Was there an Eau de Parfum formulation of Pino Silvestre?

One reason I decided to publish this post today is because it somewhat complements the latest post on the FromPyrgos blog.  A few months back, I obtained the EdP bottle of PS pictured below.  I also took pictures of the other two bottles I own, one I obtained about five years ago, from a discounter, which of course means  it might be quite a bit older (the largest bottle, 125 ml).  The one in the middle is a “vintage” formulation, though I can’t say how old it is for sure (it’s got a more natural lavender note and is smoother).  The EdP is also clearly different to me, with less lavender and the kind of base you find in many “intense,” “absolute,” “extreme,” etc. flankers (that is, it may have benzoin, amber, vanilla, etc., blended together to create that smooth but not too sweet quality).  It’s my favorite of the three by a wide margin, and something that niche companies might learn a thing or two from!  If anyone knows something about the EdP please leave a comment – I contacted Mavive through their web site for any information they could give me on the EdP but they didn’t respond:

Pino Silvestre 3 bottles.jpg

If you can’t read it, the EdP says Special Edition next to the number 50, and that number has the degree symbol next to it.

Pino Silvestre bottle bottoms.jpg

On the bottom of the EdP bottle, embossed in the glass, it says Weruska & Joel Torino.  It also has a transparent plastic label which says this, along with Eau de Parfum, Made in Italy, 75 ml, etc.  Then the batch code (I’d guess) of 6039 appears to be stamped over that plastic label.  The cap seems to be a wood veneer and there’s a mid green colored plastic liner that slides onto the sprayer (which is a gold metal).

In his blog post about Green Generation (by Mavive), Brian mentions Weruska & Joel, so perhaps he has some ideas about it, at least roughly when it was released:

https://frompyrgos.blogspot.com/2014/10/green-generation-him-parfums-mavive.html

One possibility is that not only was it a limited edition but it was also only released in certain nations (the person I bought it from was located within the USA).  And note that I didn’t try to contact Weruska & Joel because at the time I thought it was the company that made the bottle.  I’ll do that if I don’t get any information on it within the next few days.

UPDATE:  See the comments for the answer!

Advertisements

4 Comments

Filed under Fragrance Reviews.

Is it time to “call it quits?”

Perfumes The Guide 2018 by [Turin, Luca, Sanchez, Tania]

I came upon a thread in the General forum at Basenotes.net, which was about the new Perfume Guide book by Luca Turin and Tania Sanchez.  You can find it here:

http://www.basenotes.net/threads/437337-New-Perfume-Guide

I then went to Amazon to see if there was a preview for it, and sure enough, it was quite good, even including many of the “A” fragrance reviews!  I read what was there, thinking that I’d likely buy the book (the Kindle version, which might be the only one, is $9.99), but as I read something coalesced in my mind.  Turin seems to think (at least this is what I’d guess, and agree with) that what has happened over the last roughly ten years is that enough people got tired of mainstream offerings, which became minor variations on a small number of themes, and so turned to niche, which then itself largely did the same thing.  A couple of things I’d say about this are that vintage fragrances often were similar to older, popular ones, and that while reformulations are often bad (as he stated), it’s still easy to get most of them at reasonable prices if you possess just a bit of patience!  Furthermore, there’s a lot more information now about how to identify a vintage bottle.

He more or less dismissed the great vintage masculines (especially those of the late 1970s to early 1990s) in their 2008 book, but didn’t explain why (at least to my satisfaction).  And in this 2018 book, he seems to be suggesting that now it’s highly likely you’ll get a bad reformulation if you go that route.  Obviously, if you started collecting them after you read the first book, you’d have quite a few that you obtained at very good prices, just like I did!  Turin then says that despite the lamentable state of things, there are still some perfumers providing us with fragrances that should be regarded as special.  Unfortunately, I have yet to encounter any of these, and I think the issue may be one of “artistry.”  Turin clearly believes in it, but to me, while I may really enjoy a scent for a short while (even one from the dollar store), it’s just going to register as “wear it once in a while” at some point in the near future, if it doesn’t rate even lower.  I’d rather just smell a new scent on a piece of paper, so that I’m not “stuck” with it for hours, and instead I’m usually content with a fragrance that has an obvious vanilla or amber note in the base, with just enough of something else to keep it from being too boring.  Moreover, I don’t seem to share his taste a good portion of the time in any case.

