Alain Wertheimer wanted something new to wear. That is the origin Chanel's own
chairman gave for the fragrance his house quietly put into its boutiques in
1987, and it accounts for nearly everything strange about how Bois Noir was
sold. No department stores. No gift-with-purchase, a mechanic Wertheimer
loathed. No campaign worth the name. Speaking to Women's Wear Daily that
November, he was unusually direct about why houses so rarely bothered with
anything difficult: "People want success too quickly. From a fragrance point of
view, people like what their memory tells them is good. Memory tells you it's
good if it relates to something else you like. When a fragrance is completely
different, they're lost."
Jacques Polge had been working toward a masculine scent organised around a
single material, sandalwood, since the middle of the decade. The reference
point was in the house already: Bois des Îles, Ernest Beaux's sandalwood for
women from 1926. Bois Noir was conceived as its masculine counterpart, and the
listed ingredients make the ambition plain enough. Mandarin, lavender, rose,
coriander, Bourbon vanilla, sandalwood, rosewood,
ambrette seed. Rose and vanilla, sold to men, in a market whose commercial
leaders at the turn of the decade were Polo, Aramis, Drakkar Noir and Obsession
for Men. Nothing about that formula was calculated to move volume, and the
distribution model confirms that nobody at Chanel expected it to.
The packaging carried the same refusal. A stopper
cut from real wood rather than moulded to imitate it, on a black box with a
fine white edge, at a moment when men's fragrance was reaching for lacquer and
chrome.
There is almost nothing to weigh as reception, and this is the part the
collector literature skips. No contemporaneous criticism, no sales figures
anyone has published, no period reviews to set against each other. A perfume
sold through a handful of shops, unadvertised, over a run the sources cannot
agree the length of, does not generate reception in any useful sense. What gets
reported as the reception of Bois Noir is almost entirely retrospective,
assembled from the 2000s onward by people writing about decants poured from
bottles bought twenty years earlier. That is not worthless, but it is testimony
about a heavily aged liquid, gathered from a self-selecting group who had
already decided the thing was worth hunting.
Nobody can fix the dates either, and the disagreement is more telling than any
single date would be. Now Smell This says the launch was discreet and the
fragrance was taken out of production quickly. Raiders of the Lost Scent
puts the circulation at 1987 to 1989. Perfume Intelligence records it as
discontinued in 1990, on the rebrand, and files it under the flat verdict "not
a commercial success." A Fragrantica feature dates the Paris boutique sale to
March 1986 and so disagrees with everyone about the beginning as well. Four
accounts of a Chanel product from within living memory, and they cannot fix
either end of its life. That is what withdrawal without announcement looks like
in the record: a scent can be sold by one of the most documented houses in
fashion and still leave a gap where its dates should be.
What followed is well documented, because Chanel chose to document it. In April
1990 the fragrance returned as Égoïste, the name bought from Nicole Wisniak's
photography magazine because the marketing department found Bois Noir
insufficiently provocative for a global launch. Paris was papered with posters
carrying the single word JE before anyone knew what was being advertised.
Jean-Paul Goude directed the commercial, which used no male models at all and
took the Golden Lion at Cannes. It was the largest campaign the house had ever
mounted for a men's fragrance, and it went into department stores, which is to
say it inverted every decision made about Bois Noir three years earlier.
Then Égoïste's sales dropped rapidly, and Chanel's explanation to the trade
press was that it had proved too sophisticated for the American market. That
line deserves the same scepticism as anything the collectors say. It flatters
the house, blames the buyer, and arrives with no figure attached in any account
I can find. Whatever the cause, the house acted on a different diagnosis: by
1993 the name was on Égoïste Platinum, a clean citrus-herbal developed with
consumer test groups, which Chanel had not used before. Platinum became by some
distance the better known of the two, and still is. Wertheimer had said in 1987
that people like what their memory tells them is good, and six years later his
own house was convening test groups to find out what that was.
The myth now runs in the opposite direction to the evidence. Bois Noir is
treated as a lost masterpiece, prices have gone somewhere absurd, and fakes
circulate freely, usually slightly evaporated Égoïste decanted into a vial. Yet
the most careful comparison anyone has published came back the other way. Kevin
at Now Smell This gathered samples from two separate original bottles, plus a
third from a trusted vendor as a control against a bad decant, and reported
that Bois Noir is not that different from Égoïste: richer and denser, and
recognisably the same fragrance that is still in production today. I quoted
that review here years ago.
So the collector economy has spent three decades grading a working version. A
draft can beat the finished piece, and I've no quarrel with the people who
prefer this one. But the premium is being paid for rarity, and rarity here was
manufactured by a distribution decision rather than earned by the liquid.
Compare it with Kouros, launched six
years earlier and written off in a newspaper headline ten days after its
launch party, which then sold continuously for forty-five years while the
oakmoss and civet it was built on were regulated out from under it. Collectors
chasing a 1981 bottle are chasing materials that genuinely are not in the
current formula. Bois Noir was tweaked and renamed rather than gutted by
regulation. Richer and denser is a real difference, and I can't tell you
whether it comes from the formula or from thirty-nine years in glass, and
neither can the market, because almost every comparison being made is a 1987
bottle against a current one, where age and formula move together. That
ambiguity is the whole trade. What age does to a
fragrance is doing at
least some of the work connoisseurship claims for itself, and a 1987 sandalwood
that has sat in glass this long will read deeper and stranger than a current
production bottle whatever was in it to begin with.