What is the definition of an Artisan?

I don't see a problem with soap makers offering scents that are inspired by higher end fragrances and offering them at a lower price. Some of the popular scents that are inspired from other well-known fragrances are not offered in a shaving soap, such as Polo Blue and Old Spice original, and the ones that are offered often cost much more than the average income earning wet-shaver can afford to pay for a soap.

You can afford a Rolex so I assume you can buy the $100+ soaps and aftershaves. But why shouldn't those who can't afford the high end fragrances be able to at least experience a close match while shaving. Also, what is wrong with making a profit? Why are there so many people on these boards that seem to have a problem with profit? Should the soap maker sell the soaps cheap enough to break even? And last I checked most of the high end fragrance inspired scents are sold by soap makers that have very reasonable prices.

It never ceases to amaze me how many members on these boards love to criticize artisans or small business soap makers. These soap makers are working hard to make an honest living making products that provide a lot of enjoyment for those of us who appreciate their products. I happen to make bath soaps and a few other  products, yet I will not be making shaving soaps because I love how much enjoyment I get every time I receive a new scent from my favorite artisans. I tried most of the commercial and high end luxury shaving soaps, but I still prefer the smaller artisan soaps. I like that they are packed full of quality ingredients and don't contain any chemicals like the vast majority of commercial soaps. It's the same with bath soaps too.

Hobbyist - I appreciate your response. Yes, I do own some high end soaps, as do many others on this forum. I see an enormous problem with other soap makers copying scents made famous by others and selling the products for less, and no I do not think that not having the money to buy something is a worthy excuse to give money to others who produce blatant rip-offs, some even using the name used by the famous maker on their own label. I am by no means wealthy, far from it, actually, but I do have respect for companies that take the time, effort, and money to develop and market a product. I do not respect the talentless purveyor who swoops in, copies, and sells to the masses is the name affordability.

Can you honestly tell me if you invented a product and sold it for $50 and someone else came in and made a virtually identical copy of your work and sold it for $5, you wouldn't mind at all?

With regard to profit, I have no problem with soap makers, whose ideas are innovative and ORIGINAL, reaping a profit from their work. They deserve it. I think that too many soap makers nowadays come up with a soap base and in an effort to keep the $$$ flowing, resort to copying scents instead of coming up with their own. Fortunately for them, there will always be hordes of people willing to open their wallets so they will just keep making soap and profiting at the expense of other producers.

Good points and thank you for commenting on each. I should have clarified what I meant, so I'll do that now. I used the word "inspired " because that is different from copying. The few scents that I bought are inspired by Creed as stated by the soap maker. However, the are a couple others that don't mention Creed but are obviously inspired by it as well, and those list the notes. Instead of a direct copy they used a couple different EO/FOs, and that seems fair to me. There are so many companies making fragrances, and with only so many EO/FOs to use, eventually there will be some scents that have the same notes. Yet even if one copies the entire fragrance note by note, the artisan still doesn't know how much to  used of each, so the best he or she can do is try to match it by scent.

Copying the exact name may be illegal I would guess,  but not sure about the fragrance itself. I doubt it is illegal to copy the fragrance notes; however, it may be if one found the actual formula and recipe and copied the fragrance exactly that way. We have to consider how fewer fragrance designers and scents there would be if it were not permitted. For example, consider how many sandalwood and cedarwood scents are available, or Fougeres, or the poplar citrus scents, or cedar and vanilla, or peppermint/tea tree/menthol, or lavender, and many others. Thus, at what point should it be consisted wrong to use the same EOs or FOs?

I don't know if any scents inspired by others are very accurate. The one I have is not, but it defintely can remind me of the other fragrance. I have a few more on the way which I shall soon find out hire chose they are. Since I have GIT by Creed and a couple others in fragrances I can compare some, and I highly doubt if any are exact. Yet I don't want exact anyway; I can enjoy a nicely inspired scent just as much.

I understand that single note scents, like lavender or neroli will invariably result in one scent smelling like another. Green Irish Tweed is a unique scent, and I think trading on that name is what drives the sales for the soap maker. If the soap maker is not compensating Creed for using the name "Green Irish Tweed" when marketing their own product, I find that no different than walking in to a store and stealing a pair of shoes. Theft is theft, be it tangible or intellectual property.

