03/04/2019
Turandot
38 Reviews
Translated
Show original
Turandot
Top Review
103
Nice - and that's meant nicely this time.
Once again I try to judge the fragrance from a different perspective.
Does Chanel already have this in their normal assortment?
No they don't, so that's a plus. Expands the customer base. Neither does it flower like Chance or Coco Mademoiselle, nor is it exhausting like N°19 or Cristalle. It also doesn't buzz like Coco or N°5. 1957 doesn't look back to old classics, but continues the clean Chanel DNA skilfully.
Does the scent polarize?
No - because he really isn't unpleasant or takes getting used to.
There's nothing buzzing, there's nothing provoking, you don't get involved either. You can find that good or boring. It is certainly not a mistake in the sense of the sales figures. So I can't help but think that the companies are not launching new perfumes to do something good for the world, but simply to make sales. I assume that the production costs will be covered by the limited edition. If not - N°5 creates the scope for everything to be paid by Chanel...
When it comes to fragrances that are considered powdery, I often flinch first, because either they are too one-sidedly iridescent for me - although I don't like irises to be inflationary - or the air stays away because I have the feeling that I have sneezed into a powder can or even worse into a packet of detergent. Neither of them I can accuse in 1957 and therefore I describe this rather dry note not powdery but rather silky.
Do you have to have this in your collection?
You don't have to do anything at all, but it would be a very useful fine and light addition to my Chypresammlung, for example, without being influenced by a sporty, citrus-fresh, tropical or other holiday mood-
to access it. 1957 is bright, friendly, considerate, calming, uncomplicated, flattering and yes, the fragrance will end up on my wish list, even if I don't want it to give rise to any very romantic feelings and I don't see it as the ultimate in Chanel's portfolio either. I like him and that's enough, because I'm my own yardstick.
As is well known, the term "superfluous" is often used as a nice word in fragrance evaluations. This time I mean it literally. Not only do I like the fragrance itself, I also like its restraint in terms of durability and sillage, and in terms of classification I simply assume that it was not explicitly presented as unisex, but that the subject was simply dropped under the table. It doesn't matter who wears it, as long as you feel comfortable with it.
Once again I think: Olivier Polge did everything right.
Does Chanel already have this in their normal assortment?
No they don't, so that's a plus. Expands the customer base. Neither does it flower like Chance or Coco Mademoiselle, nor is it exhausting like N°19 or Cristalle. It also doesn't buzz like Coco or N°5. 1957 doesn't look back to old classics, but continues the clean Chanel DNA skilfully.
Does the scent polarize?
No - because he really isn't unpleasant or takes getting used to.
There's nothing buzzing, there's nothing provoking, you don't get involved either. You can find that good or boring. It is certainly not a mistake in the sense of the sales figures. So I can't help but think that the companies are not launching new perfumes to do something good for the world, but simply to make sales. I assume that the production costs will be covered by the limited edition. If not - N°5 creates the scope for everything to be paid by Chanel...
When it comes to fragrances that are considered powdery, I often flinch first, because either they are too one-sidedly iridescent for me - although I don't like irises to be inflationary - or the air stays away because I have the feeling that I have sneezed into a powder can or even worse into a packet of detergent. Neither of them I can accuse in 1957 and therefore I describe this rather dry note not powdery but rather silky.
Do you have to have this in your collection?
You don't have to do anything at all, but it would be a very useful fine and light addition to my Chypresammlung, for example, without being influenced by a sporty, citrus-fresh, tropical or other holiday mood-
to access it. 1957 is bright, friendly, considerate, calming, uncomplicated, flattering and yes, the fragrance will end up on my wish list, even if I don't want it to give rise to any very romantic feelings and I don't see it as the ultimate in Chanel's portfolio either. I like him and that's enough, because I'm my own yardstick.
As is well known, the term "superfluous" is often used as a nice word in fragrance evaluations. This time I mean it literally. Not only do I like the fragrance itself, I also like its restraint in terms of durability and sillage, and in terms of classification I simply assume that it was not explicitly presented as unisex, but that the subject was simply dropped under the table. It doesn't matter who wears it, as long as you feel comfortable with it.
Once again I think: Olivier Polge did everything right.
38 Comments
Meursault
MissBiscuits
TRehf
RisingChaos
JoaoMartins
