Hermes Bel Ami

I’ve been on a chypre bender lately, wanting something full-bodied and classic once again. Enter Hermes Bel Ami, which inspired an hour-long look at some new Hermes scarves.

Bel Ami

Bel Ami

In Bottle: Now, it should be noted that I have the newer formulation of Bel Ami, so this isn’t a true vintage chypre. It’s one of those “modern” deals. But Hermes did a good job with it, sweet, deep, masculine and woodsy.

Applied: Sweet upon application with a nice bergamot and lemon opening. The spiciness is only a hint in this fragrance. What I’m getting the most out of it is a deep, rich leather scent with a hint of animal and a big dose of earthiness from the orris. There’s a pleasant touch of cedar in the background that doesn’t overwhelm but is in there enough to give the fragrance a hint of woodsiness. The herbal notes probably lend a tempering effect to this fragrance as it’s more of a blast of leather than anything else. I can see where the chypre construction in this lies and it’s fabulous, but it isn’t quite what I’m looking for. Still a really great, strong, masculine scent with a very interesting composition and a great sense of projection.

Extra: Bel Ami was released in 1986 and has, unfortunately, been reformulated a few times, I suspect. Still, it smells pretty good for having been tinkered with over the years.

Design: Bottled simply, and somewhat reminiscent of some other Hermes bottles. Looks classical and functions pretty well. No one is going to immediately notice this bottle, but it’s a joy to look at it nonetheless.

Fragrance Family: Chypre

Notes: Mandarin, sage, bergamot, lemon, cardamom, patchouli, orris, carnation, basil, jasmine, cedar, leather, coconut, vanilla, oakmoss, vetiver, styrax, amber.

So Bel Ami isn’t really my thing. I don’t go crazy much for this much leather as it tends to smell too bold for me. But it is still a very well constructed fragrance.

Reviewed in This Post: Bel Ami, ~2000, Eau de Toilette.


M. Micallef Ylang in Gold

The perfume house of M. Micallef got in touch with me again and asked if I would be interested in reviewing their new, Ylang in Gold fragrance. Given the awesome Vanilla scents I tested from their last location, I really couldn’t say no.

In Bottle:Sweet, a little fruity up top with a nice clean and fresh vanilla background.

Ylang in Gold

Ylang in Gold

Applied: Sweet fruitiness, refreshing upon application. I get vanilla almost instantly with a clean waft of mint. As the fragrance wears on, the vanilla calms down a bit and the sweetness gets tempered by a pleasant mix of ylang-ylang and soft lily. The scent is very light, almost creamy with a lovely smooth aroma that I guess is coming from the combination of clean musk and coconut. The longer I wear it, the more vanilla comes back to further smooth out the scent. In the end, I get soft vanilla musk with a hint of woods and the barest reminder of ylang-ylang.

Extra: Ylang in Gold is the third member of M. Micallef’s Jewel Collection that features Jewel for Her and Jewel for Him. Ylang in Gold comes in two forms, one with a gold dust mixed with the juice and another without the gold dust. My sample didn’t have the gold dust. I’m not a big fan of shimmer on my skin so I actually preferred to go without it.

Design: Like with most bottles by M. Micallef, Ylang in Gold was hand decorated with little Swarovski crystals. I really like the presentation of it. The shape of the bottle is fairly standard, but the designs help give it a bit of uniqueness and luxury flare. It’s very fitting for its collection, looks quite nice, and is presented rather nicely.

Fragrance Family: Floral Oriental

Notes: Tangerine, geranium, sage, rosemary, artemisia, ylang-ylang, rose, lily of the valley, magnolia, mint, sandalwood, coconut, vanilla, musk, oakmoss.

I can best describe Ylang in Gold as a very soft vanilla with a nice sprinkling of Ylang-Ylang. It’s pleasant, very wearable and a bit sophisticated. If you’re interested in a bottle, you can nab one at LuckyScent as well as at their Scent Bar physical store, Parfum1, Parfumerie Nasreen, and Osswald NYC.