Even if the soap maker's attempt at recreating the fragrance is poor or fails entirely, the fact of the matter is is that they are able to spur the sales by referencing the name of the famous product. Had the soap maker given it a generic or original name, you can bet your socks that sales would be 1/10 what they are than with the famous name attached to the product. Some would even argue that an unsophisticated fragrance lover purchasing the poor recreation would immediately write off any future Creed purchase because of their bad experience with the knockoff, thereby causing additional damage to the brand.

Hobbyist - I appreciate your response. Yes, I do own some high end soaps, as do many others on this forum. I see an enormous problem with other soap makers copying scents made famous by others and selling the products for less, and no I do not think that not having the money to buy something is a worthy excuse to give money to others who produce blatant rip-offs, some even using the name used by the famous maker on their own label. I am by no means wealthy, far from it, actually, but I do have respect for companies that take the time, effort, and money to develop and market a product. I do not respect the talentless purveyor who swoops in, copies, and sells to the masses is the name affordability.

Can you honestly tell me if you invented a product and sold it for $50 and someone else came in and made a virtually identical copy of your work and sold it for $5, you wouldn't mind at all?

With regard to profit, I have no problem with soap makers, whose ideas are innovative and ORIGINAL, reaping a profit from their work. They deserve it. I think that too many soap makers nowadays come up with a soap base and in an effort to keep the $$$ flowing, resort to copying scents instead of coming up with their own. Fortunately for them, there will always be hordes of people willing to open their wallets so they will just keep making soap and profiting at the expense of other producers.

Good points and thank you for commenting on each. I should have clarified what I meant, so I'll do that now. I used the word "inspired " because that is different from copying. The few scents that I bought are inspired by Creed as stated by the soap maker. However, the are a couple others that don't mention Creed but are obviously inspired by it as well, and those list the notes. Instead of a direct copy they used a couple different EO/FOs, and that seems fair to me. There are so many companies making fragrances, and with only so many EO/FOs to use, eventually there will be some scents that have the same notes. Yet even if one copies the entire fragrance note by note, the artisan still doesn't know how much to  used of each, so the best he or she can do is try to match it by scent.

Copying the exact name may be illegal I would guess,  but not sure about the fragrance itself. I doubt it is illegal to copy the fragrance notes; however, it may be if one found the actual formula and recipe and copied the fragrance exactly that way. We have to consider how fewer fragrance designers and scents there would be if it were not permitted. For example, consider how many sandalwood and cedarwood scents are available, or Fougeres, or the poplar citrus scents, or cedar and vanilla, or peppermint/tea tree/menthol, or lavender, and many others. Thus, at what point should it be consisted wrong to use the same EOs or FOs?

I don't know if any scents inspired by others are very accurate. The one I have is not, but it defintely can remind me of the other fragrance. I have a few more on the way which I shall soon find out hire chose they are. Since I have GIT by Creed and a couple others in fragrances I can compare some, and I highly doubt if any are exact. Yet I don't want exact anyway; I can enjoy a nicely inspired scent just as much.

I understand that single note scents, like lavender or neroli will invariably result in one scent smelling like another. Green Irish Tweed is a unique scent, and I think trading on that name is what drives the sales for the soap maker. If the soap maker is not compensating Creed for using the name "Green Irish Tweed" when marketing their own product, I find that no different than walking in to a store and stealing a pair of shoes. Theft is theft, be it tangible or intellectual property.

Even if the soap maker's attempt at recreating the fragrance is poor or fails entirely, the fact of the matter is is that they are able to spur the sales by referencing the name of the famous product. Had the soap maker given it a generic or original name, you can bet your socks that sales would be 1/10 what they are with the famous name attached to the product. Some would even argue that an unsophisticated fragrance lover purchasing the poor recreation would immediately write off any future Creed purchase because of their bad experience with the knockoff, thereby causing additional damage to the brand.

You make some great points, especially on the potential damage to the brand caused by these linkages.