I guess it’s almost like a distraction to me these days, and what’s more, my sensitivity has been low for quite a while now, so I often don’t get much more than the top notes.  Even a powerful Jacques Bogart scent seems of just moderate strength.  Then, as I was reading through the reviews, I was thinking that there aren’t any fragrances that interest me!  If you told me you’d send me a sample of half of them, I wouldn’t want to waste the time reading about them!  The reason is that I just don’t care if a fragrance is a slightly different take on oud, oud/rose, leather, iris, gourmand, sandalwood, etc.  I’ve got so many bottles that I can’t even remember everything I’ve got, let alone try to figure out what I should wear on a given day!  Usually, something just pops into my mind and I decide to reach for this or that bottle.  I decided to write up a response to the BN post, which was:

I got involved in this hobby just before the first “Guide” was published, and a lot has changed for me, one of which is my thoughts about these olfactory concoctions. Back then, I got a copy of the book a couple of months after it was published (still have it), and read it within a few days. There was still so much to learn. Not long thereafter I developed chemical sensitivity and couldn’t go near anything with lavender in it. That lasted a few months before normality returned, and I was able to detect more and more notes. Since then, I’ve gotten involved in other pursuits and my sensitivity is rather low. I can appreciate Fahrenheit as well as traditional cologne type compositions now (unlike back then), but in general I don’t find the same enjoyment I did for those first several years, at least on most days.

And I’m just as happy wearing a cheap knockoff (that’s well done) as the “real thing.” When I read the free preview (at Amazon) of the new book by LT and TS, it was not a trip down memory lane. Most of the fragrances I had never heard of, and I didn’t have any interest in trying any of them. What’s worse, I really didn’t care what was said. What hasn’t been done? Or what has been done (and not yet sampled), but I don’t think I’d enjoy? When I decide what to wear (and once in a while I don’t use any!), there’s plenty to choose from. Sometimes I can’t even find the bottle! I still do some blind buying and swapping if the deal is too good to pass up, but I can’t say there’s any scent I’d really like to acquire. In fact, if someone offered me enough, I’d sell my entire collection tomorrow (I’d keep some “cheapos”). I’m glad to see that the magic is still there for a lot of people, but on some level I’m glad I don’t spend as much time thinking about this stuff any more!

In an introductory chapter, Sanchez tells us that celebrity fragrances are “effectively over,” but what does that even mean?  She tells us that sales are slipping, but people who read their book probably don’t care.  They either don’t wear fragrances marketed this way or, like me, they buy what they think they will like (or were able to sample, and liked).  And there is no discussion of layering, from what I understand (I think it might have been mentioned in the 2008 book), which is a way to deal with low sensitivity (for me).  If there’s a new scent with a unique combination of notes, guess what?  I can usually figure out a layering combination that is close enough for me (such as Born Wild Men or vintage Pasah layered with Red Sea by Micallef instead of Viking by Creed, which I prefer to the Creed, actually).

So, while I agree with some of what they say, I do think that they don’t distinguish between the different kinds of people who do much thinking about these olfactory concoctions.  I don’t remember reading anything about the effect Youtube reviewers have had, for example  At least they could mention that they don’t watch any and have no idea, if that’s the case.  It is mentioned that they have sampled thousands of fragrances since the first book was published, and as at that time, it seems to me that if you do that and do it competently, you wouldn’t have any time to enjoy your favorite ones!  Could it be that they find so much blandness because they don’t give many or even most of the fragrances they sample enough time to show what they can do over the course of hours?  It’s easy to dismiss a scent as “crude” if you just smell some rather strong and obvious top notes, but perhaps a few hours later things have really come together and it smells considerably better.  “Cheapos” often have this quality.

