Fragrance Reviews by Carl999

I wanted to love this, but it just gave me a headache. Upon re-sniffing 2 weeks later, I decided I did not like it at all. Too sweet at the beginning. Too fruity. Finishes up smelling exactly like ancient Egyptian enbalming preparations. I guess its the Myrrh, and the sweet note working together.

People have equated this with Obsession. They are wrong.

Enough said, cheerio!

Not what I was expecting: the lavander is a tad to sweet in my opinion. The sage, rosewood, cedar, rosemary and citrus don't seem to temper the very floral-sweet lavander/vanilla combo as they should.

Theoretically, they should add some dryness and restraint to the blend - which is fine as it is, but I feel it could be richer in refinement.

I guess when it comes down to it - I would have to agree with the majority of reviewers here - it is elegent, masculine, and very veryu period 30s.

I was so damned disappointed with this one...it almost broke my heart LOL.

Most reviews and advice from people who had tested it in person lead me to believe that this would be smooth, soft, creamy, warm and sweet...gentlemanly and refined - dignified in an 80s way, but not an 80s way...I had set myelf up for all this!

This was just, and I say this with great emphasis, "BLEH"...

The smell is acceptble, but the blend is too pervasively compromised by Geranium, Oakmoss, Aniseed and Cedar...it smells, "dry", "dusty", "run-of-the-mill 70s/80s"...blended with yet another pervasively disappointing note: SPICED GREEN APPLES... that have sat on the kitchen bench all day...

It could be a LOT better if these notes were toned down, significantly!

I am over my disappointment now, and have since taken to using it to scent my bedroom carpet before vacuuming, and spritzing over my matress before laying down fresh linen.

The old old old lady t my work loves the smell of this. This actually has nothing to do with age - but she happens to smell like spiced green apples and Tabu...

"Beau_mode_arome" is totally right - it's trying to accomplish too much.

Hmmm...an odd one.

It does indeed start off with a "poisonous" openning - and yes - somewhat akin to rat poison...just you wait for ten or fifteen minutes, then...wow!

Once you get past that initial oddness (I dont know how to describe it - sweet, but sharp at the same time - its like smelling something quite sweet and head-ache-inducing at the same time as receice a blow to the nose), you get to a unique, balmy, very bourjois, late-19th/early-20th-century evenning perfume. It smells heady, yet soft and gentle at the same time. As I said, it's balmy (incense notes), oriental, classy - with velvety lilac, plummy, incense, tonka, wisteria and mossy elements.

This was unisex in 1923 when it was ORIGINALLY created. A lot of people would find that hard to say today. But then, I am amongst the growing number of men that find Shalimar and Bois des Iles quite workable for men. Therefore I find it unisex, but if u use it this way, do it discreetly.

In the highly gender-polarised world of modern fragrance (which, ironically, is becomming harder to tell, once again), some people could easily have an adverse reaction to men using it - but used in the bath water, the shaving water, and splashed judiciously on the neck and behind the ears, it can be irresistable on us gents - as evidenced by recent experience!

Thumbs up from me, and 8/10 (so-so longevity, top notes spoil it somewhat - otherwise, close to a 9).

No no no. This is NOT an Eau d'Hongrie...Eau d'Hongrie is a fresh and fleeting composition of rosemary, lavander, orange, lemon, with hints of hyssop, clary sage, mint, sweet marjoram, rose, cistus and or juniper or spruce - rosemary is the basis of the fragrance, followed up by lavander, orange lemon and rosewater.

Historically, 14th and 15th German, Polish and Hungarian recipes called for additional hints of mint, rose or, for embelishment for a rich client, or for lack of proper ingredients, whatever herbs that may be distilled are to be found seasonally growing in the monastary garden, or the hill-side.

A traditional Polish-Hungarian recipe is usually typified by rosemary, lavander, a tri-citrus element, rose-water, not rose essential oil and seasonal herbal additions.

Hungary Water was originally intended to be a cosmetic, medicinal, age-defying and all-purpose preparation, like the Bay Rhum of the 14th century!

