Perfume Concentrations, Cologne, EDT, and EDP?

One of the most common questions amongst individuals not familiar with perfumes is, “What’s the difference between eau de toilette and eau de parfum?”

Simply put, in very general terms, an eau de parfum tends to contain a higher percentage of fragrance oils than an eau de toilette. These terms are just two names that perfume makers use to denote the concentration and strength of their fragrances. The scent from perfumes comes from fragrance oils which are then dissolved in alcohol or water (sometimes both). The concentrates are determined by how much fragrance oil to alcohol/water content is contained within the bottle.

Below is a chart showing you the different concentrations of perfumes:

Eau Fraiche, Mist, Splash – Contains 1 – 3% fragrance oil.
Eau de Cologne (EDC) – Contains 2 – 5% fragrance oil.
Eau de Toilete (EDT) – Contains 4 – 10% fragrance oil.
Eau de Parfum (EDP) – Contains 8 – 15% fragrance oil.
Parfum, Extrait – Contains 15 – 25% fragrance oil.
Perfume Oil – Contains 15 – 30% fragrance oil usually mixed in oil.

While these are generally agreed upon concentrations, some perfume houses will sometimes adjust the amounts of fragrance oils for certain notes in their EDT and EDP versions, causing the two concentrations to smell different instead of just stronger or weaker.

In addition to this there is sometimes confusion surrounding cologne vs. perfume. Most people think that cologne is a word used to refer to men’s fragrances but sometimes, as you can see in the above chart, cologne can be referring to the eau de cologne concentration. However, the term cologne, if used these days, will typically refer to a men’s fragrance. This does not mean a woman cannot wear cologne or a man cannot wear perfume. Many unisex fragrances are labeled as either one or the other. Besides, wear what you like.


Black Phoenix Alchemy Lab Dana O’Shee

Dana O’Shee is one of the lightest fragrances I own. A little doesn’t do it for this one simply because it’s so translucent. One look at the notes should tell you enough and make you wonder how a grain scent is supposed to be isolated. It’s not like milk and honey help much either. So when it comes down to it, Dana O’Shee requires slathering. Dana O'Shee

In Bottle: Honeyed almonds. Very simple, quite the gourmand. It’s extremely simple though and I can’t help but draw the similarity between Dana O’Shee and the almond extract in my cupboard. When it all comes down to it, had Dana O’Shee not been bottled and labeled as perfume, I might have mistaken it for a baking ingredient.

Applied: Upon application the almond fragrance starts to evaporate first and within a few moments that sweet almond extract fragrance is gone. What I’m left with is a flat, milky very slightly sweet scent. The middle stage of Dana O’Shee reminds of dusty kitchens and creamy milk. The simplicity is what helps it along. If I’m not expecting a complex garden of florals and incense, I can dig it. Dana O’Shee dries down to practically nothing within a few hours. Short lived, stays close to the skin, smells fabulously like almond extract at first then fades into creamy dust before disappearing.

Extra: From Irish folklore, the Dana O’Shee are small, beautiful, eternal little creatures that kidnap people.

Design: Presented in an amber bottle and a black twist cap with 5ml of perfume oil.

Fragrance Family: Gourmand

Notes: Almond, milk, honey, grain.

Upon visiting the kitchen and unscrewing the ol’ bottle of almond extract in my baking cupboard, I wasn’t too far off. Dana O’Shee’s almond is a touch more complex than the stuff I add to cookies but it bears an extremely close resemblance.

Reviewed in This Post: Dana O’Shee, 2009, 5ml Bottle.


BPAL How Doth the Little Crocodile

How Doth the Little Crocodile is part of Black Phoenix Alchemy Labs’ Alice in Wonderland collection. They call it the Mad Tea Party scents. It was this fragrance that made me realize something in BPAL’ s cedar note is really strong. How Doth the Little Crocodile

In Bottle: Smooth, creamy chocolate and pistachio with the iciness of peppermint added in. There’s also the vanilla in this sweetening up the deal a bit. I barely detect the cedar and oak moss in the background giving this fragrance a green, mossy personality and preventing it from fully crossing over to gourmand territory.

Applied: Chocolate and pistachio make a good run for the top as they’re quick to evaporate along with all mints. What I get after is a very strong mossy cedarwood fragrance. It’s very green, very fresh and extremely large. It’s almost like there’s a cedar tree up my nose. There’s a mild mossy note too so it’s not just a cedarwood single note on me. I get wee little touches of vanilla on the dry down but for hours and hours all I have is cedar and moss.

