Westenra
Reviews
Westenra
Translated
Show original
New brooms sweep well
I am aware that benevolent statements about reformulations and new editions are often perceived as iconoclasm and sacrilege by die-hard fans of the "originals". I don't necessarily always take myself out of this. As a long-time owner of the "original" - to what extent it is not anachronistic to equate a fragrance that has naturally matured and concentrated in the bottle with the new bottle that you bought many, many moons ago remains to be seen - I dare to say that this fragrance has its raison d'être. In the following, I would like to explain why and compare the fragrance itself with the old version - first from memory, and then in direct juxtaposition.
The fragrance is available in two sizes, 100 ml and 15 ml, and this (as of 2024) exclusively on the Jean Paul Gaultier website. The bottle design is simple, the large one is square, its atomizer is decorated with a kind of "slave ring", the lettering of the name is broken up over several lines. I like the bottle - in contrast to the 15 ml version, which comes in a very simple cylindrical bottle with a simple golden cap and linear lettering. For me, the design evokes the inexpensive "Spirit" fragrances from the drugstore.
The fragrance notes are all very heavy and therefore cannot be divided into top, heart and base notes and include jasmine, vanilla, musk, ambergris and sandalwood, so jasmine and sandalwood have been added to the old fragrance from 2005. When the fragrance is sprayed on, with knowledge of the old version, the scent impression is prima facie the same for me: warmth, a slight sting, sweetness and something slightly animalic. However, without having made a direct comparison, I instinctively knew that the similarity in juxtaposition would be much less, because: I like this one. There's a reason why I still have the rest of the old version. I wasn't enthusiastic. I'll go so far as to say I didn't like it. Very pungent on me, headachey, kind of wrong, almost tilted. Maybe it was also because I bought my little bottle back then to cover up an olfactory jumpscare at the time, the first time Jicky was on the back of my hand. Who knows. In my opinion, the intensity is at least the same, very strong and very long-lasting.
After running the fragrance today and finding a priori that it is, with reservations, a worthy replacement, I just rumbled through my stepchildren at the back of my perfume cupboard to make a direct comparison with the old version. And lo and behold, there are clear differences, which I think could have an impact on the demographic that the fragrance will appeal to.
The jasmine now included makes the new version significantly sweeter and, in my opinion, rounder - one person's "roundness" may, however, be another's "diffuse indefinability", nothing is in the foreground in the new version, or is even decidedly recognizable. In contrast, ambergris is the absolute star of the old version - in my opinion, the fragrance even has quite a Le Male, almost "showery" vibe in direct comparison to the new version. However, it was precisely this unrestrained ambergris that made the fragrance borderline unpalatable for me. As a result, I think the new fragrance had a lot more unisex appeal, pun not intended, than the new version, which I think is a little more feminine, a little more pleasing, less eccentric and a lot more digestible overall. Apologies to the purists: if it was too strong back then, then I was just too weak.
Could this have been a flanker? Certainly. Should the new one HAVE been labeled as a flanker? I don't think so. What counts for me is that I like it. Not everything was better in the past and there were reasons why the old version was discontinued and, for once, I think the new fragrance surpasses the old one.
The fragrance is available in two sizes, 100 ml and 15 ml, and this (as of 2024) exclusively on the Jean Paul Gaultier website. The bottle design is simple, the large one is square, its atomizer is decorated with a kind of "slave ring", the lettering of the name is broken up over several lines. I like the bottle - in contrast to the 15 ml version, which comes in a very simple cylindrical bottle with a simple golden cap and linear lettering. For me, the design evokes the inexpensive "Spirit" fragrances from the drugstore.
The fragrance notes are all very heavy and therefore cannot be divided into top, heart and base notes and include jasmine, vanilla, musk, ambergris and sandalwood, so jasmine and sandalwood have been added to the old fragrance from 2005. When the fragrance is sprayed on, with knowledge of the old version, the scent impression is prima facie the same for me: warmth, a slight sting, sweetness and something slightly animalic. However, without having made a direct comparison, I instinctively knew that the similarity in juxtaposition would be much less, because: I like this one. There's a reason why I still have the rest of the old version. I wasn't enthusiastic. I'll go so far as to say I didn't like it. Very pungent on me, headachey, kind of wrong, almost tilted. Maybe it was also because I bought my little bottle back then to cover up an olfactory jumpscare at the time, the first time Jicky was on the back of my hand. Who knows. In my opinion, the intensity is at least the same, very strong and very long-lasting.
After running the fragrance today and finding a priori that it is, with reservations, a worthy replacement, I just rumbled through my stepchildren at the back of my perfume cupboard to make a direct comparison with the old version. And lo and behold, there are clear differences, which I think could have an impact on the demographic that the fragrance will appeal to.