Only after the aristocracy took interest in it's perfuming qualities and potential, was it embellished beyond recognition.

Infact in those times the namesake 'Hungary Water' had a somewhat similar meaning to cologne these days, developing both general and a specific meaning.

A perfume merchant were to supply an aristocrat with a preparation of amber, incense, cinnamon and musk, and as long as its structure remotely resembled the original hungary water, it would be generically termed hungary water.

Anyways, sorry to digress.

All that being said, this fragrance is a perfectly acceptable "embellishment" of the original - although to me, it smells like something that should be name "Eau d'Aristocracie" or "Eau de Royaume" (Kingdom Water) etc.

I perceive a blend of traditional Eau de Cologne notes (lavender, citrus), Eau d'Hongrie notes (rosemary, rosewater - rosemary also found in Eau de Cologne) and warm ambery, woody and ubiquitous notes, found in the priceless blends of ambergris, musk, civet, rich dark spices and heady eastern florals that might have been possed by the uber-important aristocracy and royalty of the 14th to the 16th centuries, to cover up nasty bodily humours...

The fragrance itself somehow comes accross as warm, contemplative and balanced, soft andfresh at the same time. Although, I find that something is missing big time, giving an unverving quality.

Its ok...interpreted differently by other people.

Smells synthetic to begin with. Then a sort of a "new car leather" smell mingles itself in with the syntheticness. I liked it at that particular point.

Soon after, very soon, roughtly 20 minutes, that feel was washed away by a popular genericness, and turned the fragrance into a carbon-copy replica of MOST of what there is elsewhere on the "accessible" i.e. affordable mainstream market.

"Social Poison", to quote RugbyPete? No. More like a fragrant embodiment of youth trends. It's not BAD. There has been worse.

If that "new car leather" sort of smell had lingered on for a lot longer, I would wear it much more.

I'm not being a snob, but I find I receive more compliments for 6 squirts of Lagerfeld Classic on my collar than I do when I wear ANY fragrance in this youth culture genre, bar Issey Miyake and Cool Water and its Deep spin-off.
4.5/10

Another "BLEH". Not too happy, but it's ok.

Refer to my Oudh Wood review, and minus the Oudh Wood.

Sorry, my expectations must have just been too high.

Sorry. 4/10. I can't believe I am saying this, I feel personally shocked and embarassed...I like Tabac Original much, much better than this, not that there is any connection. Just going for the dramatics.

Cheerio.

Rubbery, leathery, medicine water. I get it, but I am rather "bleh" about it, as with all Tom Ford frags.

I do like the Oudh aspect, but the Swiss Arabian Perfumes "Mukhalat al Maliki" ("The Blend of the King") does is so much better, and in 30mL of purfume absolute that goes for $49.99 on the net.

I think this Tom Ford smells to me more like something rubbery, synthetic leathery and medicinal, with a hint of Oudh added.

If it think of it as an Oudh based fragrance, it tarnishes my otherwise smitten relationship with Oudh - finest and costliest of all natural frgarances.

A number of people have already aptly pointed out the cliche-ness of this perfume.

They're not wrong.

However, I found this frangrance, whilst cliche, fresh, spicey, warm, feminine, masculine and androgenous at the same time. It roused my interest.

And compared to the men's version, which I thought was abominably plain, generic and cliche, this version is a delight.

Its not my favourite fragrance by any means; nor does it make it anywhere near the league of my favourites.

But there's soemthing about it that I 'just like'.

I'd give it about 4.5-5/10.

Average Joe.

A weaker, aquatic, hormonal male highschool student interpretation of Desire Red. A "Blue" version of the Red, with a few other minor adjustment, simlar, but somehow the same, as a reviewer put it, when describing both Red and Blue on the D Red page.

Not a fan. I accord it a pass (only just) and would pass it for Brut. LOL.

Love it or hate it? I dunno, Im caught in between.

