Translated
Show original
Show translation
![FvSpee]()
FvSpee
Top Review
132
This isn't what it looks like now!
It is a truism that is repeatedly mentioned in this forum that a fragrance - at least when we approach it in the form of blind samples under laboratory conditions - is defined not only by its bland smell (this applies not only to the evaluation, but even already to the perception), but also by its accidentals: the colour of the liquid, the shape of the bottle, the face of the advertising campaign, the declaration as "male" or "female", the name of the product and the image of the company. For those who want to take a closer look, the perfumer, the pyramid of scents (which often enough lays the wrong tracks!) and perhaps the comments of the pre-reviewers will be added.
For me "Softly" by Jil Sander is a case where you can study this wonderfully: 107 owners (among them many who have given themselves cute nicknames like flakes and pink clouds, which I don't have anything against, by the way, "flakes" I even like very much) are here and one (1) owner. You can understand that: The fragrance is declared as "women's fragrance", the pyramid with magnolia, jasmine, orange blossom and vanilla could not come along more fluffy and what is still held in suspension by colour and shape (after all no pink and no plush) then tips over by the name of the little water: "Softly"! What kind of guy wants to wear "Softly"! Unless he's a self-confessed softie. But even then he would probably only use the corresponding handkerchiefs.
But I'd like to bet that this fragrance from Nathalie Lorson's extraordinarily productive 200 creations (a full-grown Boucheron series, an Amouage, three Cool-Water Flankers, two Le Labos, a whole bunch of other Jil Sanders and, certainly, her most famous creation: Encre Noir) would reach a completely different clientele with a different name and marketing as "unisex".
"Softly" is what I perceive today, after several days of use in a row (from a bottling purchased in the souk), just as it was about 2 years ago, when I first tested it and wrote a statement about it: Neither particularly soft nor extremely feminine. First of all, any sweetness or sweetness is completely lacking in him, as is any exaggerated fluffness or fluffiness; the cashmeran warning lights all remain completely dark. Despite vanilla, orange blossom, jasmine and musk, this is definitely not a candyfloss smell.
This fragrance starts with a very likeable citrus freshness note (with an emphasis on orange) that is as far removed from colognic crystalline clarity as it is from fabric softener flattery. In addition, there is a slightly soapy note which may well remind you of (a very good) detergent. This is not a cuddly soft, but a scent like orange-fresh (even a little bit towards Petitgrain or even Neroli breathed on) cotton; like a shirt or T-shirt that someone once walked past with a high-quality Cologne sprayer. After only half an hour, "Softly" has already connected itself to the skin and is actually no longer a "perfume" (which is why I am not surprised that 108 owners do not have a "signature fragrance"), but a skin odour enhancer, an emanation booster: it lends an aura of freshness, friendliness and cleanliness, perhaps also of balance and tranquility - but not a papery sluggishness, but the kind of tranquility in which the strength lies. In this mode, where our fellow human beings will perceive us as "smelling good" without being sure whether we have applied anything at all, "Softly" will still last a few hours.
I'm pretty sure there's some work involved in creating a fragrance that's so effortless, unobtrusive and effortless. Certainly not a milestone in the history of perfumery, but more than just a solid one: a perfectly balanced, discreet and elegant fragrance brightener that is just as suitable for firefighters and tilers as for feathers and flakes.
Top Notes 
Cotton
Mountain magnolia
Ginger
Heart Notes 
Orange blossom
Heliotrope
Jasmine
Base Notes 
Musk
Sandalwood
Vanilla
Steffi91
