
Fhfhfh
8 Reviews
Translated · Show original

Fhfhfh
Helpful Review
7
We Forest Runners
Well, we forest runners have it tough. I'm not saying this to elicit sympathy.
Our favorite ingredients are fleeting, like ghosts in daylight. Fir, spruce, larch, conifer, juniper (forest?) & co.: as rapid top notes (= spirit from the bottle) they overwhelm us and deceive us into believing in eternal fulfillment (= lasting durability). But the beautiful illusion quickly collapses - usually within minutes. Often, a grumbling mixture of oak moss (lasts long, but isn't really very forest-like), earthy patchouli notes (nothing against that) and/or general woodiness (cedar and family) follows.
But that is not what the forest runner is looking for.
He wants to immerse himself in the shady, moist green beneath the trees - and wants to linger there. It can be earthy/mushroomy (but not too much), it can be bitter (but definitely not sweet), woody-green anyway - and it should be allowed to develop. But it must remain forest.
"Tears of Eros" - I don't want to go further into the name, see below - offers this: you enter the forest, and a beautiful, diverse spectrum of aromas unfolds. Over time, the little concoction retains its character, changes as well, but also stays strong on track - with great performance. So, the grand world theater does not take place here - everything remains in the forest. And that is far more than other representatives of the genre have to offer.
To briefly address two peculiar reservations.
* "Tears of Eros" is really a silly name. It shares this with about 70% of all perfume names. I have long found it incomprehensible how an industry that belongs to the luxury segment, where everything must be perfect - packaging, advertising, faces, costumes - can launch so many silly names. Can't they afford the 25€ for a linguistically creative employee? It remains a mystery. However, it also remains incomprehensible to me how such a silly name can become the subject of a fragrance critique.
* I cannot understand how so much is said about "synthetic" ingredients here. It is well known that well over 80% of all scent substances in contemporary perfumery consist of aromatic chemical compounds - this does not stand out particularly here, with ToE, (in contrast to, for example, 98.5% of all substances labeled "oud," which are usually 100% synthetic and smell that way). Why "synthetics" are particularly noted here - I cannot comprehend.
Finally, the details I often look for: We are talking about an EdP with a retail price of 155€ for 50ml (2020.03).
It was worth the price to me. Also in light of the fact that 19 reviewers could only muster a 58% rating. A, in my view, grossly undervalued stock.
This is the opinion of a forest runner.
People who prefer to stay in their comfort zone may want to keep their distance. It's not for everyone (but it's also not extreme in any way).
Our favorite ingredients are fleeting, like ghosts in daylight. Fir, spruce, larch, conifer, juniper (forest?) & co.: as rapid top notes (= spirit from the bottle) they overwhelm us and deceive us into believing in eternal fulfillment (= lasting durability). But the beautiful illusion quickly collapses - usually within minutes. Often, a grumbling mixture of oak moss (lasts long, but isn't really very forest-like), earthy patchouli notes (nothing against that) and/or general woodiness (cedar and family) follows.
But that is not what the forest runner is looking for.
He wants to immerse himself in the shady, moist green beneath the trees - and wants to linger there. It can be earthy/mushroomy (but not too much), it can be bitter (but definitely not sweet), woody-green anyway - and it should be allowed to develop. But it must remain forest.
"Tears of Eros" - I don't want to go further into the name, see below - offers this: you enter the forest, and a beautiful, diverse spectrum of aromas unfolds. Over time, the little concoction retains its character, changes as well, but also stays strong on track - with great performance. So, the grand world theater does not take place here - everything remains in the forest. And that is far more than other representatives of the genre have to offer.
To briefly address two peculiar reservations.
* "Tears of Eros" is really a silly name. It shares this with about 70% of all perfume names. I have long found it incomprehensible how an industry that belongs to the luxury segment, where everything must be perfect - packaging, advertising, faces, costumes - can launch so many silly names. Can't they afford the 25€ for a linguistically creative employee? It remains a mystery. However, it also remains incomprehensible to me how such a silly name can become the subject of a fragrance critique.
* I cannot understand how so much is said about "synthetic" ingredients here. It is well known that well over 80% of all scent substances in contemporary perfumery consist of aromatic chemical compounds - this does not stand out particularly here, with ToE, (in contrast to, for example, 98.5% of all substances labeled "oud," which are usually 100% synthetic and smell that way). Why "synthetics" are particularly noted here - I cannot comprehend.
Finally, the details I often look for: We are talking about an EdP with a retail price of 155€ for 50ml (2020.03).
It was worth the price to me. Also in light of the fact that 19 reviewers could only muster a 58% rating. A, in my view, grossly undervalued stock.
This is the opinion of a forest runner.
People who prefer to stay in their comfort zone may want to keep their distance. It's not for everyone (but it's also not extreme in any way).
6 Comments



Hyacinth
Cedar
Benzoin
Frankincense
Ambergris
Cardamom
Clementine
Gaiac wood
Labdanum
Orris butter
Pink pepper
Jellified Sandstone





Yatagan
Ergoproxy
Sweetsmell75
DaveGahan101
Jensemann
Caligari
Globomanni
Parfumista16
Intrepid





























