6
Very helpful Review
powerful athletic elegance
This is a review of the pre- 1990 formulation:
Overall impression: To me this is an austere, "severe Parisienne” perfume. (Yesterday's Perfume blog really captures this aspect of the perfume.) Not girlish or feminine but powerful, athletic elegance. Definitely a masculine-for-women scent.
Initial impression:
very sharp, astringent, sticks to the nose, like intense witch hazel, physical effect like rubbing alcohol or VOCs (benzene), acetic but I can’t smell any citrus like orange or lemon or lime just intense witch hazel. Makes my nostrils tickle and slight headache over the brow.
1 hr later
still the sharpness but starting to see some of the floral, still its dominated by the sharp astringent undercurrent.
I disagree with those saying it has a powdery soap quality, but agree with those mentioning a smooth and creamy aroma that comes in and out around the sharp astringent undercurrent.
Not getting anything woodsy or flowery. just astringency and creaminess.
2 Hrs later
getting the leather, but its a cold and sweet leather rather than a warm dry leather along with the astringency and creaminess. Okay, easter lillies and leather.
4 Hrs later
Definitely leather, but the astringency keeps it in a somewhat different room, like not so discernibly leather. I compared it to my caramel colored Italian leather boots Some described it as woodsy, floral and sexy. I don’t get any of that. I get Italian leather boots and soft leather gloves, with a beautiful richly colored silk scarf and gold jewelry. Makes me think of a wood panelled library in the mansion of an equestrienne. If there’s any sense of soap, it’s definitely not “old school soap” but saddle soap -- or bees wax leather polish.
6 Hrs later: down to a gentle easter lilly plus touch astringent smell.
I’ve never really liked it for all that I’ve had multiple bottles of it and wore it quite a lot through the 80s, and up to now. It had this strange persistent intensity and austerity that was somehow discordant or jarring for me. But now that I understand the history of the scent and am better educated about it, it makes sense and its no longer a jarring experience. Weird. And I don’t think its just the power of suggestion, because I rejected many people’s characterizations of this fragrance while finding agreement with others.
Overall impression: To me this is an austere, "severe Parisienne” perfume. (Yesterday's Perfume blog really captures this aspect of the perfume.) Not girlish or feminine but powerful, athletic elegance. Definitely a masculine-for-women scent.
Initial impression:
very sharp, astringent, sticks to the nose, like intense witch hazel, physical effect like rubbing alcohol or VOCs (benzene), acetic but I can’t smell any citrus like orange or lemon or lime just intense witch hazel. Makes my nostrils tickle and slight headache over the brow.
1 hr later
still the sharpness but starting to see some of the floral, still its dominated by the sharp astringent undercurrent.
I disagree with those saying it has a powdery soap quality, but agree with those mentioning a smooth and creamy aroma that comes in and out around the sharp astringent undercurrent.
Not getting anything woodsy or flowery. just astringency and creaminess.
2 Hrs later
getting the leather, but its a cold and sweet leather rather than a warm dry leather along with the astringency and creaminess. Okay, easter lillies and leather.
4 Hrs later
Definitely leather, but the astringency keeps it in a somewhat different room, like not so discernibly leather. I compared it to my caramel colored Italian leather boots Some described it as woodsy, floral and sexy. I don’t get any of that. I get Italian leather boots and soft leather gloves, with a beautiful richly colored silk scarf and gold jewelry. Makes me think of a wood panelled library in the mansion of an equestrienne. If there’s any sense of soap, it’s definitely not “old school soap” but saddle soap -- or bees wax leather polish.
6 Hrs later: down to a gentle easter lilly plus touch astringent smell.
I’ve never really liked it for all that I’ve had multiple bottles of it and wore it quite a lot through the 80s, and up to now. It had this strange persistent intensity and austerity that was somehow discordant or jarring for me. But now that I understand the history of the scent and am better educated about it, it makes sense and its no longer a jarring experience. Weird. And I don’t think its just the power of suggestion, because I rejected many people’s characterizations of this fragrance while finding agreement with others.
NSku