I am perplexed by Hobbyist 's statement about artisan soaps not containing chemicals. Soap, aftershave balm, colognes, are nothing but chemicals. I don't think this can be a criterion for whether something is artisanal or not. I mean, all visible matter is composed of chemicals.
nervosa1901@ , The soap makers, balm makers, etc. that I know of usually market their own take on higher end scents, e.g. Mystic Waters Irish Traveler. It's similar to Green Irish Tweed, but it isn't exactly the same. I like it better than Creed's version. It's also relevant that some design houses license frantrance makers to make duplicates of their products. One can buy them readymade from fragrance suppliers.

I understand that it's all "chemicals." What I should have said was synthetic compounds and other chemicals which may or may not be harmful to your skin. A homemade soap typically does not have anything like parabens, alcohols, etc. Also, when it comes to preservatives, I prefer Optiphen, Optiphen Plus which are paraben and formaldehyde free. That's what I use for the lotions I make and it works very well. Stirling also uses Optiphen Plus in their balms, which are pretty much the only balms I use these days, other than my lotions/balms and Soap Commander once in a while. But thank you for letting me know what goes in soaps.

Others are entitled to their opinion hrfdez. nervosa1901@  offered his opinion and you respond with "get a life"... really? I'm not sure why you are responding with such hostility.

Anyway, I can understand where nervosa1901@ is coming from on that. I've never been a fan of knockoffs or imitations since they are profiting off of the form and function of another product. Ethically, I am opposed to knockoffs. If the fragrance is compared to another fragrance or inspired by it I have no objection, but if it openly is marketed as a knockoff, that's something else entirely. From what I have tried of the Mystic Water  scent, it is certainly different in character and is inspired by Green Irish Tweed rather than a copy of it.

I can respect the fact that a soap maker might occasionally wish to pay homage to a famous perfume house with a soap, if that soap is different than the original. I honestly would prefer soap makers to try to be entirely original, however. Look at M. Tremonia. While some of their scents I find almost repulsive, at least they are original and the scents are of very high quality. Some other soap makers in Europe are as original as they get. It seems like the problem lies with soap makers in the North America, or at least soap makers who base their operations here. I can think of four right now who have a product range consisting almost exclusively of copies of other scents. Some even steal the label designs from the famous makers. My comments do not apply to all US-based soap makers. This is just based on personal experience and my observations.

I would just challenge these soap makers to be original. Creating a soap base and paying homage to every famous perfume house in the world with new scents every month is an unfortunate way to do business.

Well then, every single one of Mr. Fine's aftershaves should be boycotted by every user here according to a couple of frag snobs that have posted in this thread lol. Jesus Christ some of you take yourselves WAY to seriously lmao.

Here is an avatar for you

Others are entitled to their opinion hrfdez. nervosa1901@  offered his opinion and you respond with "get a life"... really? I'm not sure why you are responding with such hostility.

Anyway, I can understand where nervosa1901@ is coming from on that. I've never been a fan of knockoffs or imitations since they are profiting off of the form and function of another product. Ethically, I am opposed to knockoffs. If the fragrance is compared to another fragrance or inspired by it I have no objection, but if it openly is marketed as a knockoff, that's something else entirely. From what I have tried of the Mystic Water  scent, it is certainly different in character and is inspired by Green Irish Tweed rather than a copy of it.

I can respect the fact that a soap maker might occasionally wish to pay homage to a famous perfume house with a soap, if that soap is different than the original. I honestly would prefer soap makers to try to be entirely original, however. Look at M. Tremonia. While some of their scents I find almost repulsive, at least they are original and the scents are of very high quality. Some other soap makers in Europe are as original as they get. It seems like the problem lies with soap makers in the North America, or at least soap makers who base their operations here. I can think of four right now who have a product range consisting almost exclusively of copies of other scents. Some even steal the label designs from the famous makers. My comments do not apply to all US-based soap makers. This is just based on personal experience and my observations.

I would just challenge these soap makers to be original. Creating a soap base and paying homage to every famous perfume house in the world with new scents every month is an unfortunate way to do business.