I’m not sure what this all means to this blog.  I think I’ll have enough motivation to  write up a post or two per month, but I’m not sure about the content.  I feel that I’ve explored as much as I want to, or perhaps 95% or more.  Will that other 5% or so be enough to sustain this blog?  If I don’t sell most of my collection in the near future, I should be able to write posts on just my reassessments for a long time to come, and I still have more than a few samples that I have yet to try!  So, I think the blog will keep going, but I wonder how much enthusiasm will exist, and whether it will be obvious to readers that there’s not much remaining, if that continues to be the case.  At least I often perceive the scent in at least a slightly different way than the prior wearing, but it’s also common for me to like it less than I did before.  One good thing is that I’m not spending much, even though I had mostly been buying $25 or cheaper bottles, and most of them were probably sub-$15!

Over at the NST blog, there’s a recent example of what I’m referring to, in Anela’s review of Musc Encensé by Aedes de Venustas:

Musc Encensé might be a non-musk musk. Me, I smelled a comfortable, warm musk like Coty Vanilla Musk, but much less sticky and thick…

How about incense? Any incense in Musc Encensé is subtle and not sharp or dank…

All in all, Musc Encensé is the ideal fragrance for someone who wants a warm, delicious, non-intrusive background scent to toss on. It doesn’t make a statement. It doesn’t demand attention — or detract from it. True, Musc Encensé might not break new ground.

https://www.nstperfume.com/2018/07/10/aedes-de-venustas-musc-encense-fragrance-review/

The best part?  It’s “only” $245 for 100 ml!  Seriously, the industry has gone off the rails on the crazy train.  Why would anyone have any interest in such a fragrance who has at least a bit of experience with niche?  It seems like Angela is trying to make it sound better than I probably would, especially after all the excellent incense and musk fragrance releases in the last decade or so (most of which cost a lot less, such as the Molinard Musc that cost me $12/100 ml a couple years ago).  But what impression is she trying to give the reader?  Why not say something like, “this is a good scent for someone who wants to try niche out for the first time but probably won’t enjoy anything too edgy, and who is rich?”  She says it’s for someone “who wants a warm, delicious, non-intrusive background scent to toss on,” but how many such people exist?  Yes, I agree there are quite a few who will buy a scent like this, but not at $245 for 100 ml, or even $100.  Is Angela rich?  Perhaps she should tell us that she can go around buying these kinds of fragrances the way I buy dollar store scents, if that’s the case, and then it would make a lot more sense, IMO.

Leave a comment

Filed under The basics.

Should a guy get insensate if sprayed with a “feminine” scent ?

Image result for charlie chaplin modern times

I’ve found it interesting how some “veteran” members of Basenotes seem to think there is a sharp “gender line” with these olfactory concoctions and that the friendly people in control of multinational corporation X, Y, or Z know exactly where that line is drawn! Some others, such as Luca Turin, argue that these gender distinctions mostly involve top notes. And of course, most aficionados know that if you toss in a lavender note that is quite noticeable, you can turn a “feminine” into a “masculine,” especially these days, with so many super-sweet “masculine” scents on the market. I have come to conclude that while such generalizations are interesting to ponder on an abstract level, these aren’t all that useful in practice.

Instead, I prefer to think about actual scents, and one that immediately comes to mind is the 1993 release, Insense, by Givenchy (I’ve only worn the original formulation, I believe on three occasions separated by more than a month) . Turin and others seem to think this was too “daring” for its time, but is it less daring today? And is it daring in terms of the actual smell or the marketing? After all, plenty of aficionados will buy a “feminine” scent with a strong leather note, such as Cabochard, for instance. Another notion is that a “masculine floral” is highly problematic, though plenty of aficionados seem quite positive about Amouage’s Lyric Man. Is it the case that if a scent is clothed in the garment of “niche” it’s acceptable to be “floral?”

