Why is Cool Water (for men) so incredibly awful ?

Yes, I know some will be irritated by the title, but after subjecting myself once again to this scent in order to decide if I should in fact write up such a post, I feel I owe it to my readers to be entirely honest and “tell it like it is,” from my perspective, of course. Obviously, if you like it that’s fine, and I can certainly understand the same kind of criticism of scents that I like (namely that there is an irritating note clash rather than pleasant note contrast), but here I want to explore why some scents are enjoyable (at least to the aficionado) whereas others are not, as well as what perfumers may be thinking. Note that I am referring to an older, Lancaster formulation of Cool Water, and not the Coty one, which I view as a pleasant muddle but otherwise not worthy of much attention (but again, some people may be seeking just such a scent!).

One thing that many people don’t consider is “where things were at” when something occurred. When Pierre Bourdon created CW, there was no Acqua di Gio, no major “niche” market where some companies came and went frequently, no real “community” of aficionados online, etc. What was there that perfumers were likely thinking about in the late 1980s? Presumably scents that were popular within their lifetimes, such as Grey Flannel, which was released in 1975. Let’s first take a look at the note pyramids for these two, beginning with CW:

Top notes include mint and green nuances, lavender, coriander and rosemary. The heart notes include geranium, neroli, jasmine and sandalwood. The base is composed of cedarwood, musk, amber and tobacco

Top notes are galbanum, neroli, petitgrain, bergamot and lemon; middle notes are mimose, iris, violet, sage, rose, geranium and narcissus; base notes are tonka bean, almond, oakmoss, vetiver and cedar.

Since Davidoff began with a cigar business, one could imagine the brief for CW containing a required tobacco note, so there’s no need to ponder too much about that one (however, I don’t remember detecting any tobacco note in the Coty CW). Otherwise, though not listed as such, we have a “woody/amber” molecule used in CW that wasn’t being used in 1975, to my knowledge, as well as lavender and jasmine replacing the florals in GF (violet is especially prominent). My guess here is that Bourdon was trying to “update” or “modernize” GF, just as Alberto Morillas may have been trying to update Eau Sauvage with his Acqua di Gio (I’m not even suggesting this was done consciously, so keep that in mind).

For me the major “problem” with CW is that it has no theme, whereas the crisp green/floral of GF clearly is evocative of natural landscapes under certain conditions as well as social formality. By contrast, CW feels like it was composed by a perfumer who was “experimenting” (while complying with a brief), especially with the new materials (“woody/amber” and dihydromyrcenol, from what I understand). In a sense, Bourdon perfected the use of dihyrdromyrcenol in a green context with Green Irish Tweed (if he in fact composed that one, as most aficionados apparently think), and so there was “nowhere to go” when he came to composing CW other than to create a very similar scent (such as we find with Original Santal and Individuel or Orange Spice and Kouros). And he had to stick a clear tobacco note in there !

Older tobacco scents were not “fresh,” yet that seems to have been one of the major ideas inspiring CW. I wonder whether Bourdon thought he could integrate a tobacco note into a scent with strong dihydromyrcenol by including some other strong notes (neroli, rosemary, and jasmine in particular here), sort of like creating a gradual descent into the tobacco, so to speak. Most likely, there were several variations presented, and someone else decided to choose what was then marketed as CW. Boy I’d like to smell those other ones, if they still exist (I have a variation on Lagerfeld’s KL for Men, for example)! In any case, this is a complex blend, but by the late 1980s this kind of “masculine” had been perfected (for instance, in Joint for Men), though clearly these had a “heavier” feel to them than CW. Thus, we have another possible idea being tinkered with by Bourdon (that is, lightening/freshening up the typical masculine scent of the day), though these notions would not have been mutually exclusive.

Now, on to my latest experience with CW (two sprays to the chest with a Lancaster formulation). I tried to get at least enough of the top notes to be able to speak to them here, and recently my overall sensitivity seems to be lower than usual. After a few minutes (as most of you probably know by now, I have little interest in that initial period), there are clearly strong sweet and fruity aspects (at least borderline candy-like), along with noticeable dihydromyrcenol (I’m assuming that’s what the not entirely natural “freshness” is), lavender, and a “sour” quality (presumably mostly due to the neroli note but perhaps tobacco is playing a role here as well). It doesn’t take long for a “velvety” (for those who like it) or a “blob”-like quality to emerge, and this may be what has led me to dislike CW so much, and beyond that, there is that synthetic “fresh” buzz that never lets up. That is, while I can smell many of the notes up close on the skin, from a distance (as is the case with a “normal” wearing), a slight creamy quality blurs everything, becoming the olfactory equivalent of a near-sighted person looking at a distant landscape (without corrective lenses). This does not happen with scents that possess similar note pyramids (which I discuss below), leading me to think that Bourdon used more of certain synthetics for wood and amber notes. Was this to keep things within a certain budget or because he liked this new quality (or some other reason)?

