Luvs/Pampers Fragrance, 80s baby, Chemist turned Perfumist

[ArchtopK]

TABLE-US-00001 Ingredients (wt %) Example I Example II
Water 51.76 49.02
Modified Starch 26.0 24.6
National LNP GLUK 2004
Perfume (Quest 21.0 25.0 Q31535)
Surfactant (sorbitan 0.85 1.00 monolaurate)
Rheology Modifier 0.2 0.2 (xanthan gum)
Antimicrobial agent 0.19 0.18 (Kathon CG) (0.039 biocide (0.037 biocide active) active)
Median droplet sizes Median droplet size 0.460 0.387 (.mu.m) immediately after mixing Median droplet size 0.561 0.509 (.mu.m) after 3 months and at ambient temperature

From a PG patent
I have probably posted this before, but I always had a feeling the Quest Q31535 was the magic bullet.
they were bought out by another company and there really seems no way to find out for sure.

 

[Diaps]

TABLE-US-00001 Ingredients (wt %) Example I Example II
Water 51.76 49.02
Modified Starch 26.0 24.6
National LNP GLUK 2004
Perfume (Quest 21.0 25.0 Q31535)
Surfactant (sorbitan 0.85 1.00 monolaurate)
Rheology Modifier 0.2 0.2 (xanthan gum)
Antimicrobial agent 0.19 0.18 (Kathon CG) (0.039 biocide (0.037 biocide active) active)
Median droplet sizes Median droplet size 0.460 0.387 (.mu.m) immediately after mixing Median droplet size 0.561 0.509 (.mu.m) after 3 months and at ambient temperature

From a PG patent
I have probably posted this before, but I always had a feeling the Quest Q31535 was the magic bullet.
they were bought out by another company and there really seems no way to find out for sure.

I've got a sample of Amouage Gold coming, when it arrives I intend to sneak into the fams work and use their GCMS and take a look under the hood. (sneak is a relative term since they would obviously know since it's beside their desk) Perfumes cannot be taken apart this way because like I said about chiral molecules, even a GCMS has no idea it's the chiral version. BUT what CAN be done is if you know something that is in said perfume you can ascertain what the percentage is. That will go a LONG way to letting me figure out how much of what is where, meanwhile I'm still brining in new compounds off the banned list that seem like good matches.

By now I expected to be buying the scent in mini kegs and using it in a diaper making machine. Fluff, topsheet, backsheet, SAP and tapes, is all that makes a diaper and the supplies to make them cost less on Amazon right now that the diapers in a box I just got..... XL Alpacas I just got are 8kg a box of 30 and cost $3.2 Can each. Amazon CA cost, $0.80 backsheet, $0.60 topsheet, 16 Liters of SAP absorbency $0.71 and fluff is like 0.40 cents or less, depending on source. So building the ideal full mat (exploding pamper) diaper would literally cost less than empowering China right now AND everything is STILL out of stock because of shortages and/or the people who manned the factories in china aren't so much with the living anymore . My boosters are a different style because they had to come from factories elsewhere. Maybe I should stop procrastinating about starting a patreon and actual build the damn thing, perfume importing takes time so I have extra laying around right now... Small scale low speed diaper making machines are a real thing, just not reliable or good usually. If I could pay 5 bucks a diaper for absolute certainty I'm waking up dry, pampers level certainly that would be money well spent. With stuffers I often spend 6 or more dollars per night just to stay dry.

The diapers I get need extensive boosters for me and diapers are expensive as heck. I would rather be wasting money on servos and such than fragrance parts. I think you found that Quest one like a decade ago. I have records at that time, (I still have the bookmark sheet) I was looking up parts for what went into a diaper and it was way too expensive still, unless you were buying metric tons of supplies at a time. I specifically remember the memory of thinking of buying it in a 50 gallon drum and then never found any sign of it, from any company. Amazon was still a book seller only when you found it.

