Thread: Old spice classic aftershave

Originally Posted by CSG

Your "vintage" bottle of OS is from Proctor&Gamble unless it's over 20 years old which sort of proves my point that the scent changes over the years. You can believe whatever you want but it's the same thing as it's been for decades (less the saccharine). Why do have people have trouble understanding that something in the way of alcohol based perfumes are going to change over the years and will smell differently than the current product (assuming all things are the same in the formulation)? So yes, there's a difference in how a 10-20-30-40-50 year old bottle of OS smells from a new bottle but it's not because of anything other than aging. Really.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Scent is so highly subjective that I can't say you are wrong, nor can you say that I'm wrong. I can only speak from my humble experience. However, the fact that there are many others on wetshaving forums that agree that there was a reformulation can lead to the conclusion that it is not simply a placebo effect, and that we have not mindlessly drank the Kool-Aid....

Interesting topic, one perhaps better suited for a separate thread.

Originally Posted by Ryan82

My Grandpa used Old Spice for decades (he alternated daily between Old Spice and English Leather, still does), and the scent of the original is burned into my memory forever. I do detect a difference.

I have basically the same experiance. Growing up, my Dad shaved every day and used Old Spice. All I have to do is close my eyes and I can smell it. I also agree that the new stuff does have a noticably different scent than the vintage stuff. Same with English Leather.

Originally Posted by MickR

I can guarantee you the smell from OS in the glass and the smell from the OS in the plastic does differ considerably, having run one beside the other. The formula may or may not have changed but the scent has.


Mick

Quite randomly, out of the blue, and with little or no relevance (as my posts generally tend to be) I'd just like to say beer out of a can tastes different to the same beer from a bottle. Just saying...

I bought a bottle of the Vi-Jon product at our local Family Dollar Store after reading all the pronouncements of how close it was to the original Shulton era OS. It was a lousy buck seventy-five and I tried it two or three times and actually returned it. It smelled like baby powder and Pampers. It was in the right family of scents but nothing close to aged Shulton OS or current OS. All in my opinion, of course.

Originally Posted by carlmaloschneider

Quite randomly, out of the blue, and with little or no relevance (as my posts generally tend to be) I'd just like to say beer out of a can tastes different to the same beer from a bottle. Just saying...

And I quite agree with you there Carl. Essentially that is what I was saying, except I stayed with the topic......


Ya mate, Mick

According to a vintage aftershave and cologne aficionado and chemical engineer on another forum there's been quite a few reformulations:

"Original formulation (Schulton): From 1938-1990.

Early P&G: (1990-1992): Essentially the same as Schulton, but with the removal of saccharine as one of the ingredients. Less "tart" than Schulton.

First major P&G reformulation: (1992-2007): Added alcohol, less fragrance.

P&G Plastic Bottle re-formulation (2008-present): Same amount of alcohol, substitution of genuine floral extracts for synthetic knock offs.

There's also the Indian version that's floating around. Contrary to popular belief, this is not the original Schulton formula. It is closer to Schulton than the current P&G formulation, however."

I have the Indian version as well as the P&G Cologne, great stuff.

That guy posted without proof or evidence of any sort. Just another internet authority without bona fides. I don't believe anything he wrote unless he offered proof, which he didn't, why would you?

Originally Posted by CSG

That guy posted without proof or evidence of any sort. Just another internet authority without bona fides. I don't believe anything he wrote unless he offered proof, which he didn't, why would you?

Not meaning to sound like an ass, but if I'm reading your post correctly, why should I believe you are right? I've yet to see any tangible proof that it is the same exact formulation being made today as was made by Shulton. When someone shows me irrefutable proof that the formula is the same(with the exception of the loss of saccharine) I will concede that it is the same.

Originally Posted by Theseus

Not meaning to sound like an ass, but if I'm reading your post correctly, why should I believe you are right? I've yet to see any tangible proof that it is the same exact formulation being made today as was made by Shulton. When someone shows me irrefutable proof that the formula is the same(with the exception of the loss of saccharine) I will concede that it is the same.

You're not being an ass. I wouldn't take what I say as anything other than my own conclusion after talking to P&G about this at some length. You can either believe them, the logic of what I said (perfumes change over time), or believe internet myths. The question is why on earth would you believe anything otherwise without proof. P&G has stated repeatedly they have not changed the formula or ingredients to classic OS cologne and aftershave. Yet, many people smell 10-50 year old product and conclude they have. It makes no sense whatsoever. But then people believe politicians...

In the end, it all comes down to our subjective views on it. Being the cynic I am, I take P&G's stance with a grain of salt since they are a bit biased on the subject.