I could not understand the appeal of Insense. The florals are strong and sharp, as is a fruity/citrusy quality, which I don’t enjoy either. After that it slowly dissipates over time, with a resinous quality becoming more and more obvious, though it never distinguishes itself. Fragrantica.com lists thse notes for it:

Top notes are aldehydes, black currant, lavender, mandarin orange, bergamot, lemon and basil; middle notes are magnolia, lily-of-the-valley and iris; base note is fir.

The reviews for it on Fragrantica are quite interesting. Few mention the “feminine” element, at least one person calls it “delicous” (this is the opposite of delicious to me!), and most talk in abstract terms. This one is interesting:

Top notes are horrible. Acrid. But after 10 minutes, it transform into a floral for men. Strong sillage, longevity is also good (around 5 hours). I was actually imagined I was taking a nap under a shady tree beyond the yellow meadow field…

What is a “floral for men?” Is it that there is a fir/resinous quality that is a bit stronger than it might be in a similar, yet “feminine” scent? If so, that is strong evidence for the claim that these notions are entirely due to “cultural conditioning” (including marketing efforts). In any case, fifteen years later David Yurman’s first scent is released, with these notes:

…mandarin, and fresh green notes of black currant leaf and petals, followed by floral notes of peony, water lily, rose otto, patchouli, exotic woods and musk.

To me, though the compositions are not the same, the underlying idea is. That is, you get the fruity quality that is not especially “feminine” and the sharp florals, though these are not as sharp in Yurman (which is an improvement, IMO)., to begin the proceedings. Then over time a base that is at least “unisex” comes forward. In Yurman, this is a woody/oudy and somewhat chemical-smelling accord. Yurman has more of a watery than fruity texture at first, but what I dislike in both is the strength of the lily-of-the-valley type notes. Also, if I want that fir/resinous quality, I can opt for vintage Ferre for Men or Nino Cerruti’s 1979 “masculine” offering without having to deal with strong florals (I generally like florals as supporting notes or to counterbalance another strong note or accord).

In Yurman, the florals eventually are balanced by the woody/oudy element, but I can’t say I enjoy this combination all that much. It’s interesting, but not all that enjoyable to me. However, I do look forward to wearing the Yurman scent again, when I think I am really in the mood for it. I don’t intend to wear Insense again (I have a small decant right now), but since my preferences have changed multiple times, I’ll keep an open mind. There are quite a few reviews of Yurman at Fragrantica, but other than mine, I’m not sure if any others were written by men! And this is just one “feminine” scent that I happen to come across at a big discout – I have no idea how many others might be similar, at least in some significant way, to Insense! In other cases, I have found some scents one might consider clearly “feminine,” such as the 2010 Mariah Carey release, Lollipop Splash Vision of Love, to be more “masculine” than Insense. Here are the notes for that one:

Top Notes: juicy mandarin, coconut and star neroli. Heart: French macaroon, purple jasmine and white peach. Base: sandalwood, vanilla infusion and creme de musk.

I’m not sure if I’d wear any of these in public, but that’s simply because I have so many to choose from there’s really no reason to do so, as I’m not a “statement-making” kind of person, at least when it comes to things like clothing, hairstyle, and fragrance. I’ll conclude here by saying that it’s likely the case that those who have convinced themselves that the good folks at multinational corporation X, Y, or Z know what they should smell like, at least in terms of “gender” (has there been a scent released that was marketed to the “trans” community yet?), are not going to sample a scent like Yurman or the Carey, but that won’t stop me from trying to “open some minds” with this blog !

