Talk:Synthetic musk

Synthetic

"Most, if not all musk fragrance used in perfumery today is synthetic."

http://www.classicshaving.com/catalog/item/6910180/5289481.htm

"Royall Muske - This hauntingly exotic fragrance intrigues with its lingering scent from the grain secreted by the shy Asian male musk deer to attract the female of his species. The Ancients used musk as an aphrodisiac. Royall’s is mixed with harmonious aromatics to create its own uniquely masculine allure. Try it and experience the results for yourself!"

Great, my aftershave actually contains deer ball sweat. --199.173.226.229 (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ability to smell musk

I noticed there was a request on the page to discuss the assertion that 50% of the population couldn't smell musk. I wonder if another way to state this would be that a portion of the population has mutations in their OR7D4 receptor which make the smell either different or non-existant. It would be worthwhile to note any gender disparities in the ability to smell musk as well. I don't have time right now to pull up those citations, but it's something worth checking if someone does have time. --Ryan W (talk) 08:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think 50% is a bit high, but you're right, there is a significant portion of the population who as anosmic musks. This is especially true for high molecular weight macrocyclic musks and to a lesser extent, the lower MW musks. This is known widely in the perfuming community, which is why a commercial or fine perfume typically contains a blend of different musks to account for anosmia to musk in the population. If you can post the citations in raw form here, I'm willing to put them up in wiki's citation form. -- Sjschen (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article presents non-musks as being musks: serious error

Ambroxide (Ambrox, Ambroxan), γ-Decalactone, γ-Dodecalactone, sclareolide, and Iso-E Super are not musks at all and should not be named as such in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:9502:4c5b:1178:9618:11b7:f732 (talk) 13:07, 2020 June 15 (UTC)

For now I've removed the disputed content since it is unreferenced and contradictory. It doesn't make sense to have content in the article that is self-contradictory (chemicals listed as musks with the comment "not a musk"). If anyone can find a reliable source that confirms any of these compounds are in fact considered musks, then the content supported by that reference can be added back into the article. Marbletan (talk) 17:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]