Isn't "Dior Homme," its offshoots, and the other fragrance classics of this brand enough to make money? Does the good name Dior really have to be used to bring something like this to market?!
Anyone who has read my comments on Davidoff's "The Game," "007," and Chanel's "Bleu de Chanel" knows how much I despise the current in-fragrance nuance in the men's sector, which is "sour-fresh." With "The Game" and "007," it all feels very synthetic-chemical. At least Chanel managed to incorporate a natural or nature-identical grapefruit.
Dior takes a middle path here. They opt for this strange but very trendy synthetic-sour direction, but let it appear natural with a lot of embellishment, offering decent sillage and about 12 hours of longevity on my skin. The aforementioned ingredients cannot be distinguished separately. They merely underpin the sour base tone, make it bearable, and push it into a more natural environment. I was almost inclined to make peace with it.
But!
With a house that has produced men's fragrances like "Eau Sauvage," "Jules," "Fahrenheit,"....... and the modern and innovative "Dior Homme," the disappointment is all the greater when they jump on a bandwagon that apparently fills the brand's coffers with a lot of money. "Bleu de Chanel" was also such a disappointment for fragrance lovers. These scents are just so mediocre.
Where are the innovations and ideas in the mid-price range?
The scent is indeed outrageous. I hate those interchangeable waters; really, something with grapefruit and synthetic incense, and finally with something undefinable amber... thumbs down Dior!
Nasenmann 10 years ago
Unterholz 10 years ago
