Top Notes 
Lavender
Apple
Bergamot
Heart Notes 
Rosemary
Geranium
Cyclamen
Pink pepper
Rose
Base Notes 
Sandalwood
Amber
Honey
Vanilla
Meggi
1018 Reviews
Translated · Show original
Meggi
Top Review
17
Smoldering Fire in Turquoise
Rarely have I experienced such a surprise as with the opening of Fuoco. I expected something somewhat spectacular and received... a completely conventional appearance. Like an XYZ fragrance from the turquoise-colored ones: a fresh start, quickly followed by an indefinable mustiness. This totally astonishes me, and I increasingly get the feeling that some manifestations of lavender simply do not work for me and can easily turn musty.
Where is the fire? Well, until not so long ago, making fire was quite a laborious task, so patience is required. A lot of patience, because it indeed takes quite a while. Initially, I mainly perceive sandalwood for hours on end, accompanied by a dustiness that patchouli occasionally gives off.
The floral, clearly herbaceous-green notes reveal themselves primarily on my wrist. There, at least unmistakably, and the geraniE could well be flanked by geraniUM, that is, cranesbill - which can be a real stinker. However, the company’s website of the good Paolo unmistakably refers to “geranio,” as the online translator informs me.
Only very hesitantly, and only after about five hours, does the fragrance slowly release a certain sharpness, which then goes beyond what the mentioned pink pepper usually offers. Nevertheless, I have more the impression of a sluggish smoldering fire at Douglas (perhaps an extremely sluggish barium salt is responsible for the green) than that of a blazing niche fire. Especially since the base, starting around the eighth hour, with its softly ambered wood-vanilla impression also fails to ignite my imagination or anything else.
For a deeper understanding, it may be significant that Fuoco is part of a series on the Four Elements. Perhaps within the framework set by this, the fragrances are meant to express connection rather than separation. Such a suspicion is close at hand, as it would undoubtedly have been easier to create a straightforward fiery scent that stands alone. However, a look at the ingredient lists of all four creations (the other three of which I do not know, of course!) shows unmistakable commonalities in the compositions. This also suggests that something intrinsically connected is meant to be varied, and a banal firecracker would not have fit that purpose.
Nevertheless, a stale impression of “theme missed” remains in my nose, which, together with the seemingly unsuitable opening for me personally and the overly conventional base, leaves a good portion of disappointment. Many thanks nonetheless to Angelliese for allowing me to test Fuoco!
Where is the fire? Well, until not so long ago, making fire was quite a laborious task, so patience is required. A lot of patience, because it indeed takes quite a while. Initially, I mainly perceive sandalwood for hours on end, accompanied by a dustiness that patchouli occasionally gives off.
The floral, clearly herbaceous-green notes reveal themselves primarily on my wrist. There, at least unmistakably, and the geraniE could well be flanked by geraniUM, that is, cranesbill - which can be a real stinker. However, the company’s website of the good Paolo unmistakably refers to “geranio,” as the online translator informs me.
Only very hesitantly, and only after about five hours, does the fragrance slowly release a certain sharpness, which then goes beyond what the mentioned pink pepper usually offers. Nevertheless, I have more the impression of a sluggish smoldering fire at Douglas (perhaps an extremely sluggish barium salt is responsible for the green) than that of a blazing niche fire. Especially since the base, starting around the eighth hour, with its softly ambered wood-vanilla impression also fails to ignite my imagination or anything else.
For a deeper understanding, it may be significant that Fuoco is part of a series on the Four Elements. Perhaps within the framework set by this, the fragrances are meant to express connection rather than separation. Such a suspicion is close at hand, as it would undoubtedly have been easier to create a straightforward fiery scent that stands alone. However, a look at the ingredient lists of all four creations (the other three of which I do not know, of course!) shows unmistakable commonalities in the compositions. This also suggests that something intrinsically connected is meant to be varied, and a banal firecracker would not have fit that purpose.
Nevertheless, a stale impression of “theme missed” remains in my nose, which, together with the seemingly unsuitable opening for me personally and the overly conventional base, leaves a good portion of disappointment. Many thanks nonetheless to Angelliese for allowing me to test Fuoco!
14 Comments
Seerose
JoT
