Cacharel Scarlett

Cacharel Scarlett happened upon my cluttered desk a while ago, it was a little sample knocking around from some of the circles I used to frequent back when perfumes were I hobby where I had time to indulge. I really miss it–the perfumes, I mean. So I gave Scarlett and a few others a whiff to see how things stacked up. And to dust off that long neglected notebook.

Scarlett

Scarlett

In Bottle: A light floral, a little pungent upon first whiff but I fear I may have smelled it a little “too hard”. Nothing really fancy about it yet.

Applied:  Bright and floral, a little juicy upon first application. There’s a sharp citrus to this at first that smells into a more rounded white florals style of scent. It’s very classically flowery and pleasant enough to wear. Scarlett isn’t really light, and nothing in it really reminds me of Scarlet O’Hara. But then, my vision of her doesn’t paint her in a dainty, floral at all and I expected something headier if it was to truly represent her. After a while of the white florals, the scent mellows into a mild warmed amber, honey and floral scent.

Extra: Scarlett was dedicated to the famous Scarletts in past and present including O’Hara and Johansson.

Design: I was actually surprised to see the bottle when I looked it up. It’s definitely not your typical curvy flacon and I actually kind of like it, though it clashes with my usual tastes. It’s different, and I guess that’s plenty to lend it credit to me.

Fragrance Family: Floral

Notes: Lemon, pear, jasmine, orange blossom, honeysuckle, amber, sandalwood, honey, white musk.

So I mentioned this didn’t really remind me of Scarlet O’Hara, it’s close and I understand where they’re trying to take it. To me, O’Hara is a heady, dark floral with a distinctive tuberose and a flash of something sharper and tangier like a cedar. I don’t know much about Johansson. In the end Scarlett is a nice, grown-up scent. It’s not groundbreaking enough to really set it apart from many of the other florals I’ve experienced, unfortunately.

Reviewed in This Post: Scarlett, 2015, Eau de Toilette.


Lalique de Lalique

Lalique de Lalique was released in 1992 with a limited edition version released in 2012 that I can’t seem to find anywhere.

Lalique de Lalique

Lalique de Lalique

In Bottle: I get a sweet, creamy fruits with a pleasant soft and sweetness in the background with a layer of equally sweet florals.

Applied: Chevrefeuille starts off with a rather strong fruit showing that mellows out fairly quickly into a stronger wave of florals with the sweet fruit opening still hanging on well into the mid-stage where the florals become a touch dusty like a wave of light powders. I get plenty of jasmine with a delightful introduction of clove that adds a bit of edibility to the fragrance as it rolls into the end where a vanilla musk and dusty sandalwood pick up the scent to carry it the rest of the way. The entire fragrance is very soft and easy to wear and very modern while at the same time having a classical edge.

Extra: Lalique de Lalique (or just Lalique) was released in 1992. A limited edition version of it bottled in a fancier way was released in 2012 as a part of its 20th anniversary. It’s nearly impossible to find the limited edition version anywhere as a result. Lalique is an old perfume house, their earliest fragrance dates back to 1931.

Design: Beautiful design, usually I don’t go for things quite as embellished as these bottles, but they are made in a way that makes them eye-catching and luxurious. The limited edition bottles are also very beautiful.

Fragrance Family: Floral Oriental

Notes: Pear, blackberry, iris, rose, jasmine, clove, cassis, sandalwood, vanilla, white musk.

I do really like Lalique de Lalique, though it’s not the kind of thing I would go out of my way to hunt down. The bottle, though, makes it really hard to resist.

Reviewed in This Post: Lalique de Lalique, 1999, Eau de Toilette.


Alfred Sung Jewel

With all the heady, classic fragrances I had been trying and wearing lately and with the weather doing all sorts of strange things, I had a hankering for a springtime perfume and Jewel caught my attention.

Jewel

Jewel

In Bottle: Sweet, dewy and slightly fruity jasmine with a bit of orange blossom.

Applied: I primarily get a nice dewy jasmine scent out of this with a fruity pear and a strong neroli note in the front. The jasmine is sweet and clean and fresh as it rolls into a fairly benign mid-stage with hints of creamy coconut in the background. So far, Jewel is nothing to really write home about. It’s very nice, but not unique. It reminds me a bit of springtime, and its use of fruits and jasmine together are not unappealing, nor is it too overdone to be enjoyable. The dry down is not too special either, as the sweet jasmine rolls into a clean floral finish.

