Lauder for Men Estēe Lauder 1985 Cologne

This fragrance is a phenomenon: those who know and wear it describe it in hymn-like terms and often use words like: sophisticated, distinguished, complex, rich and sparkling in mostly English-speaking blogs.
Only: almost no one knows it. This is also noted with astonishment by those who do know it. How is it that this fragrance is so unknown that it is consistently and reliably overlooked, that it is hardly ever discussed in internet forums, and when it is, it is usually accompanied by the question posed to all discussants: Why is this fragrance so little appreciated? For example, one of my favorite reviewers (Off-Scenter) from Basenotes writes: “What ultimately puzzles me about Lauder for Men is how such a fine fragrance can be so little known or discussed. Frankly, it’s a hidden treasure, and probably one of the most underrated and underappreciated scents I know of.”

From the moment of its launch in 1985, this phenomenon was observable: Lauder for Men appeared suddenly, without much fanfare and without being particularly advertised. Until then, all men’s fragrances from the house of Lauder had been released under the Aramis label, but this one was not. For whatever reason.
And while houses like Chanel, Dior, and Yves-Saint Laurent advertised their products with ever-increasing budgets, and their commercials sought to outdo each other in creativity and effort, Lauder remained strangely inactive. Thus, Lauder for Men ended up somewhere on the lower shelves, often unfortunately not next to its half-brothers from the Aramis line, and certainly not next to its sisters. Typically, it was placed among various unsold items, as there was no successful predecessor fragrance from which it could benefit, even if only by being placed in a more prominent position on the shelf. There could have been with the Aramis fragrances, but as mentioned: very few saw a connection here, and so Lauder for Men was treated somewhat like the famous ‘black sheep’ of a family: one tries to distance oneself from it.
I am sure that if the fragrance had been integrated into the Aramis family, it would have received far more attention and probably greater appreciation.

Despite all the disregard, the mere fact that it is still around (not a given after a quarter of a century) is already a small miracle and shows that it apparently still finds recognition at Lauder today. Rightly so, in my opinion.

Lauder for Men belongs to the group of aromatic fougères that has been so popular and successful since the mid-seventies, represented by famous fragrances like Azzaro pour Homme and Paco Rabanne pour Homme. It is a group of fragrances that combines the classic, powdery-soapy barbershop accord with an aromatic facet, for example with anise, rosemary, bay leaf, or sage. Some add an animalistic facet to this aromatic aspect, such as Azzaro pour Homme, Kouros, or indeed Lauder for Men, which sometimes emerges so clearly that in the case of the latter two, one could rather speak of animalistic fougères than aromatic ones.
Kouros celebrates this animalistic side to the point of almost unbearable extremes. Lauder for Men does not do that. It is more modest, far less offensive, and moreover fresher, more radiant, and transparent. Nevertheless, some perceive this animalistic side of the fragrance as very unpleasant. Someone once described this scent as a rough fellow who, when he comes home, takes off his shoes only to make himself comfortable on the couch and puts his feet with stinky socks on the table.
This image has stuck with me, oddly enough not because I share it, but because I do not share it at all. This seemingly self-evident display of one’s own odors, with which some fragrances from that time seem to flirt, I cannot find in Lauder for Men at all. On the contrary: for me, the fragrance embodies cultivated elegance, paired with the promises of masculine-erotic vibes. Not an unwashed exhibitionist who shamelessly displays his genitals, no: a cultivated man aware of his unbroken attractiveness and sexual appeal, equipped with disarming self-confidence and natural authority - that is Lauder for Men!
This image is reinforced for me by a fine tobacco aroma that runs through the middle and final phases of this fragrance and has an almost magical effect on me. As a child, I loved to smell my father's moist pipe tobacco - I adored this sweetly bitter scent. I find it again in Lauder for Men, very subtly and quietly, but distinctly recognizable.
A fragrance that would wonderfully suit a man like Richard Gere, but I can also imagine it well on a woman: perhaps on a strong, rather cool beauty in the style of Gena Rowlands. It would certainly make an enormous impression!

For a cologne, this fragrance has surprisingly good longevity and a subtle but distinct projection. All stages of the fragrance development, the fresh-aromatic start, the spicy-floral heart, and the subtly animalistic, woody-powdery base glide gently and silently into one another and are perfectly balanced.
Actually, whenever I wear Lauder for Men, I am asked what kind of fragrance that is that smells so good. And every time I mention the name, I get an ‘Aha’ in return, and I feel that it has once again not made a lasting impression.
The phenomenon continues....

PS: I would love to know who created this fragrance, and I can only imagine no one other than Bernard Chant. His style, the sophisticated complexity, the gentle, never intrusive, delicate animalistic penetration, the finely balanced composition, the almost cool sobriety that characterizes his other works, all of this is also found here - Lauder for Men bears his stamp. But was it really him? He, the great Chyprier? Did he also compose this wonderful fougère, after all the other great works for the Estée Lauder house?