NOTE: For those who don’t know, the general idea behind Insense may be said to date back at least to a number of mid/late 1970s scents: Halston’s 1-12, Devin by Aramis, and Nino Cerruti’s 1979’s “masculine.” All feature some sort of strong “green” element (galbanum and/or fr/pine), along with citrus up front and obvious florals (usually jasmine and carnation), with the usual lavender as well. And in 1992 Salvador by Salvador Dali was released, again with a similar idea. Yes, Insense goes further than those, but it’s certain not a composition one should associate with a perfumer who lost his mind! For me the problem is “wearability,” not taking “gender issues” into account, as Insense is harsh at first but really doesn’t do anything better than the others mentioned (and it’s not especially complex, which doesn’t help).

Leave a comment

Filed under Criticizing the critics., The basics.

The designer scent that’s a failed attempt at niche.

Vetiver Essence Ferrari for men

You may have heard the phrase, “a designer attempt at niche” before, but I often find it not to be applicable or to be at least somewhat misplaced, though I think this is the perfect way to regard Ferrari’s Essence Vetiver (though not successful, IMO).  Fragrantica.com lists the notes as:

…Calabrian bergamot, red and Sichuan pepper and cardamom. The heart includes aroma of coffee, orris root and essence of vetiver. Patchouli, tonka and hazel wood form the base of the perfume.

The first time I wore it, a dab sampling, I didn’t smell much at all, so the second time I decided to go with four sprays to the chest.  There’s an orange-ish quality that’s a touch sour and sort of bounces around at low volume, which is more odd than irritating or pleasant.  My review included the following:

… I can’t say I smell an obvious vetiver note but it does smell like an odd murky composition. Yes, it seems that spice, patchouli, etc. and even coffee is present, but it’s sort of like taking bright oil paints and blending them together until you get a medium brown color with just hints of the original pigments. So I do find it interesting but not all that enjoyable. It’s not sweet, nor animalic, at least not yet. I’ll update if anything changes. The dull color of the bottle certainly seems appropriate!

And it didn’t last all that long either, which was another disappointment.  If this was a typical Lutens with the same notes I would be really interested in sampling it, and I would be surprised if I didn’t like it.  Most likely it would have a heavy amber, patchouli, and/or tonka base, but this one just peters out over time, never really smell more than somewhat interesting.  Here’s another Fragrantica review that is similar:

Down right disappointing 😦
Nothing in this fragrance smells genuine!
Not the vetiver (what I bought it for.. no wonder people say “not for vetiver lover”), not the cardamon (silly me, hoping for something like Voyage d`Hermes), not the bergamot (I just smell something sour and fresh-ish green), and definitely not the potentially gourmand hazelnut and coffee (one can only hope)…
However, it does deliver the sharp peppers [opening] and the patchouli [drydown], which doesn’t help -_-
Interesting maybe, but overall a pretty messy cheap smelling commercial type

I wish I had perceived strong patchouli with the drydown, and I didn’t get the sharp pepper he did, but it does give me an idea!  Next time I should apply a strong patchouli scent underneath where I spray Vetiver Essesnce.  If and when I do that, I’ll update this post.  Otherwise, my experience is that these “niche-like designer” scents are really “hit or miss.”  Franck Olivier’s Oud Touch is really great for the $15 I paid for 100 ml, by contrast.  There were some very positive reviews, though, such as:

I really enjoy this fragrance, everything works well together and it’s almost like nothing I have smelled before, least in my neck of the woods. Drydown is amazing. Like what you like and wear it, I do…

And there was also the idea that it’s a good “starter vetiver” scent, but I got so little vetiver that I can’t agree with that notion.  However, I did pay less than $18 for 100 l new, and so if you like the note list and can sample it, I’d certainly say try it, but as a blind buy I can’t recommend it.  Even if you like the scent you might be disappointed with the longevity and/or projection.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Fragrance Reviews.

You just can’t satisfy some people!