At least on me, the scent doesn’t change much for the first few hours (beyond the top notes), and so that allows me to come to conclusions about it (because I won’t wait 3-4 hours to get to “the good stuff,” not that there’s anything I consider special here in any case). It’s dominated by a slightly sour, candyish accord (with mild lavender), though the candy seems more like candy that is going bad and should be thrown in the garbage. For me, it leads nowhere, and it not pleasant, though as I’ve said to many people, you can take just about any scent and if you dilute it enough and add enough sweetness (such as with ethyl maltol) most people would probably say, “it smells nice.” Yes, it’s a bit musky and it’s not especially “synthetic” smelling, and for it’s time I can imagine it seemed like a “breath of fresh air to a lot of people,” despite the somewhat sour quality, particularly in a “casual” social context. So, I’m not suggesting that it smells “awful,” but rather that in terms of where perfumery is at now, it has no “redeeming value,” other than as an olfactory historical artifact or if the person thinks it has some value in terms of “impressing” another person.

For example, why wear this oddball clash of notes that makes you smell like weird, expired candy when you could wear GIT instead? If you want strong tobacco, there are many options. If you like neroli notes, again, there are many better options. Etc. Now you may say that you just happen to like this oddball collection of notes, and that’s fine, but even in that case they are not rendered well. Instead, it is unbalanced, and the notes that “spike out” are not especially compelling on any level. Luca Turin has stated that CW has a “lethally effective formula of crab apple, woody citrus, amber, and musk.” I don’t want to “call him out” here, because it’s often the case that one would like to say more on a subject but one’s life is finite and decisions have to be made about the use of one’s time. However, CW is not an amber-dominant scent, nor a wood-dominant one, nor a musk-dominant one, and the citrus is certainly nothing special (at least not in a rich or “natural smelling” context). If there is crab apple here it’s likely prominent in the top notes only.

There were plenty of “men’s” scents marketed before CW that features natural-smelling wood, amber, musk, and citrus, a good example being Xeryus, from two years earlier (which also has jasmine and lavender, like CW). To this aficionado, Xeryus (vintage) “blows the doors off” CW, which comes across as a failed attempt at doing a Xeryus type of scent “on the cheap.” Like CW, however, there is an attempt to do something a little different in Xeryus, and one reviewer described it as containing a wonderful note, something like a tree with the smells of China adorning it. There is excellent dynamism and note contrast here, along with this unique quality. Why would anyone who understands the difference in ingredient quality mention these notes in the CW context when a scent that was released at about the same time had those same notes, but was clearly superior in terms of quality? The only reasonable explanation is that this person does not value ingredient quality very highly, and that brings me back to what I said about people who appear to be “super smellers” and cannot tolerate many aroma chemicals or the use of these substances in large amounts.

If you like the “fresh” idea behind CW but not the powdery or violet aspects of GIT, I suggest seeking out vintage scents like Z by Halston, or even better, Paco Rabanne’s Eau de Sport (which is likely more difficult to find). The way naturals and synthetics are integrated to produce a “fresh’ effect is just as good as the way it’s done in CW or GIT, IMO. Even Baryshnikov Sport, which has been selling for next to nothing lately, has a more consistent and interesting “fresh” idea, IMO. Z and PR’s Eau de Sport are simpler than CW but smell more natural to me and don’t feature a note clash. And if you like the idea of CW type “freshness” along with tobacco, there is Vintage by Varvatos, where that freshness doesn’t last too long (which allows me to wear it), and then you get a tobacco scent with notes that work well together. It may be that the top notes of CW were largely responsible for its popularity, but as I’ve said before, if it were only about top notes, I’m not sure I would have any scents right now! I’d probably just smell my jars of various herbs, seeds, spices, etc. instead.

Advertisements

7 Comments

Filed under Fragrance Reviews.

7 responses to “Why is Cool Water (for men) so incredibly awful ?

