Paco Rabanne pour Homme Paco Rabanne 1973 Eau de Toilette
3
Helpful Review
An obligatory history lesson
Inky crispness, that morphs into semi-sweet soapiness. During the first third of its evolution, the bouquet of herbs actually reminds me quite a bit of Jägermeister.
Hugely influential and vastly copied, which makes it difficult to rate. After all, you can't blame the original for smelling like its million derivatives. What bothers me personally, is that Paco Rabanne is mostly about its heart notes and not much else. The dry-down is very pleasant, sure, but somehow the structure feels ...flat.
Later additions to the genre explored the possibilities of the aromatic fougère with excellent artistic results (e.g. Azzaro PH, Dior jules or YSL's Kouros - all of which have survived their reformulations quite agreeably so far) and considerably widened the spectrum of what a single masculine can "do".
I wear Paco Rabanne Pour Homme occasionally and mainly just to celebrate its historical value. I've tried both vintage and contemporary versions, and - to nobody's surprise, I'm sure - the vintage version is more pleasant, more natural-smelling. But IMO the current stuff is still recognizable, contrary to what some people say. Sure. it has a sort of 'digitally modeled' feel to it, but still: if you hate the new one, you won't love the old one either.
Hugely influential and vastly copied, which makes it difficult to rate. After all, you can't blame the original for smelling like its million derivatives. What bothers me personally, is that Paco Rabanne is mostly about its heart notes and not much else. The dry-down is very pleasant, sure, but somehow the structure feels ...flat.
Later additions to the genre explored the possibilities of the aromatic fougère with excellent artistic results (e.g. Azzaro PH, Dior jules or YSL's Kouros - all of which have survived their reformulations quite agreeably so far) and considerably widened the spectrum of what a single masculine can "do".
I wear Paco Rabanne Pour Homme occasionally and mainly just to celebrate its historical value. I've tried both vintage and contemporary versions, and - to nobody's surprise, I'm sure - the vintage version is more pleasant, more natural-smelling. But IMO the current stuff is still recognizable, contrary to what some people say. Sure. it has a sort of 'digitally modeled' feel to it, but still: if you hate the new one, you won't love the old one either.
Hajuvana