The jasmine now included makes the new version significantly sweeter and, in my opinion, rounder - one person's "roundness" may, however, be another's "diffuse indefinability", nothing is in the foreground in the new version, or is even decidedly recognizable. In contrast, ambergris is the absolute star of the old version - in my opinion, the fragrance even has quite a Le Male, almost "showery" vibe in direct comparison to the new version. However, it was precisely this unrestrained ambergris that made the fragrance borderline unpalatable for me. As a result, I think the new fragrance had a lot more unisex appeal, pun not intended, than the new version, which I think is a little more feminine, a little more pleasing, less eccentric and a lot more digestible overall. Apologies to the purists: if it was too strong back then, then I was just too weak.
Could this have been a flanker? Certainly. Should the new one HAVE been labeled as a flanker? I don't think so. What counts for me is that I like it. Not everything was better in the past and there were reasons why the old version was discontinued and, for once, I think the new fragrance surpasses the old one.
3 Comments
Translated
Show original
Let go/Eau de nett
This is followed by a rather lengthy, larmoyant introduction.
Fragrances can be rated very differently. The individual Parfumo entry as a stand-alone work. You can compare fragrances with similar notes that have a similar fragrance character, fragrances from a certain period, fragrances that you associate with a certain type of person. Do fragrances from one brand belong together? Or those of a perfumer? I maintain that these schemes are fundamentally very subjective. Nevertheless, and I apologize for the extrapolation, I think that all the fragrances under the Thierry Mugler label, and to a certain extent still under "Mugler" under the aegis of L'Oreal, are linked by a common thread, the essence of which was the eccentricity and love of their father, Manfred Thierry Mugler. I was launched the same year as Angel, grew up with him and Alien was omnipresent in my formative years. As a result, I had an inherent aversion to the L'Oreal creations, especially those that appeared after Mugler's death. They were, and to be honest and let the "it" speak for itself, still aren't one of them. I once attended a lecture in which it was explained that quality of life can be measured by how close reality and desire are to each other - and sometimes, if there is no other way, you have to lower your expectations. Mugler is dead. In every respect. The eccentric fragrances, the lovely, diverse flacons, the campaigns, the love. Gone. In the meantime, I have come to terms with Mugler 2.0. Mugler is nice. The fragrances that adorn themselves with the names, foreign feathers of glorious times past, are too.
Enough first-world wines.
The bottle, like the rest of the independent Muglers now unified under L'Oreal, corresponds in design to the Aliens bottle, but has a champagne-colored hue. The outer packaging is white and decorated with the outlines of flowers.
The fragrance opens slightly citrusy fresh with bergamot in the top note, which then fades more and more and only remains as a veil over the rather sweetish other notes, never making them sticky.
In addition to the citrus freshness, the coconut is immediately noticeable and harmonizes perfectly with the vanilla and jasmine sambac it contains. This conglomerate may seem somewhat diffuse due to the lack of distinction between the individual notes, but the Egyptian jasmine it contains once again prevents the fragrance from drifting into sticky confectionery, and there is also a recognizable correspondence to the Ur-Alien. That's why I prefer it to the Intense version, as the latter contains a much more indolic, classic jasmine and consequently reminds me more of Hypnotic Poison than Alien.
After the top note fades, the fragrance becomes quite linear for me, but I don't find that a bad thing.
The overall character of the fragrance reminds me of very sophisticated sun cream due to the white flowers and coconut - but it has better longevity than fragrances like Beach Walk and the like. I give it about eight hours, the sillage is in the upper mid-range. The most similar scent that comes to mind is Mancera's "Coco Vanille", but it's much more tart and fruity and a little stronger. The fragrance is heavy, but still quite summery - in my opinion predestined for not too hot summer days or spring.
All in all, solid. I'm glad I've been able to let the old man go in the meantime and am pleased to be able to enjoy this fragrance.
Fragrances can be rated very differently. The individual Parfumo entry as a stand-alone work. You can compare fragrances with similar notes that have a similar fragrance character, fragrances from a certain period, fragrances that you associate with a certain type of person. Do fragrances from one brand belong together? Or those of a perfumer? I maintain that these schemes are fundamentally very subjective. Nevertheless, and I apologize for the extrapolation, I think that all the fragrances under the Thierry Mugler label, and to a certain extent still under "Mugler" under the aegis of L'Oreal, are linked by a common thread, the essence of which was the eccentricity and love of their father, Manfred Thierry Mugler. I was launched the same year as Angel, grew up with him and Alien was omnipresent in my formative years. As a result, I had an inherent aversion to the L'Oreal creations, especially those that appeared after Mugler's death. They were, and to be honest and let the "it" speak for itself, still aren't one of them. I once attended a lecture in which it was explained that quality of life can be measured by how close reality and desire are to each other - and sometimes, if there is no other way, you have to lower your expectations. Mugler is dead. In every respect. The eccentric fragrances, the lovely, diverse flacons, the campaigns, the love. Gone. In the meantime, I have come to terms with Mugler 2.0. Mugler is nice. The fragrances that adorn themselves with the names, foreign feathers of glorious times past, are too.