Extra: “How Doth the Little Crocodile” is a poem from Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland about a crocodile who baits fish into his mouth by smiling. “How Doth the Little Crocodile” is also a parody of another poem, Isaac Watts’ “Against Idleness and Mischief”.

Design: How Doth the Little Crocodile is presented in the same way as other general catalog fragrances from Black Phoenix Alchemy Lab.

Fragrance Family: Woodsy

Notes: Chocolate, peppermint, vanilla, pistachio, oak moss, cedar.

It’s a shame I don’t like cedarwood that much. Well, that’s not true. I do like it but the cedarwood in this fragrance just loves to amp up on me and drown out everything else in the fragrance. These perfume oil reviews do tend to be more subjective as the notes can react very differently on various people.

Reviewed in This Post: How Doth the Little Crocodile, 2010, 5ml Bottle.


Guerlain Champs-Elysees 1996

Champs-Elysees 1996, not to be confused with the classic Parfum des Champs-Elysees from 1904, is one of Guerlain’s more controversial moderns. There are people who love it and people who loathe it. I can’t help but think that those who loathe it, hate it because they expected 1904’s Champs-Elysees to make a comeback and instead got something completely different. Champs-Elysees

In Bottle: Sharp, sweet mimosa. Faintly powdery with a white floral background. I don’t mean background as in base note. I mean background as in, imagine this fragrance is a stage. The actors are the sweet mimosa. The background is this thick, lush wall of white florals. That is Champs-Elysees, clean, sweet, sharp, powdery and utterly, unapologetically floral.

Applied: Mimosa is a major player but it’s battling it out for that lush curtain of florals. I get a bit more almond on application than off. Champs-Elysees reminds me of soap. It’s clean and bright and sweet like a lush bar of luxury soap and a bathtub filled with flowers floating on the surface. This is a white, light, delicate wall of florals fifty feet high. There is little change on dry down for me. The one thing I noticed was an increase in that powdery feel.

Extra: Word on the street has it that Champs-Elysees 1904’s notes may have looked something like this: Bergamot, violet, rose, iris, leather, oakmoss, benzoin, wood. And knowing Guerlain, it was probably laid over that iconic base. I can almost smell it in my mind but that is a pretty silly notion. The original was bottled in a beautiful turtle-like design. It’s really too bad the 1904 version and its re-issue is super rare and also super expensive (almost $14,000!). I want to have a sniff.

Design: Champs-Elysees 1996 is bottled in a pleasing, rather geometric bottle. What takes away from it most is the square wedge at the base of the bottle used to keep it standing. Otherwise, it is an interesting shape and would have been better had its physics allowed it to stand without that jerry-rigged bit at the bottom. Nevertheless, the bottle is easy to hold. The cap is plastic. The sprayer works just fine.

Fragrance Family: Fresh Floral

Notes: Mimosa, almond blossom, rose, buddleia, hibiscus, almond wood.

Poor Champs-Elysees 1996. I feel bad for it. It’s truly a very nice, modern, powdery white floral with sweet notes making it ultra-feminine. I wish more people liked it but I certainly understand the frustration. I do wonder if Champs-Elysees went by any other name it would catch less flack. It wouldn’t please those who currently dislike it but at least it wouldn’t disappoint in addition to being displeasing.

Reviewed in This Post: Champs-Elysees, 2009, Eau de Toilette.


Van Cleef & Arpels Gardenia Petale

Citrus, green, very fresh and floral. Gardenia, obviously, is the impression I’m supposed to take away from this. A fresh, crisp, dewy gardenia fragrance that I’m tempted to pinpoint as a soliflore. There’s other florals in here, of course, to deepen the fragrance and take it beyond just plain old gardenia. Jasmine, ever the staple, is present as is lily of the valley. All this coming together to support the gardenia and really make it bloom. Gardenia Petale

In Bottle: Sharp and crisp citrus notes right up top. They sort of mask the gardenia and the rest of the florals as they hog up most of the olfactory real estate. Very interesting for a fragrance that focuses on gardenia. There’s sweetness in there too, and I get the distinct impression of dewiness.

Applied: See you later, citrus. The florals bloom immediately on my skin as the citrus notes fly away after leaving their initial almost disinfectant impression on my skin. It’s as if they came out first to scour the canvas before the florals get there. I smell dewy, flower petals. I smell gardenia and jasmine slowly unfolding in a light green, freshly misted bouquet. Gardenia Petale is extremely soft and very airy. The dry down becomes quite interesting as the gardenia is joined by something equally green and just a bit mossy. There’s also something lightly musky about this too as the dry down starts to deepen and the florals lose a little bit of their bloom, letting in smoother mossy notes.

