Dior Diorissimo

Posted on by

Diorissimo is a classic from the 1950s before Dior went the youth route and replaced their hard hitting fragrance lines with stuff like Miss Dior Cherie. I smell Diorissimo and miss the days when it was okay for a fragrance to be heavy and heady.

Diorissimo

In Bottle: Florals with a slight sting of citrus up front and a coating of animalic civet in the background.

Applied: Fresh and green with a citrus opening and that smell of leaves and dew. The lilies come in during the mid-stage and in the final act of the opening and proceed to dominate the fragrance. The lily scent in the middle is very noticeable, clearly the stars of the show as the fragrance settles into this heady floral lily mixture that’s just unrelenting. I still get a bit of that fresh green leaf scent that present when this fragrance was first applied but the civet can’t stay hidden forever. It creeps up as the fragrance gets warmer and dirties the scent up quite a bit. At times I’m wondering who let the mongoose into the garden as the civet is a bit disturbing but at the same time feels like it belongs. The dry down introduces a bit of sandalwood, scenting together with the lilies as the two do a little good against the ever-present civet.

Extra: Diorissimo is still available in its Eau de Toilette form and for the most part, it smells similar now to when I first smelled it in the 90s and, all things considered, it is available for a fairly reasonable price. You can also hunt down the Parfum concentration, though I’m told it’s more rare, more expensive, and even headier than the EdT.

Design: Bottled rather simply but has a classic elegance to it that says this stuff doesn’t need frills and gimmicks to look good and be good. I like the simplicity of it all. The brush script I can take or leave but the overall design is pleasing and nice.

Fragrance Family: Classic Floral

Notes: Bergamot, leaves, rosemary, lily, lilac, jasmine, lily of the valley, ylang-ylang, civet, sandalwood.

I’m not sure how to treat the civet in Diorissimo. It’s not heavy enough to be a deal breaker, but I do notice it and it does put me off a little. Regardless, if you like a little civet here and there Diorissimo is a beautiful classic that’s survived the times–mostly–in tact.

Reviewed in This Post: Diorissimo, 2005, Eau de Toilette.

Givenchy Ange ou Demon

Posted on by

From the other reviews I’ve read, it seems Ange ou Demon used to be something much better than the iteration I smelled. There’s a lot of bitterness for the silent reformulation of this fragrance and I regret not having smelled its original incarnation.

Ange ou Demon

Ange ou Demon

In Bottle: Looking at the notes list, I wouldn’t have pegged any of those to be in this fragrance. My impression is a very sweet rather girlish fragrance. Certainly not one that I could see the likes of rosewood and oak moss being present. This smells like fruity candy basically.

Applied: Very sweet fruity opening that reminds me a bit of Coco Mademoiselle’s very sweet opening without the amber or the powderiness. Ange ou Demon is like a slap in the face with a bag of hard candies. It quickly becomes cloying before it even starts introducing other notes into the mix. As I keep wearing it, there’s a few flowers that come in, none of them very deep but they do add themselves to the fruity candy mixture in the opening so what I end up getting is this sweet flowery mess that doesn’t smell like a high-end fragrance should smell like. Basically, it smells sloppily put together. Like someone mixed two incompatible perfumes together. The dry down doesn’t make things much better as that annoying cloying sweetness sidles up to the vanilla in the base to take Ange ou Demon out to end what was ultimately a pretty banal and semi-annoying performance.

Extra: Seems to me like sometime in the last few years Ange ou Demon went from a more sophisticated spicy floral scent to what it is now as a candy-laden mess. A shame, really, as the previous version sounded brilliant.

Design: I rather like the bottle design even though it can be a bit over the top. It reminds me of a jewel or a geode or something rocky and sparkling like that. The bottle itself is easy to hold and use though so I’m happy with it.

Fragrance Family: Sweet Floral

Notes: Mandarin,  cumin, saffron, lily, orchid, ylang-ylang, rosewood , oak moss, vanilla, tonka.

If there was more to this fragrance, I really missed it. The notes list makes Ange ou Demon sound so awesome. Cumon, saffron, rosewood and oak moss. All hugely sophisticated and beautiful notes but I got none of that. Instead, I got a flower covered lollipop.

Reviewed in This Post: Ange ou Demon, 2011, Eau de Parfum.

Tom Ford Black Orchid

Posted on by

Black Orchid’s one of the more popular of Tom Ford’s line. It’s a luscious, heady floral that’s billed as an oriental chypre. I see the oriental but I don’t understand where the chypre is supposed to come into play.

