While I have returned to this question quite a few times since I started down the perfumery path (having been an aromatherapy afficionado in my not entirely distant past), I recently found two posters who I think make lucid cases on each side of the aisle. Nathan Branch essentially concludes that he misses the longevity synthetic fixatives can provide a scent, especially when you consider the cost:smell time equation. Michelle Krell Kidd connects natural perfumery with terroir and the Slow Food movement, and says we should consider sticking with the real roses, however fleeting.
I've got one foot on each side at the moment. Gardening and aromatherapy--and yes, a sympathy for the Slow Food & eat local movements--mean I am highly sympathetic to the impact of using molecules directly from their associated source. But I am not free to burn my money, and there is a direct affect upon the budget when scents need to be reapplied frequently. Not to mention the games you can play with evolving drydown when chemical manipulations come into play.
Hence, I am conducting my sampling in the spirit of moderation: a little bit of everything....