Extra: Van Cleef & Arpels is a jewelry, watch and perfume company founded in 1896. The collection Gardenia Petale is a part of is called the Collection Extraordinaire.

Design: Gardenia Petale, like the rest of the Van Cleef & Arpels collection is bottled very simply in a rectangular glass vessel with a black cap. There’s a little charm thing dangling from the neck which gives the bottle a bit of added flavor. Otherwise it’s very standard and, honestly, standard looks work when they are done right. This bottle design did it right.

Fragrance Family: Soliflore

Notes: Citrus, lily of the valley, gardenia, jasmine, musk.

I often find myself judging soliflores a bit harshly. This is because I really expect them to not only illustrate the experience of what it must be like to smell this flower but to see it and feel it too. Gardenia Petale is a wonderful fragrance that’s really good at all these things, particularly in the seeing sense as I can smell the greenness of the leaves but never lose the sense of white petals.

Reviewed in This Post: Gardenia Petale, 2009, Sample vial.


Chanel Allure

Chanel has a fairly consistent fragrance sector as many of their creations have become classics, or just have that classic and sophisticated smell. Talk to anyone with some sense of the perfume industry and ask them if they know about Chanel No.5. Their eyes should light up. If they don’t, it’s a sad day in fragrance history.

Much like most things House Chanel puts out, Allure has that classic and sophisticated feel. It’s a modern fragrance, to be sure, but it also has this sense about it. This unspoken aura that proclaims loudly and proudly that it is a perfume and it is not going anywhere, anytime soon. er1sintf

In Bottle: Slightly powdery, sweet feminine fragrance. I’m thinking of sweet florals, a warm field of flowers set in vanilla with the lingering threads of alcohol. Allure is a modern fragrance, claimed to be built in a special way so the wearer can enjoy a unique experience atypical of other perfumes. But then, so many new perfumes also have that claim. Right now, Allure is a nice strong but welcoming warm vanilla floral. Let’s see how she does applied.

Applied: Immediately I smell the vanilla coming up on the sweetness and the florals. There’s a creamy quality to this that replaces that powder I smelled off-skin. This mixture of warmth and sweetness makes Allure a golden fragrance to my nose.It reminds me of L’Instant de Guerlain in color and sweetness but L’Instant had a distinct amber and honey feel that Allure doesn’t possess. Allure instead is backed by a fine mist of soft florals as it trails off into sweet, creamy vanilla.

Extra: While Chanel has enjoyed success as a major fragrance house. Particularly thanks to the ever present and ever iconic, No.5, it has also garnered some reputation of making “old lady” perfumes. The powdery scent in these might be doing it but I also think it’s in part due to the brand’s reputation. I smell Allure and get nothing but sophisticated and modern. “Old lady”, of course, has different connotations to different people but it’s hard for me to associate Allure to an old woman. Allure is simply a sweet, vanilla floral.

Design: Allure’s bottle design, much like most of Chanel’s other fragrances, is minimalistic but functional and beautiful at the same time. Presented in a tall, clear rectangular bottle, the name of the fragrance is embossed near the top while the fragrance house, other vital information is embossed on the bottom. While the design itself does look similar to that of Burberry Brit, you can literally feel the better quality that was put into Chanel Allure. It’s simple but refined whereas Brit’s bottle just looks like a mishmash of poor design decisions. Yes, I am still harping on Burberry Brit’s bottle. The bottle cap is metal with a ring running its perimeter with CHANEL written on it. Simple but elegant. A great design for those with minimalist tastes.

Fragrance Family: Floral Oriental

Notes: Lily of the valley, magnolia, honeysuckle, citrus, passion fruit, mandarin, jasmine, rose, vanilla.

One of the best things about trying different fragrances is finding out what I like. In L’Instant and Allure, I’ve discovered a love for golden, warm and sweet creamy fragrances. Something that doesn’t quite touch the shores of gourmand but skirts the outer edge.

Reviewed in This Post: Allure, 2010, Eau de Parfum.