 

[ArchtopK]

Gold Man Amouage cologne - a fragrance for men 1983

Gold Man by Amouage is a Woody Floral Musk fragrance for men. Gold Man was launched in 1983. The nose behind this fragrance is Guy Robert. Top notes are Lily-of-the-Valley, Rose Hip and Incense; middl...

www.fragrantica.com

If you visit this page, you will find a spot that says "this perfume reminds me of" and there are maybe 10 or more perfumes listed with votes beneath each one. And it just goes to show how everyone smells a little differently, that for each perfume listed there is a near equal number of thumbs up and thumbs down. How can that be? But there it is.

 

[ArchtopK]

"Amouage Gold conjures up, in my mind, the image of Louis XIV posing for Hyacinthe Rigaud back in 1701.

Royal, immoraly animalic, provocatively floral, lusciously soapy, opulent, extravagant and immeasurably luxurious to the far edge of . . . exaggeration.

Personally, I admire Gold for its uniqueness. A daring composition, unlike any other in my collection, that incorporates a battle of contradictions. New yet old-fashioned, western yet oriental, powdery yet masculine, skanky yet feminine. As expected, Guy Robert's liberal usage of copious amounts of strong ingredients, has made it very subjective whether Gold can be perceived as majestic or . . . intolerable.

For me, Gold's drydown is the best part of this challenging journey. Once the bombastic powdery floral opening has settled down, I am left with a super dry, slightly metallic, musky, dirty animalic warmth that feels as if heat radiates off my chest. This long lasting "burning" phase is what makes me truly respect this composition, because for me it's a solid indication of a masterfully designed evolution.

Excessive, provocative, unique."

This is what they would say if Pampers scent was available today.

 

[BobbiSueEllen]

Back in '89, this pretentious, egotistical female co-worker came to work and set all our noses out of joint...literally! She reeked of chemicals, badly. She made a show on how she got this $500 bottle of cologne and it was "evocative, sensuous and compelling" as our eyes all watered. After that, she sashayed out...

...and we all started coughing & gagging, with laughter in between them. Various negative marks arose concerning the odious odor; mine was, as I laughed, "She smells exactly like a No-Pest Strip!" and more laughter erupted. Because it was true, and they all agreed.

 

[jellyjigger]

@Diaps, at some point pampers switched to something like luvs, or am I just imagining that? It seems a lot of people remember this but of course, there is no way to check anymore. Either way, do you know anything about the luvs scent which has stayed pretty consistent throughout the years besides the strength used? Is it less documented, more documented, or the same? I'd be happy if we could find even the current luvs scent, but just make it stronger than the percentage they use on luvs diapers nowadays.

[edit] I do understand however that these things take time and it sounds like you have many simultaneous projects going on. Keep up the good work - even just dumping your findings in this thread is providing bits and pieces of documentation that will ultimately help the ABDL community rebuild these scents. Somehow I was unable to find previous ingredients posted within patents, and spent hours combing through about 20 of them so its great to have experts chime in with any gold nuggets of info since many of us don't have some of the scientific creds needed.

 

[ArchtopK]

Pampers went unscented some time in the late 90's when unscented and dye free was all the rage. When they returned to a scented product, the scent was more like baby powder. I had an email exchange with PG customer service confirming that the scent had indeed changed.

 

[BobbiSueEllen]

That makes sense, as P&G also switched social statuses between the two at that time: Pampers, always the budget brand, suddenly became the premium diaper, then Luvs went from elite to "commoner". I noted how pricey Luvs were when I bouggt my first convenience box of extra-absorbency toddler Pampers, thanking my lucky stars I had money left over as I took my big box of "they're for me" diapers home.

 

[bambinod]

Pampers went unscented some time in the late 90's when unscented and dye free was all the rage. When they returned to a scented product, the scent was more like baby powder. I had an email exchange with PG customer service confirming that the scent had indeed changed.

I'd bet they did that due to babies showing symptoms of allergies from the perfumes they were using. (she did't think it was bothering me, but it was making my skin red and sort of making a rash)

I remember my mom briefly mentioning that she preferred how well pampers performed for me but that I had some level of allergy to them. It's not uncommon for product perfumes to trigger allergic reactions.

