6
Top Review
Not fresh, not wild, just extremely boring
Is this already consumer deception? There is nothing recognizable from the scent notes, and the name suggests energy and something extraordinary. Instead, a synthetically sweet-fruity mix comes along that is unbeatable in its ordinariness.
The scent is not inherently bad, but the best part about it is the bottle - and we all know how much that contributes to the fragrance. I do not understand the decision-makers behind this release. I strongly doubt their professionalism. To expect that an absolutely boring synthetic scent will be well-received, where buyers smell like a completely generic shower gel a few hours later, is incomprehensible to me.
When I encounter someone wearing this scent, I only think that the person knows nothing about perfume. I am the one who "runs wild" away from it.
I then took the effort to recreate the three listed scent notes. Of course, I do not know the undeclared notes and the mixing ratio. But I wanted to see which direction the scent would take if the empathy really lies with the listed scent notes.
And what a "surprise," a completely different scent emerged, with no resemblance whatsoever. There is no trace of cinnamon in the original. The freshness of lavender is also absent; the slight soapiness appears in Run Wild after a while, but it is unlikely to come from the lavender, as this occurs later and relatively weakly with lavender.
I also search in vain for the fir balsam in Run Wild, as the scent drifts from the Ambroxan / Benzyl mix to Calone in the heart phase, and any fir balsam, if it is even in the scent, is completely overpowered. The sweetness in the scent comes from something else; I have no idea what.
Strangely enough, Run Wild develops into a musty-sweet weakling, despite all the chemistry.
Tastes differ, so Run Wild will surely find a few buyers. However, I would sincerely recommend to them not to buy the scent at the release price, but to wait a few months until it is offered at a discount price.
The scent is not inherently bad, but the best part about it is the bottle - and we all know how much that contributes to the fragrance. I do not understand the decision-makers behind this release. I strongly doubt their professionalism. To expect that an absolutely boring synthetic scent will be well-received, where buyers smell like a completely generic shower gel a few hours later, is incomprehensible to me.
When I encounter someone wearing this scent, I only think that the person knows nothing about perfume. I am the one who "runs wild" away from it.
I then took the effort to recreate the three listed scent notes. Of course, I do not know the undeclared notes and the mixing ratio. But I wanted to see which direction the scent would take if the empathy really lies with the listed scent notes.
And what a "surprise," a completely different scent emerged, with no resemblance whatsoever. There is no trace of cinnamon in the original. The freshness of lavender is also absent; the slight soapiness appears in Run Wild after a while, but it is unlikely to come from the lavender, as this occurs later and relatively weakly with lavender.
I also search in vain for the fir balsam in Run Wild, as the scent drifts from the Ambroxan / Benzyl mix to Calone in the heart phase, and any fir balsam, if it is even in the scent, is completely overpowered. The sweetness in the scent comes from something else; I have no idea what.
Strangely enough, Run Wild develops into a musty-sweet weakling, despite all the chemistry.
Tastes differ, so Run Wild will surely find a few buyers. However, I would sincerely recommend to them not to buy the scent at the release price, but to wait a few months until it is offered at a discount price.
Translated · Show original
4 Comments
I think so too. Foods that get their flavor mainly from aroma rather than the added ingredients have to be labeled as "yogurt with strawberry flavor." I find Davidoff's practice terrible, as blind buyers who go by notes are being misled this way.