Victoria’s Secret Love Spell

If popularity made a fragrance iconic then Love Spell should be the staple of teenage girls. This is a familiar fragrance to me, partly because of its fruity floral composition but also because so many women and girls wear Love Spell, its perfume form, body mist, lotion and what have you. It is a simple fragrance, a little low on the complexity meter but what it lacks in complexity, it makes up for in wearability. Love Spell

In Bottle: Sweet, sweet, sweet. The first smell I get from Love Spell is a sparkling peach and jasmine fragrance. It’s like high school exploded in my nose and all I can smell is the trademark sugary peppiness that I was so familiar with. I remember when every other girl smelled like fruit or candy. I was the odd one out with nothing but a stick of deodorant between me and nothing. Now that I can experience all the fragrances I couldn’t wear when I was younger, I have to admit, I do see why this was popular. But its very essence, to me, screams of high school.

Applied: Simple and inoffensive, that first whiff of bright fruits and florals is quick to start dissolving on the skin. It morphs away from brightness and into a near sparkly plastic-like fragrance for a few moments. I’m sitting there wondering if these flowers and this strange slippery plastic smell is going to stick around for a while. It kind of reminds me of a banana peel, slippery, fruity. I can almost taste that strange note which is funny. The banana fades the more I smell this as something aromatic that resembles culantro comes up and dominates the scene. Culantro, not to be confused with cilantro, is an herb. Unfortunately for the culantro and the florals, they evaporate very quickly and re-application is necessary. And with reapplication comes that sparkly banana again. I like the opener. I like the drydown. The culantro scent is an interesting touch that I don’t mind. I could probably do without that strange moment in the middle with the banana.

Extra: Love Spell has that aura about it that screams of high school. There are fragrances out there that just seem to speak volumes about the culture that might surround them. Sweet, fruity, floral perfumes for example are usually in the category of young. Whereas deeper, denser more powder fragrances tend to be lumped in with the old. Me, personally, I don’t much care if I smell young or old. If you like a fragrance, just wear it.

Design: Simple but not ugly. I’ve got no qualms with fragrances that stick to simple packaging. Especially ones that are more affordable like Love Spell is. The EDT will run you around $8-10 depending upon the sale going on at the moment. This fragrance comes in a purple box. Inside is a glass atomizer bottle with a cap over it. On the bottle is the name of the fragrance and a purple flower design.

Fragrance Family: Fruity Floral

Notes: Apple, peach, cherry blossom, lilac, jasmine.

I still remember the big fragrance going around the school locker room when I was younger. It was Hawaiian Ginger by Calgon. It seemed literally every girl was wearing this as everywhere I stepped in the school, in wafted Hawaiian Ginger. Turns out it was only a couple of people who wore this fragrance and evidently they were battling it out for Hawaiian Ginger supremacy because the fragrance permeated the entire school.

Reviewed in This Post: Love Spell, 2010, Eau de Toilette.


Synthetic Fragrances, Are They Really Dangerous?

I’ve noticed, very recently, that a lot of people seem to be concerned about synthetic notes in perfume. As more and more people are subscribing to natural living, eating organic foods, wearing organic cotton, using organic detergents, the eye of concern has shifted onto this generation’s health crisis. No, not obesity. It’s cancer.

With media outlets reporting on the evils of “chemicals” and how they cause allergies in some people and could be carcinogenic for others, I see more and more concerned consumers turning away from synthetic notes used in perfumes because they’re afraid of cancer. Some consumers refuse to wear perfume at all, claiming that they’re all laden with these horrible chemicals that will cause a host of medical problems. But how true are the rumors? Do synthetic notes really cause cancer?

Let’s start from the top and gain a general understanding of what a synthetic fragrance is and what synthetic perfumery is. I tend to veer away from calling synthetic perfumery by certain names because of the instant negative reaction I get from people. Say the word, “chemical” in front of some people and watch them close their ears. Instead, I’ve taken to calling it “constructed perfumery”. Not the most technical of terms but at least I get my foot in the door.

Synthetic fragrances are constructed by the molecule or are isolated components of more complex elements. They are synthesized raw materials that go into making a fragrance. People use synthetics in perfumes because they can achieve more pure and more consistent scents than using natural raw materials. For example, raw material vanilla can have its major component isolated. Vanillin is the primary component in vanilla beans isolated and used in perfumery for its stability and cost effectiveness. Aside from a small amount of natural vanillin isolations, the majority of vanillin we encounter is synthetic.

See, natural vanilla extract takes more time to produce, costs more, is rarer and, therefore, expensive. The stuff you buy at the store called vanilla extract to use when baking cookies and cupcakes is actually mostly or entirely vanillin. See, in 2001 around 12,000 tons of vanillin was needed, but natural vanillin only covered around 1,800 of those tons. The rest was synthesized chemically. Chances are, you are using a synthetic if you have ever used vanilla extract that wasn’t stated as natural.