I love love love the bottle, bit iffy about the scent. It seems edgy and synthetic to start, but softens agreeably, but then another pervasivly unsettling note comes out to play (synthetic rather than real, natural rosewood, methinks) and ruins the whole matinee...

My assessment? The synthetic fruits need to be toned down and softened, particularly in content. Perhaps a dash of oakmoss to provide a tempering dryness? A little more musk, vanilla and labdanum? Anything to provide more grounding, and temper the synthetic, headache inducing top-notes.

Sporty indeed. Just bearable to wear out. Nice for school/uni. Needs to be re-editioned, improved. softened. tempered.

Not a fan. I usually love Jasmine in fragrances, mens' and womens' alike, but the jasmine in this has an odd, unerving quality.

In fact, I find pure Jasmine essential oil much more grounding and seductive.

I am a great lover and coinesseur of fine fragrance...alas, Lutens' fragrances have failed to satisfy me.

Sorry Serge, thumbs down again...I simply can't justify hundreds of dollars for many of thy jus...

I was determined to sample this; it sounded like the "holy grail" of pine scents...boy was it to be disappointed...

Cheap, sneeze-inducing, and very "household cleaner-like".

Aqua di Selva is far superior, even though I would personally award AdS nothing more than a neutral, and considering it's lack of lasting power, almost bordline with a thumbs-down.

On the other hand, I think the pervasive lasting of Silvestre was part of its downfall.

Spruce, Sandalwood, Cistus and Galbanum, a bit of Basil,and perhaps some Marjoram and Mint, with less Pine, could have balanced this perfume out more effectively.

Even if I this was marketed by Chanel, in classic Chanel bottle, with $170 put on the price tag, I would have declared loudly, to all in the perfumes department of David Jones, "This is abhorent, and smells cheap!"

I like soapy, but I found this pervasively so. Perhaps I tested it from an "off" bottle?

Not quite like others have described it to me...Im not so sure how to describe it myself for that matter.

To put it simply, I truly believe that this is a fragrance where, when applied, a person's individual body chemistry either "makes or breaks" the scent.

On my skin, it's soapy, with a sizzling sharp openning. On my girlfriend, it is soapy, but also quite floral, with a warm, unsweetened cinnamon stick, fresh from the spicer's, rushing through a power-punch-packing dry, green aldehyde, creating an aldehydic, green, soapy and spicy confusion.

I can't put my finger on what exactly I think of the perfume. So until the day I can express something more substantive, I will relegate it to the purgatory that is "neutral"...

Very sexy. In a hedonistic, 1930s way. Im not saying its too old or anything, I have enough good taste and class to see that sexy 1930s hedonism is fantastic.

Its very voluptuous, a deep, woody and heady spice, blooming into oily puffs of equally heady incense, blown gently across the room by as zephyr of honey and creamy blossoms...with aldehydes, oakmoss and syrupy sweet narcissus packing a timely but somewhat unfortunately persistant puch...

I like it, no, I love it, but it does give me a headache, to be bluntly honest...but a simple headache is bearable when my beloved Xiao Mei (half chinese gf) accompanies me wearing this voluptous heavy silk gown of powerhouse hedonism...Shocking is indeed a powerhouse perfume...

Some will find it unsettling, pervasive and sometimes "shockingly" rude...But I love. Especially on my Xiao Mei.

Classy, effeminate, powdery, sophisticated and very classical. I love it.

Although it has a very clearly motherly feel to it, I love it on my girlfriend.

Its ok. I happen to get a both Peach and Pineapple at the openning, sweet, syrupy and synthetic.

Freesia and other soft white flowers begin to take the reigns; the sweetness is still undoubtably there, but the blow is softened by the progress of white flowers.

Indeed, this is a sweet perfume, incase u haven't already guessed, but this is one sweet perfume, perhaps one of only a handful, that I can truly stand to bear...

Still sweet, but yet again, slightly less so, the must begins to sink in, but the last of the Heliotrope, Orange Blossom, Narcissus, not ulike the sweet narcissus in Yardley's Narcissus and sweet-ish chinese-smelling Jasmine kick of their heavy veil of sweetness, and blend into the soft must - sweet, still, at this stage, as in every stage of the perfume, but subdued, soft and comforting.

