re: fragrances "that lean towards the musky".

I lean away from the musky myself. It reminds me of musks.

Which leads into another question.

To what extent, if at all, does our expectation of an odor color our experience of it?

For instance, in a blind smell test, would we choose a fragrance we knew was worn by J Lo over a no-name fragrance even tho both fragrances were identical?

Can the mind be tricked into perceiving superiority even where none exists?

We can certainly be tricked into buying something which is pitched by a celebrity, but can we be tricked into actually believing, upon using it, that it is superior to the same thing we are already using absent the celebrity cachet?

If so, that "cachet" has legitimate premium value.

The "cachet" itself is illusion, but, in the mind, the illusion is real.

How much do we spend on illusion, I wonder?

If we took all the illusion away, how much wealth would remain?

How much net happiness would be lost ... or gained?

If I introduced a fragrance called "Illusion", would you buy it?

What if I said that "Illusion" is chosen 50% of the time in a blind smell test using a J Lo fragrance, that it sells for as much as a J Lo fragrance, and that the entire 'celebrity cachet' mark-up would be donated to a Third World country? Would you buy "Illusion" then?

If you did buy "Illusion" under these circumstances, would it smell like a 'celebrity cachet' fragrance when you wore it?

Would anyone else know the difference if you never confided you are wearing "Illusion"?

If, before buying "Illusion", you had to promise that you would never reveal the name of your fragrance, would you buy "Illusion" then?

Or would you buy "Illusion" and wear "J Lo"?