Extra: Jewel was released in 2005 and if you didn’t get enough of it in fragrance form, you can choose between its wide range of body care products like the lotion. Jewel isn’t difficult to find either, and is available from discounters online though I haven’t seen it in a department store myself.

Design: Reminds me of Ange ou Demon by Givenchy, but I suppose it’s just the shape that makes me draw the similarities between the two. Has a pleasant shape overall, interesting to look at.

Fragrance Family: Sweet Floral

Notes: Blackcurrant, pear, neroli, orange blossom, jasmine, frangipani, coconut, plum.

Overall, a pleasant experience if somewhat uninteresting. It is a nice springtime perfume, and hit the spot when I wanted to smell spring-like, but there are more interesting spring offerings out there. Still Jewel is pretty good for what it is, has a pleasant clean, fresh jasmine sweetness to it and doesn’t lay it on very thick.

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


Gucci Flora Gorgeous Gardenia

Gorgeous Gardenia

Gorgeous Gardenia

Gucci Flora was like my guilty little pleasure where I knew the fragrance wasn’t super sophisticated, but I still like it and wear it anyway. So I got curious when I saw they had come out with some Flora flankers. I had my reservations, after all, Flora wasn’t anything to call home about so how good could the flankers be? I know I shouldn’t judge a flanker by the perfume it was modeled after. But what bothered me most about Flora Gorgeous Gardenia was its somewhat silly name.

In Bottle: Pear and sweetness with a little touch of floral.

Applied: Pear upfront with the sweetness rolling out its game very quickly. Gorgeous Gardenia smells of candy and lace and fruity summer drinks with little umbrellas in them. After the initial blast of fruit juice and candy, Gorgeous Gardenia settles down a bit and introduces a very mild and difficult to pick up floral element. I can’t say the gardenias are making much of a show as this tends to enjoy smelling like generic flowers and sugar. The sugar in this isn’t too strong. It’s actually used rather well, giving the fragrance a soft lilt that sort of brushes your nose instead of slamming into it. I like that about it, but as for everything else, it’s a pretty bland affair. The dry down isn’t very noticeable either with the sugar cleaning itself up a bit and leaving a ghost of itself behind with a dry and cleanly scrubbed patchouli note finishing the scent.

Extra: Gorgeous Gardenia is only one of five Flora flankers to be released. The other four are Generous Violet, Glamorous Magnolia, Glorious Mandarin, and Gracious Tuberose. Makes me wonder what other “G” words they can come up with to couple with some unsuspecting flower. Perhaps we’ll get Grandiose Rose.

Design: I really liked the design of Gucci’s Flora and the more I used my little 30ml bottle, the more the design grew on me to the point where I decided it was adorable and that I loved it–just in time for all the juice to run out. Still, I liked the packaging for Flora and I like the packaging for Gorgeous Gardenia which is largely similar except in a tall bottle as opposed to squat and with pinkish liquid.

Fragrance Family: Fruity Floral

Notes: Pear, berries, gardenia, frangipani, patchouli, sugar.

I did like how Gorgeous Gardenia smells, but it’s far from interesting or new. It’s a very functional fragrance much like Flora–though the two don’t smell alike. Gorgeous Gardenia tends more toward sweet and fruity as opposed to sweet and floral like Flora did.

Reviewed in This Post: Flora Gorgeous Gardenia, 2012, Eau de Toilette.


Britney Spears Cosmic Radiance

Cosmic Radiance is a flanker from Britney Spears’ Radiance fragrance. It is supposed to be inspired by stars and jewels and other things that made Radiance a fairly benign fragrance.

Cosmic Radiance

Cosmic Radiance

In Bottle: I had to double check that I was holding the right bottle because this smells exactly like Radiance.

Applied: Goes on with a sweet tuberose fragrance with a minor difference from the original Radiance in that I don’t get any tartness in the opening. I get a face full of litchi but otherwise, the tuberose and the sweet treatment of the fragrance is very reminiscent of Radiance. The scent heads into a midstage in the same type of construction too with a tuberose and jasmine treatment and eventually nosedives into the end stage as a clean white musk with a hint of vanilla. My impressions of this stuff don’t differ much between Cosmic Radiance and regular Radiance. It is quite disappointing of a flanker.

Extra: Unless you don’t already own Radiance, I would suggest skipping this iteration. There’s not much different to it unless the tartness in the opening of the original Radiance was particularly bothersome. Otherwise, the two fragrances are remarkably similar and if you own one, there really isn’t a point in having both unless you’re a collector or like the bottle design.