Vanilla extract has hundreds more components in it than vanillin, giving it a richer, more complex aroma. Due to this added complexity, natural vanilla used in perfumery may alter the fragrance depending upon the batch of vanilla used and the skin chemistry of the individual using it.

While skin chemistry and natural components makes for a unique, complex and interesting experience getting a bad batch of oil is not interesting in so much as annoying. Therefore, this morphing of scents due to batch disparity can cause major problems with fragrance consistency. So you can see when you’re trying to deliver a consistent product to a consumer, you don’t want Cassie smelling like a beautiful vanilla floral bouquet while her friend, Joan, smells like a pile of plastic doll heads.

Another reason synthetics are used has to do with quality control. Natural raw materials are often directly harvested from a large amount of ingredients. Most of the time, from flowers and plants. Take rose oil for example, a natural that requires pounds and pounds of roses to make an ounce of rose essential oil. How much rose essential oil you receive at the end of the day depends heavily on how much crop was yielded. Any farmer will tell you that crops vary from year to year depending upon the weather.

Finally, synthetics are used because they are more cost effective. Consider the manpower and space that would be required to plant and then extract rose oil. You need workers to plant, tend and pick the roses. You’ll need workers to extract the oils too. And all this for a precious one ounce vial of the stuff. Think about all the labor that went into producing it, how much time it took, and sheer luck. All these factors add up to a more expensive product.

So now that you know why synthetics are used, let’s get to the meat of the issue. Are they dangerous?

Short answer, synthetics in perfumes are no more or no less dangerous than natural raw materials.

Now let me expand on that before you wander off. I said they are no more or less dangerous than natural materials. The key words being ‘more or less’. This means that natural raw materials aren’t as safe as most people may think. There is a common thread of thought in modern society where people tend to view natural things in a more innocent light, often ignoring the fact that just because it came from nature, doesn’t mean it’s good for us.

I’ll put it to you straight up and I’ll even start with synthetics here to be fair. Synthetics are being investigated for carcinogenic compounds. There are some very early studies that look into the components of fragrances that have found that, if exposed to a large enough concentration of certain synthetics (limonene in this example), certain animals may develop cancer (male rats but not the females). However, they have also found that those concentrations are much larger than what is typically found in fragrances. In addition to that finding, one should also note that substances found to be carcinogenic in rats does not always mean it is carcinogenic in humans.

Consider the alternative, natural materials. Generally credited with being milder, more gentle, safer. It comes as a surprise to me that when people say this they also gloss over the fact that the majority of essential oils from the citrus family are known photosensitizers. Photosensitivity, in regards to essential oil usage, occurs when you apply an essential oil known to cause sun sensitivity (bergamot, lemon, lime, orange, etc.) and then expose the area of skin you applied the oil on to the sun. This results in an increased risk for sun burns and skin cancer.

So there you have it, two examples. And it should be noted that I had a hard time finding an academic source that investigated synthetics in fragrances and any ties to cancer. It should also be noted that citrus essential oils do not cancer in and of themselves but they increase the risk for cancer under certain conditions. Similarly, the studies for synthetic fragrances causing cancer are young and limited at the moment. What results from this comparison is the sad fact that more studies need to be done before a solid conclusion can be made.

Perhaps the most comfort I can offer someone, in my uneducated way, is the fact that synthetic fragrances are often tested and put under testing and have quality controls in place  for safety purposes. The same cannot be said for some essential oils and their usage. For instance, sassafras whose safrole component can cause permanent liver damage in humans if ingested in large enough doses. No one knows if topical application of sassafras will also harm you. Yet it is still purchased, and used in natural perfumery.

This isn’t to say you should suspect or start worrying about essential oils either. Most essential oils are safe to be used in the proper, diluted amounts.  It all comes down to the consumer being aware of the issues. All of the issues. Too many people read one side of an argument and decide that just because it sounds convincing, then it must be true. It does nobody any good to scare people by making devils out of synthetic fragrances before any solid facts have been presented. Similarly it is dangerous to assume that you cannot get hurt using naturals. Remember that nature is a cruel beast and many things in nature can cause harm too. Just be aware.


