What is the actual difference between Cologne (a term used very rarely in Scotland) and Aftershave? (almost the only word used to describe scent for a man in Scotland) Is it just strength and staying power therefore expense?
Dif btn Cologne & Aftershave?
- Thread starter scottish steve
- Start date
"Fragrances" are usually labeled perfume, eau de toilet or cologne in order of the concentration of scent - perfume having the most. These are meant to be used on the body; not on the face. "Aftershave" is usually as low or lower in scent concentration as cologne, BUT has other ingredients meant to soothe the face after shaving. Usually; there are exceptions. For instance D.R. Harris sandalwood aftershave is strong enough to be used as a cologne for fragrance as well as for soothing. Some lavender waters can be used for both purposes. Hope that helps a little bit, John
- Thread starter
- #3
It does a little, thanks. I remember there used to be an ABV %age on the bottles, but I can't remember seeing that lately. Maybe this is to further obfuscate the issue and trick undemanding customers?
At least in the US market, there are rules for how much fragrance per volume that classifies as aftershave, cologne, eau de toilette, and eau de parfum. These vary by market and brand as well.
I use aftershaves in the hope that they have therapeutic value: soothing, astringency, healing, whatever. Most are gently-scented. EdT's, colognes, and EdP's strictly deliver scent.....that's how I see them. The lines are blurred in many cases.
I thought "Dif Btn" was some new designer fragrance. I hadn't realized we've reached a point where two syllable words need abbreviations.
There are no rules or standards anymore. That's why the differences vary so widely.
Yeah I'm sure it isn't some legally mandated definition relating to the concentration of the product. But, according to wikipedia, the general breakdown is this, in terms of what percentage is the actual aromatic oils and substances in the mixture -
Eau de Parfum - 15% or so
Eau de Toilette - 10% or so
Eau de Cologne - 5% or so
Aftershave - 1-3%
So it's just concentration, and generally I think an aftershave usually comes in a splash bottle whereas Edt's or other colognes you buy in the department store will be in a spray bottle, which is better because it seperates the bulk of the bottle from the air and it will keep longer that way.
Eau de Parfum - 15% or so
Eau de Toilette - 10% or so
Eau de Cologne - 5% or so
Aftershave - 1-3%
So it's just concentration, and generally I think an aftershave usually comes in a splash bottle whereas Edt's or other colognes you buy in the department store will be in a spray bottle, which is better because it seperates the bulk of the bottle from the air and it will keep longer that way.
Well, that was my point. That list of percentages on Wikipedia is about 75 years past its prime. I've seen EdP with as little as 4% fragrance and EdC with as high as a 90% concentration. When we started, in the twenties, to truly experiment with different oils and bases, the industry was never the same.
- Thread starter
- #10
I'd've thought anything De anything wasn't a great sign. "Parfum" should be just that, whereas "eau de parfum" would naturally be lower %age. As said above tho, its probly meaningless now. Do the 3Ts and Pen's/Floris still obey the rules?
To the OP:
An aftershave is designed to be soothing to the skin of your face after shaving.
A parfum / extrait de parfum / eau de parfum / eau de toilette / eau de cologne is designed solely to scent your person. Using any of those as an aftershave would not only not help your face, it would likely burn like hell.
As to power of scent, well, it depends on the concoction in question. Musgo Real aftershave has a stronger and more persistent scent than many colognes.*
* The source of much confusion - nowadays many people use "cologne" to indicate any men's fragrance and "perfume" to denote any women's fragrance, regardless of concentration, despite the fact that you can find many men's scents in eau de parfum strength or stronger and vice-versa.
An aftershave is designed to be soothing to the skin of your face after shaving.
A parfum / extrait de parfum / eau de parfum / eau de toilette / eau de cologne is designed solely to scent your person. Using any of those as an aftershave would not only not help your face, it would likely burn like hell.
As to power of scent, well, it depends on the concoction in question. Musgo Real aftershave has a stronger and more persistent scent than many colognes.*
* The source of much confusion - nowadays many people use "cologne" to indicate any men's fragrance and "perfume" to denote any women's fragrance, regardless of concentration, despite the fact that you can find many men's scents in eau de parfum strength or stronger and vice-versa.
HA HA-----Gd pt Rb!!
Huh. Where I'm from "difference" has three syllables.
Well, where I'm from, it's pronounced "Diff'rence" and "B'tween".
You yankees can keep those superfluous syllables- we don't need 'em! 
"Difference" being shortened to "diff"? OK. I can see that. But "between" shortened to "btn"? Why?
- Thread starter
- #16
Originally Posted by ClubmanRob
I thought "Dif Btn" was some new designer fragrance. I hadn't realized we've reached a point where two syllable words need abbreviations
I sneakily post at work, where we abbreviate practically everything and have gotten into the habit of it.
I thought "Dif Btn" was some new designer fragrance. I hadn't realized we've reached a point where two syllable words need abbreviations
I sneakily post at work, where we abbreviate practically everything and have gotten into the habit of it.
Ah, the plot thickens...
I post from work all day it seems. I've long since stopped caring whether or not they find out.
- Thread starter
- #18
My contract ends in 6 weeks, but I'd still be embarassed if found out. Can't access knife-sites, which is probably good as would get funny looks from my colleagues!
Gentlemen,
I agree with ClubmanRob about the use of so many abbreviations.
Please, half the time I do not understand some of the words used on this post, and elsewhere in our society. It's like shaving with the vile foamy substance spitting out from a can of aerosol.
The English language is perfectly capable of handling complete words. I am sure Charles Dickens would have agreed with me.
Sometime ago a friend started to decorate his e-mails with hordes of abbreviations, none of which I understood, so I wrote him back and kindly informed him that I did not read Martian.
He reverted to English.
Regards,
Obelit
I agree with ClubmanRob about the use of so many abbreviations.
Please, half the time I do not understand some of the words used on this post, and elsewhere in our society. It's like shaving with the vile foamy substance spitting out from a can of aerosol.
The English language is perfectly capable of handling complete words. I am sure Charles Dickens would have agreed with me.
Sometime ago a friend started to decorate his e-mails with hordes of abbreviations, none of which I understood, so I wrote him back and kindly informed him that I did not read Martian.
He reverted to English.
Regards,
Obelit
I agree------the use of abbreviations is like the "electric shaver" of the written word. They make things faster for the writer, but not as pleasant for the reader!