Black Orchid

In Bottle: Rich, heady and very strong. If you’re going to whiff up some of this stuff do it slowly and sparingly. It is strong and it will smell very creamy with a heady powdery jasmine and orchid scent. But taking a huge whiff of this kind of destroys its beauty because all you’re getting is a noseful of overwhelming smells.

Applied: Black Orchid goes much better on the skin and even then it should be used in small, exquisite little dabs. This fragrance is not light and it is not meek. It’s loud and full and unashamed of what it is. The first thing I get is this creamy white floral feel then a rolling in of the jasmine and orchid for a lush bouquet of florals that mingles with this powdery cocoa note that also introduces a bit of sweetness. As you continue to wear Black Orchid the rush of powerful fragrances tempers out a little bit, letting me detect a bit of smoky-spiciness. So Black Orchid’s mid-stage is a sweet and spicy floral powder with a layer of cream and a dusting of cocoa. I love its complexity and I love the drydown of dry, sweet woods and sweet amberous vanilla.

Extra: There’s been some rumors that Black Orchid was one of Michael Jackson’s favorite perfumes. While I know admittedly little about the late King of Pop, I do have to say that MJ had good taste in perfume.

Design: Tom Ford’s fragrances are bottled rather similarly, they can be white or black and are often in the shape shown above. The bottles have a very nice weight to them and they also have a simple, but luxurious, look to them. I like it!

Fragrance Family: Floral Oriental

Notes: Jasmine, black truffle, ylang-ylang, black currant, citrus, orchid, patchouli, sandalwood, dark chocolate, incense, amber, vetiver, vanilla, balsam.

While Black Orchid’s heady, creamy, powdery florals isn’t my cup of tea it is a very nice and very complex fragrance that I can see would work rather well for special occasions.

Reviewed in This Post: Black Orchid, 2006, Eau de Parfum.

Frederic Malle Carnal Flower

Posted on by

Carnal Flower is like a homage to the distinctive, seductive heady tuberose. I’ve always encountered tuberose and approached it with a semi-satirical love. I don’t actually like tuberose that much but I smell it so strongly in fragrances that it converted me over to the tuberose side some time last year.

Carnal Flower

In Bottle: Big old tuberose. Though the tuberose used in Carnal Flower has a cleaner, clearer presence than what I would normally get. Carnal Flower is made of higher quality materials than most perfumes, and the aroma of the tuberose with this crystal clear, heady but tempered scent is the reward.

Applied: There’s a very brief moment upon application where the tuberose hasn’t hit my nose yet where I can smell a sheer pretty base of clean gentle citrus and flowers. Then tuberose makes its entrance and it is all I get from then on. But as stated above, the tuberose in Carnal Flower has this crystalline and pure quality to it. It’s a natural aroma, smells very complex and is not too strong or sour. it’s perfectly full, dense, and heady. White florals all the way on this one as the tuberose heads the way from the top to the middle to the bottom where you’re greeted by the bolstering of the scent. Soliflores are fascinating in how they manage to smell so complex for a perfume focused around a single flower. Carnal Flower is one of these beautifully complex soliflores. The fragrance is elegant, powerful, and is an extremely good example of how beautiful a high-quality tuberose scent can smell.

Extra: Carnal Flower’s got a lot of selling points but one of the more famous is its boast that its smell is that of the most natural tuberose. I’m inclined to agree.  This stuff is very good.

Design: Bottled in much the same way as other Frederic Malle scents. A cylindrical glass bottle with a cylindrical cap. It doesn’t look flashy, garish, nor does the shape of the bottle hinder the purpose of the bottle in the first place. The packaging is a bit plain, I admit, but the stuff inside the bottle is what you’re really looking for when you buy a Frederic Malle fragrance.

Fragrance Family: Soliflore

Notes: Bergamot, melon, eucalyptus, ylang-ylang, jasmine, tuberose, Salicylates, tuberose absolute, orange blossom absolute, coconut, musk.

Since winning me over, tuberose has since convinced me that it wouldn’t be a bad idea to have it sitting around on the off chance that I get the urge to smell like a big white floral. Hey came around to liking tuberose from a year ago. Who knows what might happen a year from now? Maybe I’ll be so crazy for tuberose that it would be all I ever wanted to smell.

Reviewed in This Post: Carnal Flower, 2008, Eau de Parfum.

