Seerose
775 Reviews
Translated · Show original
Seerose
Top Review
Even though it is an inexpensive fragrance.
My best friend recommended a bottle of "Keshi, Treasure forever" to me, suggesting it is similar to Chanel No. 5 or "Moonwind" by Avon.
I am not familiar with Moonwind. I have tried to suppress my thoughts about Chanel No. 5 to avoid bias.
I would have liked to confirm my friend's enthusiastic opinion. But even though "Keshi Treasure Forever" from Lidl is an inexpensive fragrance reputed to be a dupe of Chanel No. 5, I truly cannot find anything of the classic Chanel scent in it.
Nevertheless, if a fragrance is successful and also inexpensive, I rate it higher in comparison to other fragrances.
In fact, "Keshi Treasure Forever" is quite an independent scent.
It starts immediately with a perfumey aquatic note, which is quickly followed by a very pronounced note of a synthetic blend of jasmine, tuberose, and gardenia.
The consistently aquatic note ventilates the otherwise very oppressive to animalic and unpleasant white flowers. I do not find this blend pleasant in "Keshi Treasure Forever" either, as I only rarely find it beautiful even in very good fragrances.
I consciously do not list the fragrances that smell excellent to me of these flowers here. That would simply not be fair.
After all, I do not smell any animalic jasmine here nor any tuberose note reminiscent of a not-so-fresh dishcloth, which I often perceive even in much more expensive fragrances. But I still find this white flower blend in "Keshi Treasure Forever" stuffy.
Then, a very sweet coconut macaroon note quickly follows.
Within an hour, the white flowers largely disappear, leaving a soapy sharp and still aquatic scent. The sillage is quite impressive. The coconut note has also vanished along with part of the sweetness. Now "Keshi Treasure Forever" could be perceived as a very synthetic cream scent, shower gel, or something similar.
So the fragrance remains and does not seem to want to fade quickly.
When I compare this to other enthusiastic comments and statements about inexpensive or even expensive branded fragrances, I can understand why users like this scent.
It is not like those fragrances that smell of gummy candy and sweet fruit nectars.
Not even vanillin and tonka enhance "Keshi Treasure Forever."
"Keshi Treasure Forever" is an original synthetic fragrance. I have smelled much more expensive fragrances that also rely solely on synthetics and that I found simply horrible.
"Keshi Treasure Forever" is not horrible, at most synthetically monotonous.
But if one claims that "Keshi Treasure Forever" smells similar to Chanel No. 5, I strongly disagree. "Keshi Treasure Forever" has nothing to do with it and does not need to.
Chanel No. 5 also relies on synthetics, but it recreates a chypre that is considered modern both then and now.
There can be no talk of chypre regarding "Keshi Treasure Forever."
There are no citrus notes at the beginning; the flower blend and the aquatic notes speak a different fragrance language.
Furthermore, there is a lack of a pyramid structure; there is only the first relatively short floral coconut phase, followed by the second, soapy-creamy, still aquatic, now algae-like developing note. This second note lasts a very long time.
There are no antagonists, such as woody notes, mossy notes, earthy notes, or vetiver.
I only smell a kind of very sharp ambroxan; a peculiar musk contributes to the sharp creaminess. Surely, coumarin plays a role as well. After a while, "Keshi Treasure Forever" really gets on my nerves.
One could say that "Keshi Treasure Forever" lacks the salt in the soup.
Even though some mass media report on the wonders of inexpensive supermarket fragrances.
I evaluate these reports, which I read earlier, as an attempt to sell consumers short. And with such easily believed modern media myths, one should always question what is intended and who truly benefits from it.
Because fragrances like "Keshi Treasure Forever" are indeed bait offers.
Then everyone who cannot afford a Chanel rushes to Lidl, and of course, they do not only buy the inexpensive perfume. Once you are in the supermarket, that little money for a fragrance can easily be overlooked, and the expense can be justified by picking up a few necessary, also inexpensive daily necessities.
I am not familiar with Moonwind. I have tried to suppress my thoughts about Chanel No. 5 to avoid bias.
I would have liked to confirm my friend's enthusiastic opinion. But even though "Keshi Treasure Forever" from Lidl is an inexpensive fragrance reputed to be a dupe of Chanel No. 5, I truly cannot find anything of the classic Chanel scent in it.
Nevertheless, if a fragrance is successful and also inexpensive, I rate it higher in comparison to other fragrances.
In fact, "Keshi Treasure Forever" is quite an independent scent.
It starts immediately with a perfumey aquatic note, which is quickly followed by a very pronounced note of a synthetic blend of jasmine, tuberose, and gardenia.
The consistently aquatic note ventilates the otherwise very oppressive to animalic and unpleasant white flowers. I do not find this blend pleasant in "Keshi Treasure Forever" either, as I only rarely find it beautiful even in very good fragrances.
I consciously do not list the fragrances that smell excellent to me of these flowers here. That would simply not be fair.
After all, I do not smell any animalic jasmine here nor any tuberose note reminiscent of a not-so-fresh dishcloth, which I often perceive even in much more expensive fragrances. But I still find this white flower blend in "Keshi Treasure Forever" stuffy.
Then, a very sweet coconut macaroon note quickly follows.
Within an hour, the white flowers largely disappear, leaving a soapy sharp and still aquatic scent. The sillage is quite impressive. The coconut note has also vanished along with part of the sweetness. Now "Keshi Treasure Forever" could be perceived as a very synthetic cream scent, shower gel, or something similar.
So the fragrance remains and does not seem to want to fade quickly.
When I compare this to other enthusiastic comments and statements about inexpensive or even expensive branded fragrances, I can understand why users like this scent.
It is not like those fragrances that smell of gummy candy and sweet fruit nectars.
Not even vanillin and tonka enhance "Keshi Treasure Forever."
"Keshi Treasure Forever" is an original synthetic fragrance. I have smelled much more expensive fragrances that also rely solely on synthetics and that I found simply horrible.
"Keshi Treasure Forever" is not horrible, at most synthetically monotonous.
But if one claims that "Keshi Treasure Forever" smells similar to Chanel No. 5, I strongly disagree. "Keshi Treasure Forever" has nothing to do with it and does not need to.
Chanel No. 5 also relies on synthetics, but it recreates a chypre that is considered modern both then and now.
There can be no talk of chypre regarding "Keshi Treasure Forever."
There are no citrus notes at the beginning; the flower blend and the aquatic notes speak a different fragrance language.
Furthermore, there is a lack of a pyramid structure; there is only the first relatively short floral coconut phase, followed by the second, soapy-creamy, still aquatic, now algae-like developing note. This second note lasts a very long time.
There are no antagonists, such as woody notes, mossy notes, earthy notes, or vetiver.
I only smell a kind of very sharp ambroxan; a peculiar musk contributes to the sharp creaminess. Surely, coumarin plays a role as well. After a while, "Keshi Treasure Forever" really gets on my nerves.
One could say that "Keshi Treasure Forever" lacks the salt in the soup.
Even though some mass media report on the wonders of inexpensive supermarket fragrances.
I evaluate these reports, which I read earlier, as an attempt to sell consumers short. And with such easily believed modern media myths, one should always question what is intended and who truly benefits from it.
Because fragrances like "Keshi Treasure Forever" are indeed bait offers.
Then everyone who cannot afford a Chanel rushes to Lidl, and of course, they do not only buy the inexpensive perfume. Once you are in the supermarket, that little money for a fragrance can easily be overlooked, and the expense can be justified by picking up a few necessary, also inexpensive daily necessities.
3 Comments
Seerose
Astraea
MissYvy