Design: Same basic design as the original Radiance and I’m still put off by it. It’s got those jewel things on the glass making the bottle look disproportionate and lumpy. The black and clear motif just makes the lumpy look more pronounced. The colors are garish to me too and I just can’t get on board with the look of this thing.

Fragrance Family: Sweet Floral

Notes: Mandarin, pear, litchi, peony, jasmine, gardenia, tuberose, musk, sandalwood, vanilla, amber.

I have to give Cosmic Radiance a thumbs down for not being at all different from the original Radiance. It should be reiterated that Radiance was–while a bit pedestrian–a decent fragrance. I just didn’t think there needed to be two versions of it that smell almost exactly alike.

Reviewed in This Post: Cosmic Radiance, 2011, Eau de Parfum.


Betsey Johnson Perfume

Betsey Johnson’s fragrance is a polarizing affair with fans and dissenters alike. I just happen to be on the dissenter side. Even though I see what Betsey Johnson is trying to do with the kitschy design and equally kitschy fragrance, I just  can’t say that I like it.

Betsey Johnson

Betsey Johnson

In Bottle: Incredibly sweet and floral with a bit of musk. A rather discordant fragrance with a fruity hint and a strange medley of scents that don’t play nice with my nose.

Applied: Opens with a very sweet blackcurrant and citrus fragrance that quickly introduces the florals and a very sweet and very obvious freesia note. The apple wiggles in with the midstage and turns up the fruity side of this fragrance a few notches. It’s sweet and flowery and smells a bit synthetic and cheap and very cloying as the fragrance just continues to amp up on the sweetness the longer it sits on my skin. When the base notes arrive there’s a bit of sugary woodsiness that mingles with the equally sugary floral.

Extra: Betsey Johnson’s style has always been bright and colorful and pop artsy. I can’t say I’m a big fan of it, but the fragrance and the design itself do reflect these aesthetics. This particular perfume was created by noses Mathilde Bijaoui and Bernard Blanc.

Design: The bottle for Betsey Johnson is just about everything I don’t like in a design. It’s big and girly and flashy and bright and pretty much the epitome of kitsch. I don’t like the aesthetics and think they are a little ridiculous but rest assured, the bottle was designed to look like this. I just don’t like the look at all.

Fragrance Family: Fruity Floral

Notes: Grapefruit, blackcurrant, tangerine, pear, freesia, lily of the valley, apple, sandalwood, amber, musk, cedar, praline.

So all in all, this fragrance just isn’t for me but that shouldn’t stop someone else from looking this one up. It’s got a nice fruity floral with a very sweet tooth. If you love fruity floral and sweet scents, try this stuff out.

Reviewed in This Post: Betsey Johnson, 2008, Eau de Parfum.


Marc Jacobs Daisy Eau So Fresh

Daisy Eau So Fresh is the 2011 released flanker to Marc Jacobs’ wildly popular Daisy. I was a little leery going into this one because I saw they had taken the fruity floral angle up a few notches. But Daisy Eau So Fresh is actually very nice.

Daisy Eau So Fresh

Daisy Eau So Fresh

In Bottle: Litchi seems dominant with a fresh grassy quality. It’s otherwise a very nicely done fruity scent that reminds me of a fruit smoothie on a hot summer day.

Applied: I’m smelling litchi and fruit punch. I’m able to separate the litchi since it’s pretty strong to my nose but the rest of the fragrance is mushed together in this amalgamation of fruits. It’s sweet, a faint echo of Daisy in the brief grassy glimpses I get in the opening as the scent evolves into a fruity floral with the fruits still being the dominant players. As Daisy Eau So Fresh ages it leads away from the fruity opening a bit and evolves into more of a clean floral with a slight powdered quality to it. The dry down is noted with a clean musk and a hint of cedar. Overall, a more pleasant experience than Daisy. And I already liked Daisy to begin with.

Extra: Seems like ‘boggling at the advertising’ should be a regular feature on this blog. The ad for Daisy Eau So Fresh said that it was a whimsical interpretation of the original fragrance. I don’t know about anyone else, but if someone had told me to describe Daisy, I probably would have used the word ‘whimsical’ to begin with. How else do you describe a scent that’s supposed to be the smellification (now a word) of a daisy?