Animale 1987

Posted on by

Animale is an interesting fragrance to explain. It’s sort of a chypre, it has all the classical stylings of a chypre but with an extra added jolt of pure dirty, animal smell. Oh, don’t get me wrong here. It’s fantastic stuff.

Animale

In Bottle: Heavy, heady, powerful. Three words you’ll probably used to describe animale. Even in the bottle, this stuff is strong. I get civet immediately mixed with a blend of florals. It has that decidedly unique chypre scent to it as well.

Applied: Starts off with a big of bergamot. Barely enough to even detect as Animale develops the civet slowly and carefully but the civet is strong and the civet definitely makes this scent smell dirty and animalic. The animalic notes in this creep up rather than blast you full on right away like it does in the bottle but you’ll be smelling full-on animal before you know it. On skin, civet takes its time at first as the fragrance moves into a mid-stage that’s incredibly reminiscent of a chypre with jasmine making a loud proclamation as the civet creeps in more and more, amping up the volume. The rosewood, adds even more dirty with a little woodsiness in case you didn’t think civet was enough. This is a chypre but it’s a distinct dirty chypre that will march to its own beat if it wants to. As the fragrance dies down, there’s a smooth patch of oakmoss and vetiver layered over that civet note that I had been too distracted to notice. The civet’s used rather well here, but the dry down does bother me a bit with this slick, almost oily scent. I imagine that was the coconut making its way in. So opening and mid-stage are fascinating. End stage is great save for that weird slick scent I got. Still, Animale is fantastic if you like heavy, powerful, heady fragrances.

Extra: Animale, the brand began in 1987 which was also the time that original Animale (reviewed in this post) was created. In 1990 the company was sold, and in 2004 it was sold once again. Sometime during the 1990s, Animale shifted away from being a chypre and became more of a floral oriental. I liked it a lot more as a chypre.

Design: Very 80s! Brings back fond memories of elementary school, and TGIF shows. I’d huddle around this tiny TV with my cousins and we’d watch Family Matters, Full House, Fresh Prince, and a whole host of other family-friendly sitcoms. Long story short: This bottle reminds me of late 80s and early 90s aesthetics and fashion. I think the word I want here is ‘funky’. Not necessarily well-designed as I imagine people these days would consider this kind of aesthetic hideous. The bottle design hasn’t aged well, that’s for sure. As for me, I grew up in the late 80s and 90s so I’ll let someone else harsh on this bottle.

Fragrance Family: Chypre

Notes: Coriander, hyacinth, bergamot, neroli, carnation, honey, orris root, rosewood, jasmine, ylang-ylang, lily of the valley, rose, patchouli, coconut, oakmoss, vetiver, civet, musk.

Now that the review and nostalgia are all over, would I wear Animale? Probably not. The civet really turns me off on the fragrance. I’m a big baby when it comes to civet, almost always I find it too strong and I’m no where near confident enough to rock civet. That doesn’t mean Animale isn’t fantastic. I like it for what it is, but maybe that’s part of the nostalgia talking.

Reviewed in This Post: Animale, ~1989, Eau de Parfum.

Chanel Coco Mademoiselle

Posted on by

All right, it was bound to happen. A review for Coco Mademoiselle, possibly the most popular fragrance amongst perfume consumers today. True, she doesn’t have the history of Chanel No. 5 but she’s undeniably pretty with a very appealing personality. So let’s cut to the chase already.

Coco Mademoiselle

In Bottle: Strong, very sweet lychee on top with a layer of very sheer florals you really have to focus in order to detect.

Applied: I know what the notes list says but there’s lychee in this and it’s the tippy-top of the notes pyramid. Coco Mademoiselle opens with a blast and a loud announcement that you’ve just arrived and you feel fabulous. It’s sweet, very loud, and predominantly lychee with a faded florals sort of scent lingering in the back. As the lychee settles a bit you get a hint of sweet orange flower and equally sweet mimosa. The fragrance starts to age into the mid-stage and that’s where you get something a bit more exciting. There’s a sheer white florals scent that keeps Coco Mademoiselle from being completely ridiculous as it blends so beautifully with the sweet notes in this fragrance. The rose note in this is particularly beautiful, it masks itself well with the florals and the lingering fruitiness of the opening, but it’s very, very modern rose. I might be a bit crazy here too but there’s something to Coco Mademoiselle that smells a bit like powder to me. Chanel giving me powder in a fragrance this modern? Kudos, Chanel! The dry down is lovely as well, when Coco Mademoiselle flings off the last of her silly lychee and embraces a warm, very clean, vanilla scent. Coco Mademoiselle, like most Chanels, projects and lasts a long time so go light on that sprayer.

