Alt-Innsbruck - Eau de Cologne Kosmetik R. Neuner / Proderma 1953

The basic framework of the meeting was already there, was to be written up the following evening and - well, a comment on Alt-Innsbruck pops up in my mailbox. And not from MaybachClubber93, but from one of the best known noble feathers on these pages, FvSpee himself. The analysis is, of course, excellent, informative, full of references, a pleasure to read. Hmph. Fortunately, I perceive Alt-Innsbruck a little differently in some respects and I also have another ace up my sleeve (keyword: balloon atomizer!). In this respect, maybe not everything is for the barrel after all; but I still wanted to keep a few weeks of respectful distance, which has now happened.

In the comments column below the mentioned review, the esteemed MonsieurTest is quite rightly surprised about the peculiar design of the label. Pale violet mountain ranges, one has to admit, seem a little peculiar and perhaps raise the question whether the people at R. Neuner or Proderma in the fifties were perhaps familiar with the good Albert Hofman. But no: In my opinion, the label in combination with the font gives the viewer a very excellent impression of the character of the content. To explain this now needs a short approach:
Besides menthol, this fragrance is known to consist mainly of a tobacco accord(?). Now tobacco is a fragrance component that I have never before been able to isolate reliably from any(!) fragrance with recurring success and with some matter of course - which I should be able to do easily as a long-time smoker of natural pipe tobacco. After the first sprays from the supplied balloon atomizer (a spitting, wheezing and whistling toy, by the way; you don't have to have one) I was once again at a loss: a thoroughly flowery, creamy (not powdery!) unisexer fills the bathroom. Not complex, but very distinctly smelling like my idea of an economic miracle fragrance. A lead crystal bowl full of dried flowers on a bobbin lace tablecloth, tending to be rather feminine. The methol note, on the other hand, was almost restrained. To stay in the picture: On the side table is merely a tin can of ice cream candy from Cavendish & Harvey opened.

I kind of liked it, but tobacco? As time went by it dawned on me: Alt-Innsbruck first and foremost quotes the delicate pink to bright purple inflorescences(!) of the tobacco plant (try Google image search)! This finding did not solve my basic identification problem with tobacco in perfumes, but it did open up the present fragrance to me completely: Pretty cosmetic, a thought of skin cream, violet flowers and a touch of mountain freshness thanks to menthol. Hence the complete absence of any fragrance development, despite a very decent shelf life. For me, Alt-Innsbruck was stamped as a "wellness" and care product of its epoch, not a perfume in the common sense. Sympathetic, but not quite mine. Seven points.

After a few weeks, the coughing one-hole atomizer got on my nerves completely. Unscrewed, put it back into the packaging, screwed on the regular lid: Next time you'll have a splashing, what the heck. A few days later, after a shave, I remembered that a reviewer had declared the EdC suitable for shaving and even insisted that it was an excellent after shave. I'll make it short: It's true! And not only that: the suddenly incomparably more powerful menthol (my cheeks felt for minutes as if they had been brought back from Everest by a narrow margin) gives the fragrance a clearly different balance. The flowery-purple kidney-table cheerfulness is pushed back, while the basically creamy impression remains; the unisex pendulum swings clearly in the direction of "masculine" and my face brightens up. Alt-Innsbruck is not only lively and pleasant, but timelessly good. The critical post-purchase candidate threshold (which I would place between seven and eight points) has been exceeded and in the meantime I am no longer happy to own Alt-Innsbruck just for scent archaeological reasons.

One thought remains: What is the reason why a change in the way some fragrances are applied causes such considerable differences in the scent impression, while others remain almost unaffected? Puzzling. But it's nice that even the simplest of scents can surprise us in this way.