I agree on the inherent value of originality. Thus far, every single copy or knockoff of a scent has disappointed me in terms of quality. Often they smell nothing like the original or have only a vague resemblance somewhere in the scent pyramid. They are cheaper, yes, but often inferior in quality. A good example of this is Fine Platinum (a brand that EFDan brought up), which has only the most indirect resemblance to Aventus yet is constantly compared. It just so happens that the scents that impress me the most are often the most original.

To be clear EFDan, if you are happy with Fine, that's perfectly fine with me, and I am not suggesting that brand should be boycotted (and I don't believe nervosa1901@ is calling for that either). For me though (IMHO, YMMV), the best from the line is American Blend, which is an interesting and original take on a barbershop fragrance.

Well then, every single one of Mr. Fine's aftershaves should be boycotted by every user here according to a couple of frag snobs that have posted in this thread lol.  Jesus Christ some of you take yourselves WAY to seriously lmao.

Here is an avatar for you

As Hector so astutely pointed out, while I have not been an active participant here, I am quickly coming to the conclusion that there are a lot of people here who are unwilling to accept an opinion or make a meaningful contribution to a discussion.

I am not a fragrance snob. I am someone who has something of a moral compass and that moral compass precludes me from supporting business owners who steal ideas from other business owners. I, personally, would never purchase a Mr. Fine aftershave for that very reason. Their whole business is based on copying products that are still in production, products, that, relatively speaking, are inexpensive.

As I stated earlier, these soap (and aftershave) makers are no fools. They understand that there are enough EFDans in the world that will hand over their cash for cheaply priced copies of a famous product, and they can make a killing doing it.

Folks, everyone is entitled to an opinion without being subjected to personal attacks. If you disagree with someone else, please don't sling mud, and try to apologize when you do so unwittingly. It's rude, stifles conversation, and simply doesn't add anything to the discussion.

I realize that there are strong feelings when it comes to certain topics, but why engage in personal attacks?

I'm late to the discussion, but I have mixed feelings about the term "artisan" now that sandwiches at well-known chain restaurants are being called "artisanal".... Before it became overused and misused, it was a meaningful term with dignity and tradition behind it. An artisan is skilled at making something by hand; with experience and aptitude the skilled artisan can master a craft and rise to the level of an artist. But what the artisan makes has a function and a commercial value (whether or not they sell it for a profit). On the other hand, an artist expresses themselves through a creative medium (be it painting, sculpture, photography, music, whatever), and the products of their creativity are judged on purely aesthetic grounds (although fine art obviously can have a commercial value as well). It goes without saying that not all artisans are skilled, just as not all artists are talented.

I'm late to the discussion, but I have mixed feelings about the term "artisan" now that sandwiches at well-known chain restaurants are being called "artisanal".... Before it became overused and misused, it was a meaningful term with dignity and tradition behind it. An artisan is skilled at making something by hand; with experience and aptitude the skilled artisan can master a craft and rise to the level of an artist. But what the artisan makes has a function and a commercial value (whether or not they sell it for a profit). On the other hand, an artist expresses themselves through a creative medium (be it painting, sculpture, photography, music, whatever), and the products of their creativity are judged on purely aesthetic grounds (although fine art obviously can have a commercial value as well). It goes without saying that not all artisans are skilled, just as not all artists are talented.

Great post! What do you suppose altered the meaning behind the term? It seems that "artisan" seems to be used as a marketing term more than a meaningful descriptor. The only historical explanation I could think of is the transition from structured teaching relationships (whereby a "master" passes on knowledge to an "apprentice") to a more democratized system of acquiring and utilizing artisanal knowledge. Craftsmen like blacksmiths (the artisans of their day) would pass on knowledge in the more structured manner, and the concept of the "artisan" or "master" would be essentially self-regulating among a body of experts and by means of community reputation. Nowadays though, professional organizations like "guilds" have far less power in regulating the proper use of such terms and titles, at least when it comes to artisans of physical crafts. But in some ways, academic professions (and a few others) retain elements of the "guild" system, with structured teaching relationships remaining intact and with professional organizations and disciplinary bodies serving as modern guilds.

Anyway, your point on the difference between artisan and artist is especially helpful since it deals with the issue of profit.