The title of this post is meant to be humorous (as there have been much worse reviews), but that was my thought when I first read this (it’s about Sauvage). If it had been phrased with more discretion, it could have been helpful! Here it is:
3rd review, now the utter truth.
This scent is wonderful! dirty yet fruity! metallic yet sweet! Similar to Bleu de chanel, but some space apart, this has it’s own identity.
A cheeky, fun man wears this, yet slightly savage in personality, a modern man.
Given Diors line of flankers, I would assume this scent to receive an EDP version and some sort of flanker, an EDP version of this would be divine!
I am upset at my former self, who was caught up in the bad feedback talked about here, which led me to think I disliked this scent, how wrong I was!
First of all, are we to believe that this anonymous person has access to the “utter truth” but we do not? Second, are we to trust someone who gets “caught up in the bad feedback” rather than trusting what his “nose” is telling him? He got so caught up in it, in fact, that he thought the exact opposite of his perceptions! Yikes. How does one think that something smells terrible because others are saying it does but you think it smells great? I don’t know where to even begin to “unravel” this aspect of it, so I’ll just let readers decide for themselves. I can understand enjoying a scent but then becoming sensitive to one or more aroma chemicals (as has happened to me), but hating a scent because some anonymous “internet people” do is beyond my comprehension..
Next, there is his description: fruity, metallic, sweet, and dirty! Seriously, how many people would say that sounds like the recipe for a great smell? It sounds like how some have described Secretions Magnifique to me! And for me, I can’t imagine a worse combination, particularly fruity (which I rarely find smells natural, nor lasts long enough when it does) and metallic (which I simply detest). But then we are told what kind of man wears this scent, as if others were precluded from such a distinction, but even there I can’t picture the kind of person being referenced (it sounds like someone who has a clear “sadistic streak”). Then there is an irrelevant suggestion of a flanker, despite no mention as to why an EdP would be necessary.
It seems like a kind of emotional plea, perhaps to himself more than anyone else. And if he wrote this to exorcise the demons summoned because of his earlier review or opinion, that’s fine with me (it would make perfect sense), but the purpose of reviews are to help others as well as oneself! One reason I write reviews is to see how my opinion might change somewhat over time, as well as to help in a possible purchase (for example, if I didn’t think it was worth purchasing but sampled it at a store and later was offered a bottle in a swap). I think this person’s review is quite helpful in a psychological context, reminding us that we can’t rely on any one person, but it’s also at least a bit helpful to me, because it suggests that Sauvage is a scent I would dislike (in conjunction with the other reviews). And as I’ve said before, even if I thought it was mildly pleasant, I’d have to get it for the price of a Playboy scent because I likely wouldn’t rate higher than I assess at least London for Men.
Read my last post about my opinion on Sauvage based upon smelling it on someone else and on a card. While there may not be anything exactly like it (or nearly so), it’s more of a room spray to my way of thinking, as it’s a strong, musky, and “tight” smell. However, because I seem to have missed the top notes experience on it, I would not want anyone to give my review much weight if that person is mostly concerned with the top notes. And, due to its popularity, it might not be best for “standing out in a crowd.” In general, I find these kinds of reviews to be humorous, but it seems that more than a few people read such statements and become irritated that there is so little said about the scent itself. After all these years, I expect a certain percentage of such reviews to be written each year, and can now enjoy them as “comic relief.”
NOTE: I’ve noticed a new trend, involving the use of the word oily when describing a scent. Since I began studying scents in 2007, I have yet to encounter one that I would call oily (except for the way it feels on the skin, not the smell itself). I wish those who use such terms would give the reader some idea of what is meant. I have tried at least four oil-bases scents (that I can remember clearly) and none came across as “oily” to me. Could people who use this term mean that there are resinous and watery qualities together? I wish they would say!
UPDATE: Here’s one (about Santal 33) that is in that “so bad it’s good category,” at least for me:
“Are you alone?
Now think of the woman you love.
Picture the two of in bed, sleeping.
You wake up, you open your eyes and the first think you see is she. She looks up at you, curls her back in to your stomach, you put your arms around her and kiss the back of her head.
Now hold your nose against head, go ahead rub your nose through her hair and take a whiff.
That’s what Santal 33 smells like.”
I haven’t tried this one, IIRC, but from the reviews it seems that the wood notes (s) is very strong.