Enough first-world wines.
The bottle, like the rest of the independent Muglers now unified under L'Oreal, corresponds in design to the Aliens bottle, but has a champagne-colored hue. The outer packaging is white and decorated with the outlines of flowers.
The fragrance opens slightly citrusy fresh with bergamot in the top note, which then fades more and more and only remains as a veil over the rather sweetish other notes, never making them sticky.
In addition to the citrus freshness, the coconut is immediately noticeable and harmonizes perfectly with the vanilla and jasmine sambac it contains. This conglomerate may seem somewhat diffuse due to the lack of distinction between the individual notes, but the Egyptian jasmine it contains once again prevents the fragrance from drifting into sticky confectionery, and there is also a recognizable correspondence to the Ur-Alien. That's why I prefer it to the Intense version, as the latter contains a much more indolic, classic jasmine and consequently reminds me more of Hypnotic Poison than Alien.
After the top note fades, the fragrance becomes quite linear for me, but I don't find that a bad thing.
The overall character of the fragrance reminds me of very sophisticated sun cream due to the white flowers and coconut - but it has better longevity than fragrances like Beach Walk and the like. I give it about eight hours, the sillage is in the upper mid-range. The most similar scent that comes to mind is Mancera's "Coco Vanille", but it's much more tart and fruity and a little stronger. The fragrance is heavy, but still quite summery - in my opinion predestined for not too hot summer days or spring.
All in all, solid. I'm glad I've been able to let the old man go in the meantime and am pleased to be able to enjoy this fragrance.
Translated
Show original
Stinky socks Deluxe
Wow, it's been a while since I've posted a fragrance review, so here we go. Sorry if it's a little bumpy
Amazing that this is the first review of the fragrance.
The present fragrance Rose Berberanza comes from the exclusive Maison line Lancômes and is available in 100 ml at 220 Euro RRP. The bottle is made of glass and has a rose-golden metal plate on the back with a rose pattern punched out of it so that we can see it through the reddish liquid. The lid is magnetic and golden. The outer packaging is matt white and a structured label on the front picks up the rose gold metal plate. All in all, the packaging appears high-quality and quite noble, but not nearly as noble as the price contenders from Guerlain.
Now for the fragrance itself. He starts with a punch. We're hearing a fairly generic rose jam-vanilla-berry syrup conglomerate. Smells like it all the time-- Mancera Rose Vanilla, Tresor Nuit à la Folie and assorted. Hyperfeminine, very sweet, but also easy to forget. At the same time, pistachio strikes us with concentrated power in juxtaposition. In this constellation she appears very harsh, out of place, almost stinky - something that is often and gladly noted by users on various platforms. Nevertheless, the aforementioned stinky note manages to get the scent out of the beautifully sweet and forgotten corner and provides a welcome edge.
As the fragrance progresses, rose and pistachio withdraw noticeably and the scent becomes more harmonious; the notes stand side by side, no longer against each other. The pistachio no longer pushes itself into the foreground, but rather catches the sweet notes behind and forms a successful, stylish grounding. In my opinion it has a similar effect to a musk or wood base - depth and dimension.
The fragrance is, as usual for the Maison line, very long-lasting, but has a much greater projection than the other semi-floral of the range.
Besides Montale's Intense Café, in my opinion the best fragrance in this theme.
Amazing that this is the first review of the fragrance.
The present fragrance Rose Berberanza comes from the exclusive Maison line Lancômes and is available in 100 ml at 220 Euro RRP. The bottle is made of glass and has a rose-golden metal plate on the back with a rose pattern punched out of it so that we can see it through the reddish liquid. The lid is magnetic and golden. The outer packaging is matt white and a structured label on the front picks up the rose gold metal plate. All in all, the packaging appears high-quality and quite noble, but not nearly as noble as the price contenders from Guerlain.
Now for the fragrance itself. He starts with a punch. We're hearing a fairly generic rose jam-vanilla-berry syrup conglomerate. Smells like it all the time-- Mancera Rose Vanilla, Tresor Nuit à la Folie and assorted. Hyperfeminine, very sweet, but also easy to forget. At the same time, pistachio strikes us with concentrated power in juxtaposition. In this constellation she appears very harsh, out of place, almost stinky - something that is often and gladly noted by users on various platforms. Nevertheless, the aforementioned stinky note manages to get the scent out of the beautifully sweet and forgotten corner and provides a welcome edge.
As the fragrance progresses, rose and pistachio withdraw noticeably and the scent becomes more harmonious; the notes stand side by side, no longer against each other. The pistachio no longer pushes itself into the foreground, but rather catches the sweet notes behind and forms a successful, stylish grounding. In my opinion it has a similar effect to a musk or wood base - depth and dimension.
The fragrance is, as usual for the Maison line, very long-lasting, but has a much greater projection than the other semi-floral of the range.
Besides Montale's Intense Café, in my opinion the best fragrance in this theme.