  1. Bryan Ross

    So let me get this straight: CW is an attempt to update GF, yet according to you CW bears no similarities to GIT, despite your having said earlier that you believe GF is an early version of GIT ? Bigsly you are the gift that keeps on giving.

  2. Excellent question! I can’t remember saying GIT and CW are totally unalike, but I’ll be clear here; GIT is the “streamlined” version of an updated GF. It has a theme/direction, whereas CW seems like a bunch of notes thrown together, similar to what I did as a child when I tried putting every deli slice available between two slices of bread. An unpleasant discord was the result, just as with CW (though with scents some may be focused on top notes). The best analogy might be a figure study class, with several students generating quite different paintings of the same exact subject.

    We likely will never know for sure, but as I said, CW could.have been an attempt to do a Xeryus “on the cheap,” and with the tobacco note to satisfy Davidoff. Or Bourdon may have decided on his own to attempt this, or it may have been a GF/Xeryus hybrid idea, with added tobacco note and some new molecules “amped up.” No matter, it is helpful (at least to me) to consider the possibilities; those who find it boring probably “tuned out” long ago !

  3. You’ll read this, so whether you publish it doesn’t matter. Now you finally concede that there is a direct link between GIT and CW, and that the two are similar, and furthermore you correctly acknowledge that Grey Flannel and GIT are similar (something I did a long time ago on From Pyrgos). It would not surprise me at all if you wrote a blog post in a few months, or even years, stating that you are beginning to like Grey Flannel, GIT, and Cool Water. You’ve been known to change your mind on fragrances on your own time, which is good.

    Odd though that you ignore the obvious pathway via dihydromyrcenol from Paco Rabanne to Cool Water. Historically it’s the only way to really understand why Cool Water smells the way it does (20% dihydromyrcenol). Nowhere along that pathway does Xeryus or Smalto figure into the equation. Note that many fougeres of the eighties used dihydromyrcenol (Jazz has a prominent dihydromyrcenol note up top also, for example), but few employed it in a starring role the way Drakkar, GIT, and Cool Water did, with incrementally enormous dosages.

    • Well, let’s not confuse or conflate two possibly very different things here. I believe I have a good understanding of the scents in question, but what perfumers were thinking when they created GIT, CW, MS, etc. is speculation, so claims about “direct links” are not all that important to me. Instead, I’m trying to figure out how something as awful as CW could be created in the first place! My guess is that perfumers like to “experiment,” but as I mentioned, it’s possible Boudon provided a bunch of different variations (and this one may have been his least favorite). The general public may have “fallen in love”‘ with the overuse of “fresh” aroma chemicals, generally-speaking, obviously.

      As I said about Vintage by Varvatos, there is a similar blast of clearly synthetic “freshness,” but it gives way to a much more interesting, consistent, and natural-smelling base in a reasonable amount of time, whereas with CW the “freshness” continues for hours as at least a “background hum.” I can only go by what I smell (again, beyond top notes), and so whether some dihydromyrcenol is used in this or that scent is irrelevant to me. What matters is the lack of balance that can occur if too much is used. So, for example, if Molto Smalto began with a blast of “freshness” that soon subsided, that really wouldn’t matter to my enjoyment of it, nor my detection of notes it has in common with CW. For you it may matter but as I said in other posts, there seem to be very different ways people enjoy these concoctions! Make your criteria explicit and let others decide if your opinion is of value to them.

  4. Forgot to mention, if one seeks a scent similar to CW in terms of the construction (including the sweetness), but with a “real” base (and without excessive use of “fresh” aroma chemicals), sample Molto Smalto. That one has great note contrast without the clash. Fragrantica.com lists these notes for it: “Top notes: lemon, lavender, coriander and rosemary. Heart: lily of the valley, jasmine, geranium and clary sage. Base: cedar, sandalwood, musk and amber.” For me, this one “nailed” the CW idea, whereas GIT went in a different direction in a possible attempt to “update” GF.

  5. Perhaps one good way to think about CW and MS, and GIT to a lesser degree, is that MS is like a well-decorated Christmas tree. CW, by contrast, has too many decorations, some of which don’t seem to belong together, and the tree is tilted a bit to one side. In this analogy, GIT may be best thought of as a fine “Hanukkah bush.”

  6. Surfacing

    Overall a really well written piece and I enjoyed reading it. Thanks Bigsly and I do enjoy reading the debate between both bloggers as well ( and a thank you to Bryan Ross).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s