Reviewed in This Post: Ylang in Gold, 2012, Eau de Parfum.

Disclaimer: The fragrance reviewed in this post was provided to me for free for the purposes of review. In no other way am I receiving pay or compensation for this review. This review was written based upon my personal experiences and opinions of the product.

Thanks to Micallef for giving me the opportunity to try this fragrance and Jeffrey Dame at Hypoluxe for forwarding on the sample.


Estee Lauder Beautiful

A pleasant surprise arrived for Christmas 2011–a book of perfume samples. Many of the fragrances were new and I was just thrilled. Estée Lauder’s Beautiful was one of the first I pulled out and giddily peeled back the flap to smell.

Beautiful

Beautiful

In Bottle: Extremely floral and a bit powdery. There’s no floral standing out, it’s just a big homogenous bouquet at the moment.

Applied: Initial hit of citrus then the floral bouquet rolls into town and takes over the whole operation. From then on, it’s all flowers all the time. Now, I love a good floral fragrance. But the key is balance and moderation. It seems like those are the two things missing from this iteration of Estée Lauder’s Beautiful. I heard the original Beautiful is a far different animal. So don’t turn yourself off from the classic based on what I say about this contemporary version. The florals in Beautiful really do smell like a confused mish mash that doesn’t quite know what it wants to do with itself. The scent seems to suffer a bit from over composition where there are too many ingredients vying for space and there just isn’t enough space to go around. The result is a fragrance that people can distinguish as “flowery”, but no one can truly say what kind of flower. I’m not the kind of person who just likes smelling like a bunch of flowers. I wanted more depth to it than this, but Beautiful settles into it’s explosion of florals in the midstage then ends it all with a bit of cedar at the end as my nostrils continue to burn from the florals thrown at me earlier.

Extra: The first iteration of Beautiful was released in 1985. It has since gone through a few cosmetic changes and some formula changes. I do not have any access to classic Beautiful, which is a real shame as I’d love to see how it compares to this.

Design: The bottle is reminiscent of Calvin Klein’s designs. I want to say Obsession for Women comes to mind when I look at this, but Beautiful is a little easier on the eyes. It’s metallic cap really helps pull it together a little more.

Fragrance Family: Floral

Notes: Bergamot, lemon, cassia, fruit, blackcurrant, galbanum, mimosa, magnolia, carnation, chamomile, tuberose, orange blossom, freesia, lilac, narcissus, jasmine, neroli, clary sage, violet, iris, lily of the valley, ylang ylang, marigold, geranium, sandalwood, myrrh, vanilla, vetiver, cedar.

As I looked up the notes list for this one, I found every single source listed an enormous amount of stuff. I just ended up picking out what I thought I could get out of this. In the end, I’m sorry, Beautiful, but you really just smell like flower stuff.

Reviewed in This Post: Beautiful, 2011, Eau de Parfum.


Calvin Klein Eternity

Eternity is one of those classic smelling Calvin Klein fragrances with a ton of ingredients that kind of sends em off into ‘meh’ territory for some reason.

Eternity

Eternity

In Bottle: Spicy carnation with rose and lily notes there’s a hint of citrus up top with a bit of earthiness too.

Applied: Citrus opener that follows with a sharp green and clean note that fades away rather quickly to reveal very spicy carnation with a bit of sage and a lily and rose flowery midstage. This stuff smells like a spicy flower bouquet and if you let it keep aging on your skin, you’ll be treated to a woodsier interpretation near the end that falls into a warm spicy and earth fragrance that finishes itself off with a faded carnation note.

Extra: Eternity was composed by Sophia Grojsman who also did fragrance such as White Linen for Estee Lauder and Lancome’s Tresor.

Design: Eternity is bottled rather simply in a tasteful shape and with subdued design elements. It’s a rectangular glass bottle with a metal topper. Very nicely done, Calvin Klein. But then again, CK has always been pretty good about its bottle designs. Kudos.