Design: Daisy Eau So Fresh is bottled in a similar shape and style as the original Daisy. Just think of the original bottle for Daisy, then stretch it out a little so it’s a bit taller, introduce some light dusty pinks, a little pop of yellow and you got the bottle for Daisy Eau So Fresh. I have to admit those rubbery flowers grow on me. Just don’t leave them out for too long because they collect dust like crazy.

Fragrance Family: Fruity Floral

Notes: Grapefruit, green notes, raspberry, pear, jasmine, rose, violet, litchi, apple blossom, musk, cedar, plum.

Overall, I actually think Daisy Eau So Fresh did a good job being a flanker. It smells pleasant enough, easy enough, and if someone liked Daisy by Marc Jacobs they should probably give this a try to see if it jives with them too.

Reviewed in This Post: Daisy Eau So Fresh, 2011, Eau de Toilette.


Victoria’s Secret Pear Glace

Pear Glacé is like a strange little nugget from my younger years. It was the thing that convinced me I didn’t much like pear scents way back when this fragrance was still being sold by Victoria’s Secret. Even thenl, I thought this was too sweet. So why not uncap and dust off the old body mist and see if my mind has changed?

Pear Glace

Pear Glace

In Bottle: Sweet pear with a slight herbal quality to it.

Applied: Extremely sweet pear opening that’s reminiscent of cough syrup for children. There’s a hint of violet in this, further sweetening the scent as well as imparting a slight powderiness as well. The pear gets extremely sweet as the fragrance wears on to the point that it reaches cloying levels. This just takes me back to the time when I first tried this and decided it wasn’t for me. Evidently, it still isn’t for me though I am amazed the fragrance seems to have held up well over the years considering it’s a synthetic fruit-based fragrance, and a body mist that’s contained in an unsealed plastic bottle. Granted, I could be remembering the fragrance wrong as well but it seems to me like this was exactly what it did before. Anyway, the pear scent sticks with the fragrance as it ages but the longer I wear this, the more that cassis and violet thing gets stronger and stronger, imparting more sweet herbal scent. At this point I’m thinking the cassis used in this is the leaf as opposed to the berry since I’m getting that herbal quality as opposed to a currant-like scent. Whatever it’s doing and whatever is making this smell herbal, I am not much of a fan. The fragrance ends up with a less sweet finish but with a still present herbal fragrance.

Extra: Granted, perfumes (and body mists) can do some strange things when they go off but I think this was actually how Pear Glacé smelled years ago. I wonder if I’m just imagining that herbal note or if something in this stuff actually went off. The one thing I do remember of this scent was the cloying pear and how much it reminded me of cough syrup. In either case, Pear Glacé has since been discontinued by Victoria’s Secret but is still available for purchase online from fragrance discounters, eBay, and third-party sellers on Amazon.

Design: The bottle for this doesn’t differ much from other Victoria’s Secret body mists–I’m sure the perfume is bottled in a similar fashion as well. The bottle I actually have is considerably older. It’s a plastic bottle with a plastic sprayer nozzle. It works for what it is, there’s nothing really fancy about it.

Fragrance Family: Fruity

Notes: Pear, cassis, violet.

So I’m apparently still not a fan of Pear Glacé though this fragrance tends to polarize people and I seem to be the only person who thinks it smells a little herbal. Tell me I’m not crazy, or am I?

Reviewed in This Post: Pear Glacé, ~2000, Eau de Parfum.


Marc Jacobs Oh Lola!

Oh Lola! is a recent flanker of the original Marc Jacobs Lola, that shampoo-y smelling, not unpleasant but not exciting, clean floral with the massive flower cap. Oh Lola! s presented as a pinker, more stylish version of the original. When someone describes a fragrance as ‘stylish’, I immediately cringe.

Oh Lola!

Oh Lola!

In Bottle: Fresh and berry-like with a layer of sheer florals underneath, a bit on the sweeter side but doesn’t overdo the sweetness to the point of cloying. Not very interesting but smells decent.

Applied: Clean and berry-like in the opening, reminds me a bit of a berry trifle or fruit juice. I swear I can smell a mango note and pineapple note in there. But essentially, the opening is generic fruit punch. It’s clean though and a little sweet as the fragrance ages, the fruitiness meshs more into the florals and lets in some of these flowers we’ve been hearing about. The florals themselves are unexciting, they’re blended well enough that they form this clean, unassuming and easygoing blend of flowery goodness that goes well with the fruity opening. As Oh Lola! heads into the base the scent takes on an extremely dull sandalwood vanilla scent that I haven’t smelled in a while but still remember rather well because every generic-smelling perfume uses a sandalwood vanilla base. “Oh Lola!” is shaping up to be more of an “Oh, Lola, It’s You Again”.

