I am.[smiley=dunce2.gif]

Use of Â symbol : in addition to mood and tone and choice of language were all intended to convey sarcasm which may be considered by some as a particularly low form of wit, but still WIT nonetheless. Â Sorry if it got to you. 

It still remains funny to me that women pay Â£Â£Â£s for expensive perfumes, made from deer arses, which they place behind their ears.

I guess you are equally touched with the same irony, but prefer using the *anal*agy of what I would perceive to be cheap (<Â£1 cost) of lard based soap to illustrate that perceived vanity - Â and that doesn't really work for me.

Each to his own eh?


----------



## t7 (Nov 2, 2002)

Classic thread - who needs pistols at dawn now we have YaBB ;D


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

> Your use of 'pithy' might also imply recognition of humour. You are indeed a man of contradictions - but aren't we all?


Not sure I follow your reasoning on this one - given that I'd already admitted that I saw the humour in your original post then the use of the word Pithy is merely further admittance of this fact. Hardly a contradiction in my book.

Also the original post doesn't mention musk derived products at all.

By your own admission, only the top perfume houses of long standing use musk in their products and charge you for the priviledge:



> ...versus say up to Â£150 for a Musk gland French perfume.


I hardly think, then, that a Â£22 bottle is in the same class. Indeed it is probably merely an Eau de Cologne in which case your initial comment about the use of Musk based products was probably only posted so that once more you could demonstrate your intellectual superiority over the rest of us "stupid" people by informing us of something which we previously could not have possibly known without your intervention.

Lastly, who actually gives a fuck? Take it as an admission of defeat if you will, but I really can't be arsed to argue about the relative merits of Ladies' perfumes when all I originally wanted to do was be slightly amusing. You must be great fun in a pub when someone tells you a joke - do you disect its very essence to decipher whether or not said joke could actually be physically possible before deciding whether or not to laugh?

Good day to you Sir.


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

Oh and just in case you take it all the wrong way. Â

 ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*       ;D :-*


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

> Lastly, who actually gives a fuck? Â


Not I. It's all harmless banter and sparring to me. 8)

But judging by your subsequent mood and tone it appears it might have got to you - although in end was finally vindicated by judicious use of smilies    (was tempted to say over-compensating


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

Nah - it's just that I find it amusing that people often post quite vindictive things and seem to think that it's OK to then put a smiley at the end and people will automatically find it funny.

I'm not one of those people. Â The smileys at the end are there to compensate for all the times I've ever said anything as a joke and someone took it the wrong way. Â Although in that case, I probably need to add a hell of a lot more.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

> Nah - it's just that I find it amusing that people often post quite vindictive things and seem to think that it's OK to then put a smiley at the end and people will automatically find it funny.


Ergo that you find it amusing, it works...



> I'm not one of those people. Â The smileys at the end are there to compensate for all the times I've ever said anything as a joke and someone took it the wrong way. Â Although in that case, I probably need to add a hell of a lot more.


Agreed. True.


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

> Ergo that you find it amusing, it works...


Now you're just twisting my usage of the word amusing. I find the concept amusing, not the individual sentiment. In which case it doesn't work.

Oh and


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

> Now you're just twisting my usage of the word amusing. Â I find the concept amusing, not the individual sentiment. In which case it doesn't work.
> 
> Oh and Â


Right. I think I understand. And no pedantry either. I know you don't like that.


----------



## boabt (May 7, 2002)

A classic garyc 'How to Win Friends......' thread.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

> A classic garyc 'How to Win Friends......' thread.


Well that's obviously not a big personal driver for my being here...as indeed you might well know bob.  Â Nice to hear from you. 

I thought it reads quite well overall; _amuses_ in the right places (OK, sometimes); and occasionally was also quite informative. Â Everyone wins. Job done


----------



## boabt (May 7, 2002)

Been away for a wee while, so just logging on for my tri-annual lesson. I will log off now feeling content that I know all about the Musk Deer's scrotum 
If this subject comes up when I am on Millionaire remind me to give you a quid


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

> I will log off now feeling content that I know all about the Musk Deer's scrotum
> If this subject comes up when I am on Millionaire remind me to give you a quid


<<Cough ("Deer's aaarse")>>

;D


----------



## boabt (May 7, 2002)

> <<Cough ("Deer's aaarse")>> Â
> 
> ;D


but smelling gooood...........


----------



## StuarTT (May 7, 2002)

> pithy comment


Gary, I think your keyboard has a lisp ;D


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

> Gary, I think your keyboard has a lisp Â ;D


Yeth.


----------

