Liviuss

I do not like it at all. sweet, cloying and tacky. trite and hackneyed, rose, synthetic saffron, patchouli and sweet notes in syrup that give it projection and sillage... no. no. no. There's nothing radical about it at all, on the contrary... it reminds me of several perfumes put together. I would recommend anyone who likes that genre to look into the Malle house, which is a completely different matter. to be clear, the perfume is not bad in the sense that it smells bad, but it is bad and is unacceptable to me for the type of smell it has.

It's not bad, but I can't say it drives me crazy either... liqueur absinthe and an earthy background note. It hardly evolves at all, remains pretty stable throughout the duration (moderate) and doesn't project much. I wouldn't buy it because it didn't convey much to me but I don't deny its intrinsic qualities.

citrus, vetiver, woody notes and ambroxan. pleasant perfume, certainly pleasant and "beautiful" in the more banal meaning of the term. it costs a lot and has nothing special, it could easily be replaced with one of the many similar ones already on the market and it wouldn't be missed... in short.... to my nose, although pleasant, it is a generic perfume masculine, already felt and not worthy of the money it costs... suitable for the summer season, the hold on skin seems rather above average, but in drying the note of ambroxan emerges even more which makes me feel it too much with a shower gel effect. .. definitely? nice but nothing new, you can find really similar ones at a fraction of the price.

It's a great perfume but, perhaps due to laziness, although I've been using it for a few years (in the original version, of course), I've never bothered to write my opinion on it. The point is that there isn't much to say, the perfume is all in all "simple", it's bitter green and musky, with very light hints of leather and aromatic herbs, a base not at all sweet but dry and musky. Discreet projection but persistent scent. Don't listen to those who describe it as a performance bomb or as a driven animalic, that's nonsense; evidently the nostalgia for things past together with the dancing memory, alters the memories... The perfume is animalic, but in the sense that it has a musky base which however does not stink at all but is, in fact, a "white" musk. to say. In short, it is an animalic different from the Kouros, Antaeus, Bel Ami and Gentleman genres. It has NOTHING to do with stuff like Captain Molyneux, Trussardi Uomo and company... The new one I have no idea what it might be like but, if you want something similar in genre, I can recommend trying Chypre Siam by Rogue, the genre and the vibes are the same,.. the perfume is different but it is a valid alternative with a sweet base that differs from the dry one of Jules. The problem with this perfume, for those who only discover it today, is that it is quite rare and therefore its price is quite high; is it worth it? I don't know... what is certain is that the quality level is very high, the aromatic yield is typical of the 80s.

very very similar to Jazz by YSL, Drakkar Noir by La Roche and co.--. the genre is identical, the fougere with dihydromyrcenol which gives that shower gel effect. I don't mind it, in fact, I find it better than Jazz but it's not my kind of fougere. That synthetic note makes it feel cheap to me, like those perfumes from the stall... I much prefer Pour Homme I by Ungaro which, although it has a slight note of dihydromyrcenol, continues in the diametrically opposite direction with a unique and unrivaled evolution. the sensation of shower gel. Overall, not bad but it doesn't make me crazy or want to find a few bottles, not for now...