Fragrance Family: Spicy Floral

Notes: Citrus, mandarin, green notes, freesia, sage, lily, carnation, violet, rose, jasmine, lily of the valley, marigold, narcissus, heliotrope, sandalwood, musk, amber, patchouli.

I’m not wild about this fragrance for some reason. Maybe it’s because I used to smell this a lot when I was around this one woman who swore by her Eternity and wouldn’t wear anything else. It’s been almost a decade since I was around her but maybe that’s why I feel like Eternity just isn’t exciting to me. You smell a perfume for a certain amount of time and it just ceases to be amazing, I suppose.

Reviewed in This Post: Eternity, 2002, Eau de Parfum.


Liz Claiborne Curve Crush (Men)

I don’t know how Curve Crush managed to squeeze itself into a position so polarizing. We have people on one side loving this stuff while people on the other side are having Curve Crush bonfires and reconsidering the quality of such an idea. I’m with the bonfires on this one. I’m sorry, but I kind of hate this fragrance.

Curve Crush

In Bottle: A strange melange of herbs and sweetness. It’s not sweet like candy sweet but sweet as in “this shouldn’t be sweet but it is” sweet. All this coated with an aqua or marine note which makes me think of Cool Water gone wrong. There’s quite a huge dollop of white musk and moss in this too which just seem to come right out of left field.

Applied: That opening of sweet herbs and the lingering bizarre white musk and moss. This smells like a mess from the get-go, like it wasn’t blended properly and I can see where people are coming from when they say this is very synthetic. I can forgive a synthetic fragrance if it’s done well, but I don’t think Curve Crush for Men realizes there’s a line that shouldn’t be crossed. There’s so much scrubbed, clean, sharp and sterile synthetic notes in this stuff that it smells more like a weird cleaning detergent than a fragrance. The mid-stage is a bizarre blend of that musk and moss stuff along with some plastic violet and spicy ginger situation layered over a persistent cloying sweetness. It heads into its dry down with a moss note so synthetic I can taste it in the back of my throat.

Extra: Curve Crush for Men is a member of the Curve line by Liz Claiborne. Despite my displeasure with this particular fragrance, the other members of the Curve line are decent scents.

Design: I’m not sold on the bottle here but I k now packaging’s not the highest priority when it comes to fragrances like this. The bottle is made of a mottled glass, with a tint on it. It’s got a good weight, the hold of it is decent, the design itself is uninspired and reminds me of an Old Spice bottle with a Flowerbomb tag sticking out of it.

Fragrance Family: Aromatic

Notes: Bartlett pear, muguet aldehyde, basil, coriander, bergamot, ginger, violet, lavender, sage, cardamom, vetiver, musk, moss.

I know this is a budget fragrance, but if you ask me, it’s a pretty terrible one. You want a budget fragrance that smells good and is well-composed? Old Spice. As cliche as that is, Old Spice beats this hands down. Heck, I’d pick Old Spice over a lot of higher end fragrances too. The point is, this fragrance is overly synthetic, uninspired and smells like it wasn’t blended properly.

Reviewed in This Post: Curve Crush, 2009, Eau de Toilette.


Boadicea the Victorious Complex

Now, hey, I love Boadicea the Victorious’  Pure. I love the smelly excursions of this niche house. I just wish their stuff wasn’t so dang expensive for what you get. And then there’s Complex, which I think should have been named “Perplexing” instead.

Complex

In Bottle: Whoa, I think we have a contender for weirdest, most off-putting scent now. I know everyone gives Secretions Magnifiques that honor but Complex has the dirty, unpleasant smell thing going on right up front. Commendable, though I’m not so sure about wearable. And I’m talking abut unironic wearability here.

