Fhfhfh

Among the various types of perfumes, the "theatrical" ones are my favorites.
To avoid misunderstandings, I am not referring to categories like "Fougere, Gourmand, or Chypre," etc. But rather to the nature of their presentation. There are the "Linear" ones, which are sprayed into the world with a big bang and remain unchanged within it, only to finally fade away unchanged at some point. Or the "classic three-parters," which dutifully burn through their built-in countdown: top, heart, and base.
And then there is the theater on the back of the hand - I count "Henry Cotton's In Red" among these. On the stage, characters appear, often in unexpected order, and have their dealings and interactions with one another. Depending on the piece presented, this is by no means a chaotic or random affair, and something like the division into three or five acts will always be comprehensible. Just like in the music hall, where everyone is always in agreement, it will not be the case in a proper drama.

As for the cast in "Henry Cotton's In Red," the fragrance note directory above provides that information. There is no plot development here. Just the beautiful observation that the piece presents itself a little differently each time, every day. Didn't the leather type (who isn't even listed) have a dramatic scene with Lady Rose yesterday, causing quite a stir? And today, she is so cool towards him, yet now so playfully flirtatious with Miss Alpine Violet?
Let everyone draw their own conclusions. However, the show is not entirely family-friendly - and is clearly aimed at men. Strong, but not loud. A clear, direct address, no flattery - but in no way boorish. The piece is unfiltered and witty. With a self-assured woman, it must be a hit.

There is little information to be found about the perfume line of Henry Cotton's (though I haven't made a research project out of it). Clearly a textile merchant who indulged in a perfume triplet in 1989 and hit the jackpot. Later, there were a few sparse attempts to build on that, but the results seem to have been disappointing - I am not familiar with them.

So, now comes the bad news: those interested must hurry very, very much. The species extinction has actually long since occurred (the moon prices testify to that), but from time to time, a specimen still appears in affordable innocence.

The other two - "Henry Cotton's In Green" and "Henry Cotton's In Blue" - are brother pieces in spirit. I have miniatures of them, but they have retreated into the untraceable depths of distant boxes. However, the memory of them made me acquire "In Red."

I am already looking forward to the next performance.

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).

Whatever artist names one of his works "Ecstasy" is not quite right in the head. No one can actually be that ridiculous. It really only fits in the category of "sex support."
One could leave it at that, but fortunately, the results of artists are often better than their sense of naming.
The perfume at hand is excellent - and by that, I mean: One of the Top Ten of the 21st century (of which we are currently in the 15th year - the year 2000 still belongs to the 20th century).
I have more or less systematically scanned the Terenzi line after the chance find "Ecstasy" (of the currently listed 17 perfumes as of 2016.02, I do not know 5) - none of them reaches its height.
Many will end up with what I call "ambery" (regardless of whether there is amber stuff involved or something else from the candy industry). Heavy, sticky, and one-dimensional.
But this one is not.
This starts fresh and voluminous and promising like the day of a faun under the Mediterranean sun. A large bouquet of herbs and spices is already at play on this summer morning - but by no means overwhelming. No, free after Hölderlin's "come into the open, friend," landscapes of the most delightful provenance unfold. And the excursion is worth it. It leads through magnificent panoramas of olfactory art.
And at the end of the day, one finds oneself in a place one has always wanted to be.
I can hardly understand why this poorly named perfume stands so much in the shadow within the Terenzi universe. For me, it belongs right at the top, on the winner's podium.

PS: I give 100% for perfumes that I believe I could wear 100 times with the feeling "this is it!" I have no doubt about "Ecstasy" (what a ridiculous name).

What is A Millennium Perfume? We are in the year 14 (some say 13) of the 21st century - so that would be the third millennium - isn't it a bit early to declare "A Millennium Perfume"? Of course, but who among us could wait until 3001 (no, 2999 is not enough) to timidly suggest: "Probably Pierre Bourdon's French Lover / Bois d'Orage is a Millennium Perfume" [by the way, the missing "d" is intentional]. I certainly can't. I'm not waiting that long. For understandable reasons, I believe.
To gauge why FL is a Millennium Perfume, one should hold "Portrait of a Lady" up as a counterpart. No, I won't say more (I can't, see there).
No, it's not the story that the perfume tells, starting with ash, followed by lipstick and farewell flower, then incense, then transcendence - how many TV series come with less than half of these ingredients...
It's the drama (in the sense of: performance) of the olfactories that wins. Because here, nothing smells like anything else and then comes this or that. Here, characters gradually enter the stage and no, there's no coming and going, but the cast, they stay and engage in dialogue with the other characters. A drama that unfolds over an entire evening.
Now here’s a little confession: Sometimes I am so business-like (or however you spell that) that I am compelled to listen to the ramblings of monologists. With FL on my wrist, that works perfectly. Nose on the wrist, eyes on the ramble. Rarely does the ramble win. The drama is (almost) always with FL.

PS 1: For all those wondering how FL smells, please consult the all-knowing pyramid. I could also recount it nicely illustrated, but why?
PS 2: The prudish Americans. No, they don't like "French." And "Lover" is also crap, they are quite Taliban about it. "Wood of the Storm" seems more appropriate to them, it hits harder, at least much better than allowing any sexual or even homo- connotations. Ah, who can help there… where the question of violence or love is always preferred to violence…
PS 3: Pierre Bourdon - the finely shaping watercolorist among perfumers. He will and cannot be forgotten. However, he will receive his Nobel Prize for a substance that is uncharacteristic for him: for FL. Such prophecy may be allowed.

Sometimes it’s better to write almost nothing than to write nothing at all. Even if such a comment will naturally earn the label "inferior opinion." Whatever.
1. Sergio Soldano is a manufacturer of great perfumes in the "user league" - intended for daily or constant use, but nothing that will entice connoisseurs to more than a flimsy grimace. But that’s not what it’s about anyway.
2. Sergio Soldano is a completely underestimated brand here, as it is largely unknown. Italian craftsmanship, by the way.
3. ''Yes for Men'' is definitely not to my taste. Why? Because I have an idiosyncrasy (aversion, allergy, nausea, hatred, violent fantasies, bloody tribunal visions and, oh god…) against Acquaten. Those disgusting calone-laden, brackish, nausea-inducing scent notes that are celebrated by unsuspecting souls as: fresh, oceanic, sea-salty and god knows what else. Celebrate, but I won’t be there (which will also be completely irrelevant).
4. Probably, however, this is a good scent - let those who can appreciate it be the judge…
5. Soldano is definitely a heavyweight perfume house.
6. (Anti-aquatic) men, try "Nero Scuro Men," that has caliber…
So a short note turns into a long one. Whatever. Look around…