Image result for sliman covered in mud

The title refers to the frequent one reads about generic scents.  I have no problem with that criticism, if it seems to make sense, but then you can’t turn around and say that this or that scent is too weird or vile.  There are only so many things the average human in the world today is going to like, and there have been thousands and thousands of scents released in the last decade, so how much variation can there be without word getting out that a whole bunch of them smell weird, vile, or whatever?  They are mostly “variations on a theme” at this point, with perhaps a new aroma chemical providing a slightly different take on one of those themes.  If you want to complain about a weird or vile scent, why don’t you take a moment to tell us what you think a really unique scent would be like?

I decided to write this post specifically after reading reviews for Horizon Extreme by Davidoff.  No, I don’t think it’s anything special (for me), but it is a bit distinct.  Some seem to think it’s another kind of  type scent, for example, here’s one Fragrantica review of it:

I wish it could be exaggeration when I say this smells absolutely fecal off of the skin. stick to davidoff horizon (the non extreme version).

Even if this were true, why smell it up close?  It’s clearly not going to smell that way from a distance (a company like Davidoff/Coty wouldn’t market such a scent in their mainstream lines). The listed notes at Fragrantica.com are:

…top notes of grapefruit, ginger and rosemary cross into the warm heart of cedar, cypriol, leather and nutmeg. Accords of amber and creamy sandalwood are to be discovered at the base.

Here’s my review of it:

Fecal? Heavy leather? Vetiver? Fireside warmth? No, not for me. I can understand how one might detect this or that note, but none are strong. In any case, what I think this does well is to recreate those “old school” scents like Van Cleef & Arpels for Men, but without the lavender. I first did a dab sample, and after a while I could smell leather clearly, but then I wore it again, two sprays to the chest, and it’s mostly a “masculine” blend. At first I got something orangy, and the musk is there for a long time, first aiding with a dry/herbal quality and then after a couple hours it’s a bit powdery but otherwise quite blended. It’s never sweet and I never got anything fecal. Also, if you like the old school scents I doubt this one will be too much for you in any way. In fact, it might be a bit underwhelming. Now if I had used five or more sprays it might “bloom” differently. One person, I think at BN, said this was a dirty/oud type scent, but I have no idea where that perception could originate. I agree with the person who said there is a “coolness” to the drydown, and so I could not categorize this as an oriental. Overall, at a low price, it could be worth a blind buy for those who know what they want.

Just the diversity of the review suggest they were on to something with this composition, but when you go beyond generic you run the risk of not making enough sales because too few buy these concoctions for uniqueness!  Another scent of theirs, The Game Intense, also is anything but generic.  The notes for that one are:

Top note is gin; middle notes are orris and blackwood; base notes are labdanum and patchouli.

And here’s my review of it:

I agree with those who say to give this one some time and then it’s special. And while there may be a touch of this or that aroma chemical, it is blended very well, so that it’s not obvious. If you think you’ll like this, I’d say a blind buy is to be considered, but don’t think you are getting J. Bogart type strength here; instead, you are getting subtlety (something you don’t get with JB scents). Prices at the moment led me to a blind buy, and this is the kind of flanker that might not have been produced in large quantities, so waiting to find it in a bargain bin may not be wise! Also, as far as naming and marketing a scent is concerned, for me this would be best situated in the Varvatos Dark Rebel line; how about Dark Rebel Chain Smoker?

UPDATE: After several hours the chemical nature is apparent (though not strong), but it’s still a “dirty” scent with a touch of something sweet, and overall it holds together rather well, especially if price is taken into account (that is, comparing this one to similar niche).