Applied: Bitter and green from get go with a very obvious and very loud civet presence. All this wrapped up in a thick blanket of choking smoke. This stuff isn’t for the weak–and I’m weak. I guess. It’s off-putting, it’s alarming. If I didn’t know they were trying to make this a wearable fragrance, I’d be saying Boadicea is trolling us all like Etat Libre d’Orange did. I’m sticking out with this one though. I refuse to let it call me a wuss. Complex is powerful, it’s a big projector too so while you wear this, wear it with confidence. Or wear it somewhere with lots of ventilation and not on an airplane. As I wait for the dry down, Complex does relatively little with its time as it remains predominantly animalic with a brush of sweet violets wavering in and out during the mid-stage. The violets do little to endear this fragrance to me, as the sweetness mixes with the smoky animalic personality of Complex to create this mess of fragrance that doesn’t go together at all. Dry down is marked with more civet (hey, it’s a strong component) as the fragrance ushers out with a bitter parting of the violets and the green. Meanwhile, you’ll be scrubbing for many a day to get the smoky civet off. This fragrance, to me, smells like baked roadkill. Which, I can’t decide, if this is better or worse than sweaty armpit. I’m going to say better–just barely.

Extra: I want to believe they did this on purpose–this making of a fragrance that challenges the concept of perfume and of–well, just smelling decent. I suppose if you are into fragrances that are, or should be, unwearable you can add Complex to the list.

Design: I do love the way Boadicea the Victorious bottles their fragrances. Pretty glass entrapped in intricate metal vines. The designs are reminiscent of Nordic and Gaelic art. Quite beautiful and interesting.

Fragrance Family: Dirty

Notes: Violet, labdanum, leather, musk, civet, basil, sage.

I never thought I’d label another fragrance under my imaginary ‘dirty’ fragrance family. But there you go. Complex is a powerful, high sillage smoky animalic with brushes of sweet violets and a really weird personality. Not my thing, can’t see myself wearing this, hope I don’t end up in an enclosed space with someone who does.

Reviewed in This Post: Complex, 2009, Eau de Parfum.


Hugo Boss Hugo

Hugo is your run of the mill fresh aquatic that doesn’t bring much to the table and doesn’t leave with much either. The tide of aquatics has petered out in the latest years as the incoming flood of fruity florals starts dominating the scenes. Some of these are works of olfactory art in their own respect while others are forgettable. And some even regrettable. Unfortunately for Hugo, it was one of the less notable aquatics of its time. Hugo

In Bottle: Green and blue aquatic. Fresh, sharp, and a little bit spicy. The herbal notes up front are paired with pine and citrus.

Applied: The green flare, just a touch sweet before it settles into its spicy woodsiness where the pine is predominant on me. I smell kind of like one of those pine-shaped air fresheners you use for your car. Not unpleasant, I just have a strange association with anything pine scented. Well, perhaps not strange, just persistent. The scent stays with pine as it introduces a few spicy herbal notes into the mix. Hugo takes a turn for the interesting near the complete dry down stage as it leaves its fresh pine-scented herb garden and veers toward a darker, murkier, funnier funky note that’s reminiscent of the blast of aquatics upon application. It’s fleeting though, a one or two second moment that could just be me. Hugo dries down to a benign woodsy, spicy, fresh accord that doesn’t make any presumptions and doesn’t even want to think about standing out.

Extra: Hugo Boss fragrances have largely been a miss for me. The only one I can say I actually like is Deep Red. Even then, I don’t particularly like it that much. I can say nice things about it though. But this fragrance, it’s the generic men’s scent with the all too familiar aquatic citrus opening, the woodsy spicy middle, and the miasma of leftover freshness at the base.

Design: I could give or take with this design. It’s clean and simple and functional. Holding it is easy. Spraying it is easy. Kind of looks like a water bottle which is a bit cheesy but overall, not bad.

Fragrance Family: Fresh Woodsy

Notes: Grapefruit, green apple, pine needles, thyme, spearmint, basil, cedar, rum, jasmine, sage, geranium, clove, lavender, cedarwood, moss, fir balsam, sandalwood, vetiver, suede.

Yeah, I definitely cannot get past the predominant evergreen scent in this. Too much pine, maybe, or maybe I’m just not the kind of person who likes that in a scent.

Reviewed in This Post: Hugo, 2000, Eau de Toilette.