 

[Diaps]

@Diaps, at some point pampers switched to something like luvs, or am I just imagining that? It seems a lot of people remember this but of course, there is no way to check anymore. Either way, do you know anything about the luvs scent which has stayed pretty consistent throughout the years besides the strength used? Is it less documented, more documented, or the same? I'd be happy if we could find even the current luvs scent, but just make it stronger than the percentage they use on luvs diapers nowadays.

[edit] I do understand however that these things take time and it sounds like you have many simultaneous projects going on. Keep up the good work - even just dumping your findings in this thread is providing bits and pieces of documentation that will ultimately help the ABDL community rebuild these scents. Somehow I was unable to find previous ingredients posted within patents, and spent hours combing through about 20 of them so its great to have experts chime in with any gold nuggets of info since many of us don't have some of the scientific creds needed.

They JUST recently changed Luvs to a new jasmine or lilac scent (purple flower, name is escaping me, been up for 26 hours ) So the current has become something totally different. From those who have used them as stuffers for years, it has been unchanged, but weakened however that isn't my own data.

Speaking of my own data, We should start a thread, "things that do NOT smell like pampers, despite people insisting they do"

Eternal Essence - baby powder, Nope
Barnhouse blue - also no.
They smell identical, I had the barnhouse from a collection I ordered, the eternal essence just arrived and was like 25 bucks for the little bottle imported, don't waste your money.

I'd bet they did that due to babies showing symptoms of allergies from the perfumes they were using. (she did't think it was bothering me, but it was making my skin red and sort of making a rash)

I remember my mom briefly mentioning that she preferred how well pampers performed for me but that I had some level of allergy to them. It's not uncommon for product perfumes to trigger allergic reactions.

I was in that same boat, luckily by 85 for my bedwetting days it was changed enough I didn't react.

It is the current route I am taking towards this, nothing in SD18 is really gonna rash you up bad, that list of banned stuff on pampers website, that has stuff that is banned including things that... Well I'll just say it, I thought one of the compounds was diazepam, I did a triple take on seeing the ring structure. It's not, and close doesn't court (or shouldn't ) but we were putting some interesting chemistry next to the skin of kids. Rash? honestly if they screwed up the chemistry bad enough the factory would be a graveyard and the packages would have dissolved into puddles during shipping. Fucking surreal what's in the list of banned stuff and used to be in pampers.

 

[ArchtopK]

We need to find a mom of forty years ago, who stopped using perfume X because it reminded her too much of Pampers.
There must be someone who had that experience.

 

[jellyjigger]

Whatever luvs used in the 90s and early 2000s (possibly late 80s too?) is worth duplicating in my opinion in addition to Pampers scent from the same era. Am I correct in thinking Sweet Dream #18 is early 80s, laste 70s Pampers scent then? I was previously unaware of how many variations there are.

I am sad luvs diminished the scent all these years and apparently that signature scent is now gone - to be replaced with none-other than fake herbal scents like all other products. I can't say I'm surprised as this is what has happened to the wipe fragrances and must be what the consumer trend must show.

 

[BobbiSueEllen]

I don't care if it smells more like Pampers or more like Luvs, they both have the same addictive trigger scents...and that's how I want my diapers and baby room to smell. They rightly named it Sweet Dream 18 for a very, very good reason. Extremely sweet, extremely dreamy.

The 18? Gimme time. I'm thinkin', I'm thinkin'! Pampers or Luvs, either way, I am both imprinted and addicted. Bring it on!

 

[Diaps]

Whatever luvs used in the 90s and early 2000s (possibly late 80s too?) is worth duplicating in my opinion in addition to Pampers scent from the same era. Am I correct in thinking Sweet Dream #18 is early 80s, laste 70s Pampers scent then? I was previously unaware of how many variations there are.

I am sad luvs diminished the scent all these years and apparently that signature scent is now gone - to be replaced with none-other than fake herbal scents like all other products. I can't say I'm surprised as this is what has happened to the wipe fragrances and must be what the consumer trend must show.

