Talk:Yardley London

English Blazer was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 05 February 2013 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Yardley London. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Fashion Low‑importance

	Fashion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Oldest perfume brand claim

User:Aimperator is continuing to insert the claim that Yardley of London (est. 1770) is the world's oldest perfume brand. I have been removing this because there are clearly older perfume brands, such as Farina Gegenüber (est. 1707). User:Aimperator, so far you haven't given any evidence supporting your claim, nor any rebuttal to my repeatedly presented evidence that it is incorrect. Could you kindly do so here so that we can stop this back-and-forth reversion? —Psychonaut (talk) 10:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yardley can trace its roots back to 1620, when by your own information you talk about Jonathan Yardley obtaining a Royal Warrant to produce soaps for the entire city of London. You go onto say the details were lost in the Fire of London in 1666, so obnviously Yardley existed prior to 1666, which predates the above mentioned brand by 41 years, and 87 years if you take it back to the original founding of Yardley. Your own information is contradictory to what you are saying above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.91.110 (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most independent secondary sources give 1770 as the date the company was established. This is what the company's own official website has to say:

This first incarnation o. f Yardley was lost, as was so much of the old city, in the Great Fire of London of 1666; save for one detail - that lavender should be used to perfume the soaps ... A century later, in 1770, the Cleaver family established Yardley London, creating the soap and perfumery business we know today. Through astute business and a convenient marriage the Yardley family once again became involved in this operation, and by the early 1800s Yardley London was back in family hands.

The way that reads is that the current Yardley of London is not the original company that was establised by the Yardley family and destroyed in the great fire of London; this company was established by the Cleaver family and at some point in the 1800s the Yardley family took over. Even if that interpretation is inaccurate, it is not clear how the current company is related to the previous company, nor does it back up the claim that the company was established in 1620. The company's official site itself says this particular incarnation of the company was established in 1770. Since that is the year secondary sources and the company's own website give, that is the year Wikiedia goes with. Anything else is WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:Original research. Betty Logan (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merger from English Blazer with commentary on "launch date"

I suspect there is some creative rewriting of history going on here. All the reliable sources I can find document that English Blazer was a "new" introduction in 1991. The Perfume Encyclopaedia gives a launch date of 1989, so I've referenced the 1989 and 1991 launch date claims. However, when English Blazer was relaunched very recently, suddenly it's been around since 1951 but there's absolutely no documentation I can find anywhere to support the claim that it predates the 1990s. I've (with major reservations) put a note that the official website for the relaunched fragrance claims a 1951 launch date, and everything I've found since then that states 1951 is clearly taking this claim from press releases/publicity material even though that claim is almost certainly fabricated. The brand is notable enough to mention, as per the merger discussion, but its latest rebranding seems to be based on some pretty massive fibs. Mabalu (talk) 01:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I used English Blazer in the late 1960s into the 1970s, where is was available in the United States. Obviously, it was on the market prior to the date you are saying it was introduced. At least that was the case here in the United States, I don't know about England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aimperator (talk • contribs) 03:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But is there any reliable published evidence supporting this claim? Unpublished personal experiences are WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH and the firm's press releases are not really reliable sources for this factoid as they will of course want to promote an earlier "heritage status" date. Mabalu (talk) 09:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Receivership in 1998

There is no mention that the company went into receivership in 1998. Surely this is a very significant part of Yardley's history. One Reference: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/yardley-no-longer-smelling-of-roses-goes-into-receivership-1174316.html 24.84.122.144 (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yardley is in possession of 6 Royal Warrants, not 2 as you say in your article. If you would go to their official UK website and click on the Royal Warrants link, you would see that. This is just another example of your not doing your job, and providing accurate information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aimperator (talk • contribs) 00:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]