Extra: The buzz is already out for the ad campaign surrounding Oh Lola! Dakota Fanning has been chosen as the face for this fragrance and the questionable nature of the ad photo has already sparked something of a sensation around this perfume. I found Bang! and its ad campaign to be a humorous if somewhat lowbrow presentation. I find Oh Lola! to be of the similar vein. Or could we all just be overreacting because we’re used to Marc Jacobs pulling stunts like this? Whatever it is, the ad campaign made me raise a brow, the pink bottle made me grimace, and the description that Oh Lola! was ‘stylish’ made me cringe. Nothing about its presentation made me want to rush out and smell it or buy it.

Design: Maybe it was because I was overpinked as a child and have since grown something of a disdain for the color’s reputation as a “feminine” hallmark, but I don’t see why everyone thinks pink is so cute. Pink, when used right, can be cute. Sometimes it can even be sophisticated. If used wrong, it’s a bit burlesque and can even come off as cheesy and childish. So when they took Lola’s bottle, (a perfectly dynamic piece of work) and made it pink, I had to wonder what exactly there was to accomplish here. But I suppose they had to have a flanker look somewhat like the original. And I suppose–if nothing else–pink truly does suit the fragrance. I just find it tired that perfumes would constantly use pink for their fruitier, lighter, less serious flankers of original perfumes. You see a flanker that’s pink and can safely assume that it’ll either be sugary, weak, one dimensional, or a combination of the three.

Fragrance Family: Fruity Floral

Notes: Strawberry, raspberry, pear, peony, sandalwood, vanilla.

All right, so I admit I was chomping at the bit to get at the design of the Oh Lola! bottle. It just bothered me on a fundamental level that I can’t even begin to explain. Nothing on the juice, but the design of the bottle itself just turned me off immensely. Thankfully we’re here for the juice–most of the time.

Reviewed in This Post: Oh Lola!, 2011, Eau de Parfum.


Justin Bieber Someday

Okay, let’s get a few ground rules down before I get into the meat of this fragrance review. 1) Justin Bieber does not know how to compose a fragrance and did not personally compose this fragrance. He may have been given some samplers and told to pick his favorite. 2) Justin Bieber is probably the last person who would know what a woman wants to smell like anyway. 3) This stuff doesn’t smell bad, it just smells like generic celebrity perfume chaff.

Someday

Someday

In Bottle: Sweet fruity floral. It’s very light and easy to wear, but also smells really generic because there’s nothing that sets this fruity floral sweet and clean deal apart from any other fragrance like it.

Applied: Soft, slightly sweet, and clean fruity opening with a clear floral heart. There’s jasmine in this for sure, a little bit of lily of the valley I think and probably some sweet and unassuming little flower like heliotrope or freesia. As the fragrance ages, the florals come up a bit more but the scent never really goes anywhere exciting nor does it get any stronger. I don’t think I should even go into complexity because there’s not a whole lot of that going on in this fragrance either. This stuff is light and you may find yourself having to apply a lot of it. I can’t say much for it aside from the fact that it’s got a focus on light and clean florals. The dry down is unexciting with a very sheer blend of white musk and light vanilla flowers.

Extra: You’ve probably heard by now how similar the bottle design for Someday is compared to Marc Jacobs Lola. Well, the similarities are there but at the very least the bottle for Someday isn’t an almost identical rip-off of Lola like a certain other perfume.

Design: I’m not wild about the design of the bottle. Even the commercial for this fragrance couldn’t really make it look good. The design is amateurish to be honest and comparing it to Lola seems a little insulting. Lola’s a well-balanced, if a little bit loud, of a design. Someday looks like a wobbly child’s art experiment. Maybe I just don’t see the appeal of the bulbous bottle design and the weird flower/heart cap thing. Maybe I’m just too old to think this looks good? Who knows. I just don’t like it.

Fragrance Family: Fruity Floral

Notes: Mandarin, pear, wild berries, jasmine, creamy flowers, vanilla, musk.

So bottom line is Someday is an easy to wear, easygoing light floral scent and you aren’t going to stink if you decide to go out and throw down some cash for this stuff. It’s not special, it’s not unique, but it isn’t bad either.

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