It's not pampers, or at least not correct pampers, despite smelling something similar once this is distinctly missing the opening pampers trumpet. This is how I remember Luvs smelling but someone else who has tried it pinned it to another 80s era diaper. P&G was making several diaper lines in that era and some of them were being sold rebranded to stores. In addition Luvs and Pampers switched positions, one was the econo brand one was premium and pampers came out as the premium and luvs became the econo line.

SD18 and the others like "Floral Magnifica" are for sure from their own lineup. But they are fragrances that have been abandoned for whatever reasons and are being used as exemplars. You can tell it's dead when the name stops changing.

 

[ArchtopK]

"Am I correct in thinking Sweet Dream #18 is early 80s?"
I made contact with one of the patent holders for sweet dream 18 and he clarified that sweet dream 18 was a scent developed by P&G prestige perfume division in 2013. So while it may have familiar notes, as many perfumes do, the developers were not thinking about Pampers when they worked on this one. That formula was sold as part of the entire perfume division to Coty a few years ago.

 

[Diaps]

"Am I correct in thinking Sweet Dream #18 is early 80s?"
I made contact with one of the patent holders for sweet dream 18 and he clarified that sweet dream 18 was a scent developed by P&G prestige perfume division in 2013. So while it may have familiar notes, as many perfumes do, the developers were not thinking about Pampers when they worked on this one. That formula was sold as part of the entire perfume division to Coty a few years ago.

If collectively we all grab you and shake you upside down God only know what would fall out of your contact list. So can that person give us anything ? Like FFS, a FRAGMENT of pampers formula and I would GCMS an actual diaper within an hour and be taking apart the rest of the formula.

Edit. the more I think about this if that is indeed what this is I'm fine either way. I guessed correctly in that it smells like I remember Luvs, expensive womans perfume edition. The amount balance being off could be more proof that perfumers don't really obey the law and the names being wrong could have come from an older chemist who had the naming conventions baked in. Why use them on diaper patents then tho... they could have used all manner of simpler things that had no meaning, strange.

Can you enquire about the "Floral Magnifica"? Why would they put high end "prestige" perfumes on diapers, sec I've gotta "Chanel" my diaper pail. Like the patents where they modified FM were for absorbent articles and specifically for long term scent throwing.... specifically getting peed on....

Believe it or not it doesn't change my current goal, I needed a perfume base, smell Cashmeran and you immediately know it's in basically everything that has fragrance. The banned list of pampers won't work without something to add it to. If it's true it confirms things I have already discovered. If nothing else the practice was needed on extreme plastic eating monsters for the real deal pampers formula

 

[ArchtopK]

I think I have to tiptoe around what I am willing to ask PG employees. There is no anonymity in those conversations.
Even if he knew the Pampers formula, he could not reveal it. But it might be nice to know the history of when scent was introduce and how it was chosen. And I am contemplating the best way to ask that question. Those are Bob Duncan questions really.

 

[jellyjigger]

Does anyone remember Huggies being scented? If they ever were, I do know they've been fragrance free for many years

 

[BobbiSueEllen]

After my return to diapers in 1981, I did buy a pack of toddler Huggies and they were indeed scented, reminiscent of baby powder, but with a softer-smelling element...yet not at all as addictive as the Pampers scent.

 

[ArchtopK]

https://boisdejasmin.com/2005/11/ionones-violet-methyl-ionone-powdery-perfume-materials.html
this page could be helpful.
By composing a fragrance where almost 80% of the formula was made up only of four ingredients, Sophia Grojsman represented a new style of perfumery—a composition that dispenses with the traditional top note and instead presents a panoramic vista that largely remains unchanged over time. The four main ingredients she selected for Lancôme Trésor (1990) were Hedione, methyl ionone, Iso E Super, and Galaxolide. The violet facet of Trésor’s apricot and rose marriage is enhanced by pairing of Iso E Super with methyl ionone, and the finished result is the epitome of a sweet, soft, and gently powdery fragrance.

Has anyone tried this one?