Black Phoenix Alchemy Lab Dirty

Dirty, from Black Phoenix Alchemy Lab is a purposefully ironic interpretation. Dirty, supposedly smells like soap and general cleanliness. Miles away from the gritty undertones of its name, Dirty is a flowery bar of soap sitting on the windowsill wafting in the cool breeze of a manicured garden. Dirty

In Bottle: Something very sweet in this. Sweet and floral this can’t be a single clean linen scent because it also contains what I swear is white floral and sweet herbs. It makes me think of fresh, white sheets blowing in the breeze and an opened window.

Applied: Definitely something sweetly floral in this. It reminds me of Bath and Body Works‘ Sweetpea and Cotton Blossom mixed into one. There’s a great sense of imagery in this fragrance though. I mentioned the clean laundry, the window, how about a little house in the Maritimes with the rolling sea crashing against a cliff edge’s jagged skirt hem? Yeah, that’s it. Dirty starts off with that sweet floral aroma and eventually dries down to subtle soap and clean cotton. It’s like a bath and a change of clothes during midday.

Extra: There’s been some speculation abound about whether or not BPAL uses all natural ingredients or if there’s some synthetics mixed in there. I would suggest you ask the company yourself if this concerns you. As far as my nose goes, BPALs are fun and simple fragrances. If they’re safe to use then whether they’re all natural or synthetic is of no consequence to me.

Design: Presented in an amber bottle and a black twist cap with 5ml of perfume oil.

Fragrance Family: Fresh

Notes: Sweet herbs, white florals, cotton.

Dirty has an interesting case study. It delivers everything it needs to. I find myself conjuring up more vivid images in association with natural perfumes than constructed ones. That isn’t to say I don’t love the constructed ones or they’re somehow less effective. What tends to happen is natural perfumes make me think of scenes, landscapes, sounds and events. Constructed perfumes make me think of people and the cultures that they reflect.

Reviewed in This Post: Dirty, 2009, 5ml Bottle.


Victoria’s Secret Sexy Little Things Noir

Victoria’s Secret, known mostly for their underwear brand, also has a fairly lucrative line of beauty products and fragrances. It’s fragrance side is a well-loved establishment that releases mostly fruity floral fragrances that are wearable, girly, light and happy. Sexy Little Things Noir

In Bottle: Fantastic burst of fruits. It’s like I just sprayed a bowl of fruit punch on myself. There’s a slight sourness that really compliments and helps tame this very sweet fragrance. Something about this is really juicy, like biting into a crisp piece of fruit, juicy. And behind it all, I smell the faint waft of the very enigmatic jasmine supported by the spicy creaminess of tonka bean.

Applied: Fruit punch and creamy vanilla is what Sexy Little Things Noir is to me. For its massive list of notes, it does a great job projecting a fruity almost gourmand fragrance. Also due to its massive list of notes, I can’t separate nectarine from apple. However, I can pick out jasmine in this as well as the tonka beans. Sexy Little Things Noir lacks anything that I would really consider to be “noir”. In that a fragrance that’s marketed as “noir”, to me, should have some element of deepness or darkness. Sexy Little Things Noir is just a sparkling, juicy, fruit salad with a sprinkling of white flowers on top. There’s no deepness or darkness, which betrays its name but hey, I’m all right with that. It has fantastic projection but the longevity on me is a bit weak, fading within four hours into light vanilla and jasmine.

Extra: Tonka beans are said to smell like vanilla. A while ago, they could have been eaten in addition to being used in perfumes before someone discovered they contained a potentially lethal anticoagulant. Thanks for the kicks, nature.

Design: I’ll admit it, I was drawn to this perfume like many others for the bottle. The glass is a very dark purple in a pleasing, beautiful shape. The winning feature for me? That pump atomizer. That pump that’s so iconic of Hollywood Noir where the women were glamorous and the movies were in black and white. Though fragrances in pump atomizers back in those days tended to be from fragrance families that people these days refer to as “old lady” perfumes.

Fragrance Family: Fruity Floral

Notes: Nectarine, apple, citrus, pineapple, guanabana, pear, red fruits, bergamot, cattelaya orchid, muget, cyclamen, jasmine, plum, vanilla, dewberry, cassis, amber, musk, woods, tonka bean.

Sexy Little Things Noir is a part of Victoria’s Secret’s fine fragrance line. Meaning, it’s an Eau de Parfum as opposed to the body mists that Victoria’s Secret sells. Sexy Little Things Noir also has a counterpart body mist, shower gel, and perfumed body powder.

Reviewed in This Post: Sexy Little Things Noir, 2010, Eau de Parfum.