So, if you want to complain about generic scents, then why don’t you tell us which ones you find so much more interesting and wearable?  At least then we would have a sense of your preferences and we could assess your reviews accordingly.  The same things goes when you say a scent is some sort of horror show.  I applaud Davidoff for releasing these two scents.  The original and Zino may not have been all that novel for the time, but both are among the all time greats, IMO, and while I don’t like Cool Water for Men, it certainly was a new kind of composition when it was released.  How many recent “masculine” designer releases are similar to 1 Million, Invictus, Bleu de Chanel, etc?  What would be the point of another one of those?  Truly novel releases are often related to new aroma chemicals, or at least the decision to use a huge amount of an aroma chemical that had previously been used judiciously.  Today, you can buy the aroma chemicals and more or less try to do it  yourself, if you have what you believe to be a unique idea that would work well.  But if, like most people, you’re not going to do that, don’t expect something incredibly novel and pleasant-smelling from mainstream designer lines.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The “technically incompetent” scent.

A couple of recent “super cheapo” didn’t work out to well for me.  Now it’s one thing to outright dislike a scent, because then you can swap it, sell it in a lot of others you dislike, or give it as a gift (or to charity).    But what happens when you read about the notes and some decent (or better) reviews, and you like the scent, but can barely smell it, and it doesn’t seem to matter how much of it you spray on yourself?  This is quite irritating!  And it’s what I consider to be due to technical incompetence, because at this point we know that these kinds of scents are all rather inexpensive to create (the liquid portion), and so one has to ask why these kinds of scents are marketed when a few cents more would make them strong enough to satisfy a lot more people.  Why take the risk of turning people off to an entire “house?”

The worst example of this I’ve encountered so far is Swiss Army Rock.  The price was low, about $10 total for 100 ml, and the notes sounded great (other than the lavender, which I find to be too strong in many “masculines”).  Parfumo.net has the following note list:

Top Notes Top Notes Artemisia, Caraway, Lavender
Heart Notes Heart Notes Nutmeg, Cedarwood, Frankincense
Base Notes Base Notes Patchouli, Leather, Benzoin

Other than the lavender, I was also concerned that a nasty “white musk” might be used, but the musk is actually one of the few good things I can say about this one.  I could say it’s not woody, nor sweet, nor is there much if any patchouli, etc., but when I wore this (3 full sprays to the chest!), my thought was, What am I smelling here?  And then my next thought was, How can anyone release a scent like this?  Interestingly, it is similar (in terms of this quality) to another scent I’ve mentioned on my blog, Club Intense by Sergio Tacchini.  But compared to Rock, CI almost seems technically competent!  Now I have have some luck with recent blind buys; Playboy VIP Edition Black is great (about $7 for 100 ml), and not just for a super cheapo (though of course it might not be to everyone’s taste).  Bogart’s One Man Show Oud Edition is not too far from Dior’s Leather Oud (though after a while I do detect a little iso e super peeking through).

And speaking of iso e super, another blind buy that went wrong is Wild Forest by Armand Basi.  This one had a few reviews, which sounded good.  The notes for that one are:

Top Notes Top Notes Pepper, Nutmeg
Heart Notes Heart Notes Violet leaf, Cedar
Base Notes Base Notes Vanilla, Frankincense, Leather, Patchouli, Ambergris, Musk

There was talk of wood, frankincense, pepper, and violet leaf.  Someone (at Fragrantica.com) mentioned.  One person compared it to Armani’s Privé Bois D’encens:

I use it as a more economical alternative to my Giorgio Armani Privé Bois D’encens. I love the frankincense note, really masculine.

And the bottle looks great (if you don’t mind that trees get destroyed for this purpose) – even the cap is wood and has some heft to it.  But while there was a hint of a kind of sparkling green quality at first, it soon became a weak iso e super “nothing scent.”  Despite coming across as little more than iso e super, it was so weak it didn’t bother me at all.  I had to use my hand to waft it up to my nose in order to detect the iso e super.  Is this supposed to be “nouveau minimalism?”  What a great idea (bottle, name, and concept) ruined by an apparent attempt to put almost nothing that can be smelled into the bottle, other than a hint of iso e super.

