Q&A: How do I score/rate scents?

Having written a few reviews, the response from my readers has been positive so far, and I intend to follow largely the same format for future reviews too. Of course, I will improve the format of my reviews based on suggestions as I go along, so eventually the reviews may look different to what they look like now.

So far, I divide my reviews into a few somewhat distinct sections: a brief intro about the house that makes the scent, a little history of the scent itself and the nose behind it, then a detailed analysis of its notes, followed by appraisal of its longevity and projection, and suggestions for alternatives. I also have distinct sub-headings for prices, stockists and bottle sizes.

One important issue that has been raised by some readers is the apparent lack of transparency as to how the scents get allocated scores/ratings. And it is a very valid question indeed. While I think it would be possible to get an idea of where I docked marks and where I awarded them based on reading the summary attached to the scoring and the body of the review itself, some explanation won't go unwarranted.

The answer to the transparency question is: deliberate opacity for the detailed breakdown of the scoring. And the reason is not sinister, it's to make it more convenient for the user. However, I will explain in this blog how I score a perfume, and going forward, readers should be able to get some idea of what would have caused the score to be as low or as high as I allocate.

I score a scent based on the following criteria:

• Balance of notes; a perfume that has a complex note profile handled well generally gets a high score in this category. I'm not looking for complexity as such; I look for a good balance of the different components in the accords, and more complex blends being more difficult to handle get higher scores if they strike the right balance.
• Longevity; this is a directly proportional score. A scent that lasts longer will get higher scores.
• Projection; this is not a proportional score. Scents that are meant to project further, and actually achieve it over their life get high scores, but a scent that maintains a decent projection over its life also gets high scores. I rely on information from the brands themselves, and online feedback regarding how far scents are meant to project. If my review aligns with the majority opinion and claims from the brands, I consider it as performance par for the course. More intimate/sensual scents generally wont (and should not) project as far as night-oriented scents, I rate them accordingly.
• Value; this is by far the most complex of the bunch, because of the volatile exchange rate of the AUD. I use the following:
• Use the price for a singular retail packaged bottle, as bundles or packs differ across retailers. Use only prices from bottles available across both countries where I get prices from.
• Assume 1 USD = 1.25-1.33 AUD, 1 GBP = 2AUD and 1 EUR = 1.6 AUD
• Add 10% GST and 5% freight to GST-inclusive price to USD and EUR prices; only add 5% shipment to GBP prices
• Multiply USD prices by 1.44375 or 1.54, GBP prices by 2.1, and EUR prices by 1.848 is the one-step method to get tax/freight/exchange-rate adjusted price.
• The AUD has't held at a level lower than 89 US cents for a fair while now, so I will be using 1.44375 as a multiplier for US prices rather than 1.54. Ideally, I would be using about 1.283 (90 US cents to the AUD plus 15.5% for freight/GST) but I do allow for leeway here because prices are slow to react to exchange rates, especially for a jumpy currency like the AUD
• If the RRP price in Australia is lower than what my adjusted price is, I rate the product higher for value.
• If the Australian RRP is higher, I deduct marks based on some subjective judgement; Higher priced items can get away with higher absolute deviations, and items that are very rare in Australia can slip through with smaller penalties.
• If the product is obtainable easily through B&M channels at prices lower than RRP, I will increase the value scores.
• If the consensus in other online forums leans towards the scent being overpriced elsewhere, I penalise the value score.
• Finally, I weigh the different scores and assign a final value.

Quite obviously, working out the scoring is a complex process, and I intentionally hide the details of how I work out individual ones. 

I hope this clarifies to my esteemed readers the criteria that underpin (and will in the future too) the scores I assign to the scents I review.

Armani Code: An example of the scoring process

To illustrate the above, here's the breakdown for my scoring for Armani Code (reviewed here)

Balance of notes: 4/5; it strikes a good balance of notes without being screechy, sharp or cloying.

Longevity: 2.75/5 (comparably priced offerings from Dior and Chanel perform much better)

Projection: 3.5/5 (nothing bad, but could be a tad higher for its category of scent)

Price: 3/5; details as follows:

Australian price is AU$140/75ml. US price is USD84/75ml and UK price is GBP 56.5/75ml.

The ceiling prices are therefore AU$121.27 based on USD84 multiplied by 1.44375, and AU$118.65 based on a GBP price of 56.50.

Considering the AUD has been holding between 0.9-1.05 USD and 1.4-1.5 to a GBP for a fair while, I rated this scent only 2.5/5 for value in Australia, and the ability to get discounts gets it up to 3/5.

Overall: (4+2.75+3.5+3)/4 = 3.31, which is reasonably rounded to 3.3/5

I will not display the detailed breakdown for each scent on its review directly, simply because it is a complex process that I don't want to bore or overwhelm readers with.