Translated · Show originalShow translation

Profumo
Top Review
24
What Chanel's 'Pour Monsieur Concentrée' Could Have Been, But Was Not...
'Tiffany for Men' is a variation on the classic fresh chypre concept masterfully crafted by Henri Robert for the House of Chanel, called 'Pour Monsieur'. This was, and still is today, a fresh, cologne-like scent with a spicy heart and a bitter-resinous base of labdanum and oakmoss borrowed from the legendary 'Chypre' by François Coty. A fine, albeit quite fleeting fragrance that urgently needed a volume boost in the decibel-saturated 80s.
Chanel's house perfumer created two variations: one for the main house itself, called 'Pour Monsieur Concentrée', and one for the fragrance line of the world-famous jewelry manufacturer Tiffany, named 'Tiffany for Men'.
Which one is better is largely a matter of disagreement, but most, myself included, prefer the latter.
However, they are not, as is often claimed, nearly identical. Despite a recognizable similarity, they exhibit differences that are not insignificant. Chanel's variation develops noticeably in a spicy-oriental direction with a distinct nutmeg and vanilla accent, while Tiffany's version takes on a distinctly woody-powdery nuance (rosewood), leaning more towards a subtly ambered-oriental style à la 'Habit Rouge'. In fact, 'Habit Rouge' is the fragrance to which 'Tiffany for Men' tends, coming from Chanel's 'Pour Monsieur', thus becoming a kind of bridge between the two classics. It manages to unite both concepts within itself - the fresh-spicy chypre with the powdery oriental.
In contrast, 'Pour Monsieur Concentrée' - nomen est omen - remains closer to the original, although it strays so far from it that one can hardly recognize it as being closely related, especially in its later phases.
I do not know which of the two fragrances Jacques Polge composed first (they were released almost simultaneously), but I suspect it was 'Pour Monsieur Concentrée', as I can hardly imagine that 'Tiffany for Men' developed from the 'Concentrée'. Rather, the reverse seems to be true: 'Tiffany for Men' is an evolution of the 'PMC' based on the classic by Henri Robert. This would also explain why so many view 'PMC' as a kind of violation, or at least a failed reinterpretation of the original, while 'Tiffany for Men' is generally recognized as an independent masterpiece by Jacques Polge. Interestingly, although the Tiffany scent is more independent, it paradoxically comes closer to the old Chanel fragrance than the new one, as it creates an almost identical aura: that of the cultivated, casual elegance of a (not necessarily conservative) gentleman, while 'PMC' adopts a more conservative, almost statuary stance. 'Tiffany for Men' is lighter, more ethereal, less statuary - just like the original, but with more substance.
However, I must admit that despite all efforts for an objective assessment of these three closely related perfumes, I cannot escape a purely subjective evaluation: I love the original, while I do not like the 'Concentrée' at all, and I admire (but do not love) the scent from Tiffany.
What I find admirable about 'Tiffany for Men' is primarily its fantastic manners: presence and subtlety are in such perfect balance that one neither feels the scent disappears due to excessive refinement (see the latest creations from Hermès), nor does one become an appendage of the fragrance, being 'carried' by it. 'Tiffany for Men' does not scream, but it does not whisper either.
To a passionate lover, it may still seem too pale, too anemic, and to a constantly active sports enthusiast, probably too undynamic - but as a stylish and cultured companion, especially in situations that require a certain dress-up, it is almost unparalleled.
However, one should like the bitter undertone of a chypre fragrance, as well as powdery and spicy notes. But those who have no issues with 'Habit Rouge' and can enjoy Chanel's 'Pour Monsieur' should find themselves well served with 'Tiffany for Men'.
A gentleman's fragrance at its finest!