And while I would be the first person to say, “perhaps my sensitivity is just really low now,” this has not been happening with other scents.  In fact, a couple days before I wore Rock, I wore Unlimited, also from Swiss Army/Victorinox, and it was not only strong enough with one spray, but I was also able to detect the mild patchouli in the base, which imparted a subtle but great “dirtiness” to the scent.  Now that is the kind of dynamism and note contrast I enjoy!  This leads me to think I should “quit while I’m ahead” in the blind buying game.  There were a few others I could have bought at really low prices, such as One Man Show Ruby Edition, but the reviews held me back.  I’m thinking this may be part of a trend, and I don’t want to waste any more money on it!

I think we need a new designation for these scents.  And while “pre-formulation” would be something a jaded aficionado might suggest, I think nearly everyone would agree on “light musk” (I don’t think “light chemical” is going to work, though that’s what I got from Wild Forest, essentially).  That way I know that the notes will be blended nearly into oblivion, but that I will at least get a pleasant, though almost imperceptible scent as a musk that will emanate in wafts (and last quite a while).  For all I know, a lot of people want exactly this kind of scent!  And I should mention, as I have in past posts, that these kinds of scents can function well in layering combinations (as Club Intense has for me), but that doesn’t make it technically competent as a “personal fragrance,” IMO.   As things stand, if you say the scent is an Eau de Toilette and list notes such as the ones for Wild Forest or Rock, you are going to look quite bad when people compare them to scents that might even cost less, such as ones by Cuba, Playboy, Bogart, Lapidus, Jovan, etc., and possibly even some “our impression of” type scents (I really like Dark Flower and Slam, by Dorall Collection, for example).

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

An update on Halston 1-12 formulations.

Halston 1-12 Halston for men

I wrote up a long post about my perceptions of changes in Halston’s Z-14 and 1-12, which you can read here:

https://bigslyfragrance.wordpress.com/2013/05/19/the-disintegration-of-the-fabulous-halston-brothers-z-14-and-1-12/

The other day I had an opportunity to buy an EA formulation of 1-12 at a good price.  That’s not uncommon right now, but what was is that it was in a box with the “short list of ingredients.”  I did some research and found this in a review of 1-12 at Fragrantica.com:

It has, without a question been reformulated. The result is a lot thinner, weaker, less ‘gutsy fragrance’. The boxes look similar except for the fact that evernia prunastri (oakmoss) and evernia furfuracia (tree moss) are not listed as ingredients on the new box. Also, Benzophenone 2 ( a UV absorber) is not on the new box, while butylmethoxydibenzoylmethane, ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate, ethyl salicylate are new ingredients listed. The first two are something to do with absorbing UV (they are used in sunscreens) and the ethyl salicylate smells like wintergreen. It seems that the Benzophenone 2 was removed as it is not approved for use in US sunscreens as it is a possible hormone disruptor.

I hadn’t sampled an older EA formulation of it, so I was curious, but after reading the above and also having learned that the short list of ingredients means the scent was made somewhere between 1998 and 2003 (or so many claim), I thought I’d get a “vintage” formulation.  The batch code is 3HA, and one of the batch code sites says 2013, which likely means 2003, because some companies reuse them every ten years.  Benzophenone 2 is listed but butylmethoxydibenzoylmethane, ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate, and ethyl salicylate are not.

This does indeed smell like my “true vintage” bottle, with strong galbanum.  It may be at touch less complex, rich, and/or strong.  Prices on ebay can be great if you just have patience and wait for a listing that is “vintage.”  Other information about this box/bottle (125 ml size):

On the front of the box it says Natural Spray Cologne Vaporisateur.

The label on the bottom of the bottle says French Fragrances, not EA Fragrances, but it was sealed in plastic so the seller likely would not have been willing to open it up to look, though it may not matter.

The most important thing seems to be to find a box with the “short list of ingredients.”  This one has five items listed in total.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized