Magnolia
Parma
278 Reviews
Translated · Show original
Parma
Very helpful Review
16
Sometimes, being detail-blind helps
Neil Chapman writes in his book 'Perfume' about the heavenly purity of magnolia: „… is almost impossible to replicate in perfume“ (121). Such a statement triggers me. When someone like Matilde Laurent, with the freedom of a house perfumer at Cartier (no market tests, independent of fashion trends, certainly a decent budget, training at Guerlain) and access to the fragrance palette of IFF, sets out to recreate this flower, I was eager to see the result. Especially knowing that the Les Épures line, in which Pur Magnolia was released, has been a long-held wish project of hers, where she aims to showcase the “unobstructed, natural beauty” of the selected protagonists (Les Nez “The Big Book of Perfume”, 112). And even more so, as I believe she created the most naturalistic and beautiful lily of the valley scent available on the market with 'Pur Muguet'. This sets the bar quite high.
Why she ultimately fails in my view, I will try to explain as clearly as possible, as my impressions of this fragrance are mixed.
On one hand, I see a wonderfully balanced composition with predominantly excellent ingredients. On the other hand, I see a lack of naturalism and an excessive tendency towards a designer DNA.
But from the beginning…
My first impressions were as follows: dew-fresh, multifaceted, sensitive, vibrant, and naturalistic. An incredibly beautiful, clear, and uplifting fresh floral scent. A reason to hope for something truly beautiful.
This image is composed of a rather unusual fruit note that is fresh, transparent, slightly watery, and minimally sour, while also carrying some sweetness. Slightly honey-like. It most reminds me of a mix between a pear and a cross between watermelon and honeydew. The freshness arises from the typically subtle watery quality of the components as well as the slight sourness of the pear. The unsweetened sweetness from the respective fruit flesh. They lend the fragrance something unconsumed and very lively. Furthermore, they are certainly meant to realize the sweet and fresh facets of magnolia. However, here already shows the tendency to not take naturalism too seriously. Because the fruit notes are too distinctly recognizable to pass as something inherent to the flower. Taken on their own, however, they appear extremely natural and valuable.
In the transition to the floral heart note, lotus may serve as a bridge, whose watery, fruity-sweet consistency shares many of the characteristics of the top note, but also includes the lovely floral aspect and supports the additional subtly bitter characteristic of the floral note with a green nuance. Because the floral impression unites alongside freshness and loveliness also a slight strictness, which, alongside all carefree transparency, lends it a touch of adult seriousness. Contrary to the very succinct note indication (“Magnolia”), likely kept brief for marketing reasons (emphasizing the Les Épures character), the heart note, in my feeling, generates from the combination of several floral notes. On one hand, there is the lily of the valley, which contributes a distinctly fresh green and slightly bitter tone. Then I also think I recognize a fresh rose and freesia, albeit somewhat subdued. Additionally, jasmine and perhaps ylang-ylang likely contribute to the delicate sweetness. But this is so well woven together that, together with the melon-pear fruitiness, the approximate impression of a magnolia is created. Very delicate and transparent, miles away from flashy designer fruity-florals.
The head and heart notes are finally underpinned by a shampoo-like musk, which is cautious and finely dosed (also in contrast to many designer fragrances from regular lines) and reminds me in its consistency of freshly washed, still damp hair that squeaks a bit when you slide your fingers through it. This impression, in turn, closes the circle to the slightly watery characteristic of the top note and gives the fragrance a distinct diffuseness and attractiveness. As pleasant as this effect is, it undermines the naturalism of the magnolia expression.
Up to this point, I would have rated the fragrance significantly higher, but the musk develops further into a laundry detergent direction, which ultimately robs it of all naturalness and also takes a clear turn towards mundane designer fragrances. That is a pity, as it does not do justice to the ambition of the series or generally to an exclusive line, and seems unnecessary to me. This is complaining at a high level, as for the most part the fragrance is very valuable and compositionally beyond any doubt, but at the price point and the associated exclusivity concept, it does not fit in my opinion.
In my view, it is the most mainstream-oriented fragrance of the line and is also marked as the most popular on the brand's own website. That does not surprise me.
These criticisms, however, take nothing away from my fundamental fascination. With the - slightly overdriven - fruit note and the floral note, there stands an extraordinary basic structure, which could have been made much more naturalistic with a different base choice. And considering Neil Chapman's assessment that replicating a magnolia note is difficult, Matilde Laurent succeeds in this regard quite well over large stretches, especially if my impression is correct that no magnolia absolute was used here, but rather a construction through accords.