Extra: Coco Mademoiselle was composed by Jacques Polge in 2001. It has consistently performed well in terms of sales since its release. Due to the popularity of Coco Mademoiselle, it is often one of the most counterfeited perfumes out there. In fact, I did a quick look on eBay and there’s at least three counterfeits on the first page of results at the time of my writing this. Definitely beware if you plan on buying this online.

Design: The eau de parfum version of Coco Mademoiselle sports the beautiful Chanel No. 5 style with the squarish glass bottle and cap. The cap for Coco Mademoiselle is a frosted glass. The shape is beautiful, the design is fitting and I simply love it. I still abhor most of the eau de toilette versions of Chanel’s fragrances though.

Fragrance Family: Sweet Floral

Notes: Orange, mandarin, orange blossom, bergamot, mimosa, jasmine, turkish rose, ylang-ylang, tonka bean, patchouli, opoponax, vanilla, vetiver, white musk.

All right so what do I think of Coco Mademoiselle? Well, its’ a very popular fragrance. I think it consistently shows up in top perfume sales so I doubt it’s going away any time soon. I actually own a bottle of the stuff but I rarely use it. It is very strong, has very good longevity but it is everywhere. Absolutely everywhere. There’s no exclusivity to Coco Mademoiselle. The fragrance is highly recognizable and it’s a household perfume at this point. Couple these two facts with the realization that a lot of people love it and you get a perfume that pretty much haunts you no matter where you go.

As for me? I’ll be happy spray this on when I feel like it, but Coco Mademoiselle isn’t an every day thing and certainly not a perfume I’d wear if I wanted to avoid smelling like everyone else.

Reviewed in This Post: Coco Mademoiselle, 2009, Eau de Parfum.

Oscar Oscar de la Renta

Posted on by

Oscar from Oscar de la Renta was released in 1978 and is described as a floral aromatic. This fragrance, to me, is like all the good parts of women’s fragrance and men’s fragrance put together to form a very classic fragrance.

Oscar

In Bottle: Sharp green and a bit powdery. I get a lot of the herbs in the bottle with a faint trace of florals in the back.

Applied: Herbs and powder, a bit of a strange mix but not at all unpleasant with the rosemary being the most dominant note. It’s interesting and definitely smells like a classic fragrance. As Oscar settles down the perfume heads into more floral territory with a smattering of herbs and green rosemary while still retaining that classic powder scent. The fragrance uses florals in a sheer way with a hit of spicy carnation to give those flowers a bit more sway. The dry down is probably my favorite part that sees Oscar head into this warm amber and spicy powder finish with a dash of full-bodied patchouli. I know a lot of younger people who will be turned off by the powderiness of this and I will warn everyone that this does smell very much like a classic. But if you’re looking to smell sophisticated, this is good stuff.

Extra: Oscar was composed by Jean-Louis Sieuzac. One its recent bottle designs was done by the famous Serge Mansau.

Design: Oscar’s eau de toilette bottle (pictured) is a tall glass with a black cap and usually silver sprayer. The shape of the bottle is a bit interesting and sets it out from other perfumes by not being a big tall rectangle. The parfum version of the bottle looks more exciting, having a Marc Jacobs Daisy meets Nina Ricci L’Air du Temps style with its flower motif.

Fragrance Family: Aromatic

Notes: Orange blossom, basil, coriander, galbanum, peach, gardenia, ylang-ylang, jasmine, tuberose, rose, rosemary, cyclamen, lavender, orchid, opoponax, carnation, patchouli, sandalwood, vetiver, amber.

I’m loving that notes list and marvel at how well the notes actually work in this fragrance. Oscar is available for purchase almost everwhere with a strong presence at internet retailer sites and can also be purchased on the official Oscar de la Renta site.

Reviewed in This Post: Oscar, 2002, Eau de Toilette.

Hermes 24, Faubourg

Posted on by

Hermès is rapidly becoming my new favorite friend in the world of modern designer perfumes. What they come out with is almost always good, or at the very least–decent and I have yet to smell something from their line that I found outright terrible. Let’s hope the streak continues.

24, Faubourg

In Bottle: 24, Faubourg is the fragrance you wear when you know you’re about to make a statement. Sweet, warm and gardenia straight to the face.