However, now and then - when I have already forgotten the fragrance - within the first six hours, I am caught by a light wave of this incredibly dew-fresh-lovely floral quality, and then I think that I should rate it higher. Then it seems to me - and I am sure any perfume enthusiast can relate - that through too much analysis and concentration on detail, the view of beauty is obstructed or partially obstructed. One should rather try to see the overall picture, just as it likely reaches someone who perceives the fragrance in passing. But that is of course nearly impossible.
Why she ultimately fails in my view, I will try to explain as clearly as possible, as my impressions of this fragrance are mixed.
On one hand, I see a wonderfully balanced composition with predominantly excellent ingredients. On the other hand, I see a lack of naturalism and an excessive tendency towards a designer DNA.
But from the beginning…
My first impressions were as follows: dew-fresh, multifaceted, sensitive, vibrant, and naturalistic. An incredibly beautiful, clear, and uplifting fresh floral scent. A reason to hope for something truly beautiful.
This image is composed of a rather unusual fruit note that is fresh, transparent, slightly watery, and minimally sour, while also carrying some sweetness. Slightly honey-like. It most reminds me of a mix between a pear and a cross between watermelon and honeydew. The freshness arises from the typically subtle watery quality of the components as well as the slight sourness of the pear. The unsweetened sweetness from the respective fruit flesh. They lend the fragrance something unconsumed and very lively. Furthermore, they are certainly meant to realize the sweet and fresh facets of magnolia. However, here already shows the tendency to not take naturalism too seriously. Because the fruit notes are too distinctly recognizable to pass as something inherent to the flower. Taken on their own, however, they appear extremely natural and valuable.
In the transition to the floral heart note, lotus may serve as a bridge, whose watery, fruity-sweet consistency shares many of the characteristics of the top note, but also includes the lovely floral aspect and supports the additional subtly bitter characteristic of the floral note with a green nuance. Because the floral impression unites alongside freshness and loveliness also a slight strictness, which, alongside all carefree transparency, lends it a touch of adult seriousness. Contrary to the very succinct note indication (“Magnolia”), likely kept brief for marketing reasons (emphasizing the Les Épures character), the heart note, in my feeling, generates from the combination of several floral notes. On one hand, there is the lily of the valley, which contributes a distinctly fresh green and slightly bitter tone. Then I also think I recognize a fresh rose and freesia, albeit somewhat subdued. Additionally, jasmine and perhaps ylang-ylang likely contribute to the delicate sweetness. But this is so well woven together that, together with the melon-pear fruitiness, the approximate impression of a magnolia is created. Very delicate and transparent, miles away from flashy designer fruity-florals.
The head and heart notes are finally underpinned by a shampoo-like musk, which is cautious and finely dosed (also in contrast to many designer fragrances from regular lines) and reminds me in its consistency of freshly washed, still damp hair that squeaks a bit when you slide your fingers through it. This impression, in turn, closes the circle to the slightly watery characteristic of the top note and gives the fragrance a distinct diffuseness and attractiveness. As pleasant as this effect is, it undermines the naturalism of the magnolia expression.
Up to this point, I would have rated the fragrance significantly higher, but the musk develops further into a laundry detergent direction, which ultimately robs it of all naturalness and also takes a clear turn towards mundane designer fragrances. That is a pity, as it does not do justice to the ambition of the series or generally to an exclusive line, and seems unnecessary to me. This is complaining at a high level, as for the most part the fragrance is very valuable and compositionally beyond any doubt, but at the price point and the associated exclusivity concept, it does not fit in my opinion.
In my view, it is the most mainstream-oriented fragrance of the line and is also marked as the most popular on the brand's own website. That does not surprise me.
These criticisms, however, take nothing away from my fundamental fascination. With the - slightly overdriven - fruit note and the floral note, there stands an extraordinary basic structure, which could have been made much more naturalistic with a different base choice. And considering Neil Chapman's assessment that replicating a magnolia note is difficult, Matilde Laurent succeeds in this regard quite well over large stretches, especially if my impression is correct that no magnolia absolute was used here, but rather a construction through accords.
However, now and then - when I have already forgotten the fragrance - within the first six hours, I am caught by a light wave of this incredibly dew-fresh-lovely floral quality, and then I think that I should rate it higher. Then it seems to me - and I am sure any perfume enthusiast can relate - that through too much analysis and concentration on detail, the view of beauty is obstructed or partially obstructed. One should rather try to see the overall picture, just as it likely reaches someone who perceives the fragrance in passing. But that is of course nearly impossible.
Conclusion:
A fundamentally wonderfully delicate, lively, dew-fresh magnolia scent, where one should not look too closely at the details, as the magic somewhat fades there. And which should be refreshed after about 4-5 hours to avoid the “laundry detergent phase.” But it definitely smells very good, and for magnolia lovers or lovers of fresh floral scents, it is certainly worth a test.
24 Comments
KatAnLo
Puderliese
Parma
Ana123