Applied: Airy florals with a bergamot note up top and a blend of slightly sweet peach. The mid-stage is a set of amped up and huge white florals with a predominance of gardenia. Actual gardenia, even, not that tuberose nonsense people try to pass off as gardenia sometimes and a faint jasmine note wafting around like a warm bouquet. There’s also a gorgeous layer of spices here that mixes so well, no one spice is too strong or not strong enough and it plays into the utterly pretty but very loud florals. The drydown is a warmed up sandalwood, a hint of vanilla and the sophisticated dryness of a good patchouli note. 24, Faubourg is sophisticated. It’s a perfume that smells expensive and experienced. It’s the kind of perfume you could totally wear to a formal. Projection on this is fairly good, with longevity doing very well on me.

Extra: 24, Faubourg was released in 1995 and was developed by Marcel Roucel.

Design: Beautiful glass bottle with accents on the glass that looks like one of Hermès’s famous silk scarves. The cap is a rose gold and the bottle’s shape even mimics that of a silk scarf. Beautifully designed, not at all too busy. Every element is so nicely balanced and beautifully designed.

Fragrance Family: Floral

Notes: Bergamot, hyacinth, ylang-ylang, orange, peach, black elder, orris, orange blossom, jasmine, gardenia, sandalwood, amber, vanilla, patchouli.

I’d unashamedly say that I’d buy this for the bottle alone. Thankfully the juice inside is good too.

Reviewed in This Post: 24, Faubourg, 2006, Eau de Parfum.

Coty L’Origan

Posted on by

Sometimes, just because I’m immature, I like to pretend that Coty only came out with the good stuff and all the stuff they’ve made that’s been terrible just simply doesn’t exist. When I think of Coty these days, the first thing that pops into my head is Lady Gaga and everybody freaking out about her up and coming “blood and semen” perfume. I won’t mention our favorite friend from Etat Libre d’Orange but I will say that the Coty of the early 1900s could have taken “blood and semen” and turned it into something beautiful. These days, I kind of hope Gaga at least gets something that isn’t a fruity-floral. Oh, Coty.

L'Origan

In Bottle: L’Origan has that classic smell that you just can’t imitate these days. It’s dense and complex with a varying, slightly discordant mixture of big honking spices and florals up top.

Applied: Spicy on arrival with a floral touch coming up. There’s a very old-world style to the way this perfume goes on and starts to age. People have compared L’Origan to L’Heure Bleue–well,  I should say they compare L’Heure Bleue to L’Origan because Guerlain’s hit fragrance was released after this one. It’s similar in that both scents trail the same sort of fragrance with L’Heure Bleue exhibiting a much colder, more melancholy personality. L’Origan, to me, is warm and much more animalic. There’s a hint of animal in the opening there and I experienced hints of animalics throughout the livespan of the scent. It’s blended very well, though, not overpowering the scent but rather giving it a bit of sensuality and added depth. Another thing about L’Origan vs. L’Heure Bleue, it’s spicier with slightly less noticeable florals and it’s ultimately a brighter scent though its uses of the  spices are very familiar. There’s a powderiness to this that tends to show up in vintage fragrances as well as a heavy dose of clove. As L’Origan approaches dry down it maintains that spiciness the whole time the florals are totally gone but what’s waiting at the bottom is this thick, rich warmness that reminds me a bit of slick metals and mosses.

Extra: L’Origan was released in 1905 and still survives today–though in an undoubtedly heavily reformulated state. As always, vintage is leaps and bounds better.

Design: The original L’Origan was bottled in a flat glass bottle of a squarish shape with the Coty seal on it. I had a warm, amber-like color and was a bit reminiscent of Chypre de Coty in appearance. The modern bottle (pictured) is reminiscent of a flower bulb with a spiky crown for a cap. I have to say I prefer the old style better.

Fragrance Family: Spicy

Notes: Bergamot, orange, coriander, pepper, peach, nutmeg, clove, jasmine, violet, rose, ylang-ylang, orange flower, benzoin, cedar, incense, vanilla, sandalwood, musk, coumarin, civet.

Somehow L’Origan comes out as the happy side of L’Heure Bleue. These two could be best friends, though probably not sisters. I have to say, despite my love for L’Heure Bleue–I like L’Origan a bit more.

Reviewed in This Post: L’Origan, ~1950, Eau de Parfum.

Clive Christian No. 1 for Men

Posted on by

Happy April Fools Day. I only wish I was joking about the prices talked about in this post! No, I can’t be so frivolous as to drop the cash down for a Clive Christian fragrance. Not a full bottle anyway. My wallet is still hurting a bit from the tiny amount I do have just so I could sneak a sniff of one of Clive’s most fabled elixirs.

No. 1 for Men

In Bottle: Citrus and green with a dash of pepperiness thrown in there for a hint of spice. I smell vetiver, and a bit of something herbal. Rather complex from the get go with a distinctive vintage vibe to it. Very nice!

Applied: Starts off on a crisp, sharp lime note with an exotic blend of crushed spices taking the sharpness up a few more notches but never really letting it get out of hand. It makes a good first impression anyway. The fragrance has multiple layers of complexity and is one of those, “So many things I can’t separate them” stories. I’ll try my best through. The fragrance ages into the mid-stage with a steadily amping set of florals. I get jasmine for the florals, a hint of sophisticated rose. It is so well-blended that I can’t pick apart notes and frankly, I don’t really want to pick apart notes. The mid-stage is marked with a beautifully lush bouquet of florals. It is full and heady, with the spiciness that only serves to amplify the florals further. The mid-stage is where I really get that vintage feel. This smells like it belongs in the age of perfume greats. A time when Coty was more than celebrity perfumes and body mists. When Guerlain was family-owned and pumping out fragrance after fragrance of utter beauty. When Chanel No. 5 was how an elegant woman should smell instead of the old granny perfume it’s now known as. That’s what No. 1 for Men is. It’s actually a really pleasant trip to a time where I didn’t even exist. As No. 1 for Men dries down there’s a falling off of the florals but they never truly leave. I get a bit of the vetiver that I got in the bottle settling in at the bottom giving the florals a bit of extra boost as the fragrance digs itself out, leaving you with a faint air of lingering florals, a blend of woods, and a hint of dry vetiver.

Extra: Clive Christian acquired an old perfume house, Crown Perfumery, in 1999 and they have been coming out with stuff like this since. Clive Christian’s No. 1 fragrances are known as the most expensive in the world. This was a title that was once held by Joy by Jean Patou. These days, Joy is much more affordable and sanely priced. As for Clive Christian’s No. 1, it’s price goes up every year. The pure parfum presently sits near $2,500 CAD (Noted on Saks).

Design: As to be expected, the bottle is impeccably designed. In fact, most of the gush I found on this perfume was people talking about the packaging. For $2,500 I would certainly hope the packaging is worth it. One interesting thing to note is the crown design on the stopper was approved by the queen way back in the day. All I can tell you is, this is made of lead crystal, is flawless, glitters, the stopper has real gold on it, the stopper also has a diamond in it for goodness’ sakes. It looks great but imparts a sense of incredulity in me coupled with mild embarrassment. What else did I expect? I mean, it’s a $2,500 bottle of perfume. There is a similar iteration of the bottle design called Imperial Majesty which had better contain the hapless souls of lesser perfumes because the thing costs $215,000 USD.

Fragrance Family: Spicy Floral

Notes: Bergamot, lime, mandarin, grapefruit, cardamom, nutmeg, caraway, artemesia, lily of the valley, jasmine, rose, iris, heliotrope, ylang ylang, cedar, sandalwood, vetiver, amber, tonka, musk.

Here’s the problem with this fragrance and its price point. For most of us, the $1000+ price tag is a major deterrent and the fine folks at Clive’s house know this. They purposefully price this fragrance way out of range to appeal to those wealthy enough to approach this fragrance and casually wave the money out of their wallets. For the rest of us schmucks, digging around in the dirt, we use testers. I judged this fragrance not according to just its scent, but according to its worth as a fragrance in comparison to its price.

To me, the juice in No. 1 for Men is no better than a vintage fragrance. It is certainly no match for an Amouage attar, a vintage Guerlain, or a natural blend from Aftelier. You are better off spending your money elsewhere. And while all of the alternatives I listed are expensive, they are not $2,500 expensive if you care about the juice inside.  This is a very competent fragrance with a beautiful old world soul that I don’t see enough of anymore. But is it worth the price? Honestly? In my opinion, no. I go nuts for perfume, but I draw my cash line somewhere. And that line is no where near the thousands.

Thankfully, if you just have a hankering to smell the fragrances with no desire to own the exclusive bottle, there is a travel set that (as of this writing) sells for $310USD. There are three fragrances  included (1872, X, No. 1 each bottle is 10ml)–paltry amount for $310, but this is the house that puts out perfume which requires you to take out a mortgage in order to afford.

Reviewed in This Post: No. 1 for Men, 2010, Parfum.