This frangrance...perplexes and purturbs me...I find the back ground note sothing, masculine and enjoyable, typically late-eighties, early-nineties...

BUT...there is this Bergamot, Honey, Jasmine, Patchouli accord that produces a "urine" and "sweaty", "dirty", "body-odour" complex that does a LOT of damage to the fragrance...just makes it smell aweful...

For the lovely supporting background notes, I give it a neutral. Be that as it may, the unerving quality of the "dirty", "sweaty" "b/o" and "urine" smelling accord that I elaborated above, makes it tempting to give it a out-right thumbs down...

Sorry, but meh. I had been built up to expect a good classic.

Smells like a "just acceptable" run-of-the-mill everyday chores-around-the home and going-to-do-the-groceries scent.

Just very "bleh"...

Does remind me feintly of L'air du Temps, and the largely white floral heart dominates too loudly and too proudly.

This perfume would be a greatd deal better, had it been more oportunely balanced.

Light and fresh, but with reasonable staying power, sillage and accessability.

Light, clean and citrusy. Fresh, and yes, it does have a light tea quality.

This is one of those trend-setter fragrances - that so many other companies copy, and very poorly I might add, flooding the market with headache- and sinus-inducing, overly sweet "me-toos"...and yes, a multitude of people wear it, and it is generic in the same sense as Cool Water, CK One and Issey Miyake, insofar as they are TREND-SETTERS and generic ORIGINATORS...not the crap that floats around every department store corner...

6/10.

Mmmm...this one is soooooooooooo nice!

It's sweet, warm, calm and feminine, sensual, homely, yet somewhat exotic...It manages to be all of this, plus more, without being overbearingly sweet. In addition, I find it to smell equally casual and romantic, soft and timeless. I also find that it is a much a spring/summer fragrance as it is a fall/winter fragrance - but I do prefer the way it smells in the depth of winter...

It reminds me faintly of a flan my Nanna used to make, but in that capacity, it also reminds me, and I re-iterate, reminds me, as it is certainly nothing the same, as the sweet, creamy, warm and sensual smell of Chanel No. 5 - after 5 hours drying down...In addition, it contains a lovely balance of soft white florals, exotic incense, vanilla and musk, a hint of amber, and a dash of essence of butter-cookie - it is NOT, however, gourmand. So if you want a gourmand, do NOT purchase this...

But if you want to smell feminine and sensuous, by all means go ahead!

Plus, it won't break the piggy bank!

This is one of those never-failing ones that I can go back to when I am having trouble selecting a fragrance from my wardrobe; it is a fragrance very much of the 70s AND 80s, but there is something, maybe the anise/lavander/petit-grain/geranium accord in the top, that makes it simultaneously modernist and classic.

I don't know - but this smells masculine and timeless in a way that few others, perhaps 18/19/20 in the masculine genre, do.

It has the elements that may lead one to place this in communion with Paco Rabanne - however, whereas Paco Rabanne has that human sweat-leather-honey-muskyness that makes it smell dirty, both in good and bad ways, Azzaro, whilst it certainly does have it's animalic elements, shares more of the herbal and woody notes found in Paco.

In addition, the slight, albeit very much present floral-amber accord that features in Obsession for men may also be found in Azzaro. Indeed, the spicier, arid elements of Aramis can also be found in this fragrance...Not to mention the woody-slightly burnt-bronzed-incense featured by L'Occitane's Eau Baux...with its prominent ambroxin-cyprus-vetiver-incense accord...however not to the extent of the previously mentioned fragrances.

All in all, quite an acceptable fragrance - certainly not the greatest in the world - but it is herbal, green, woody, animalic and ambery, without being questionably dirty in the sense of Paco Rabanne, so floral, spicy and ambery as Obsession, or so uber-masculine as Aramis, whilst maintaining an acceptable balance of each, not over-doing it.

Go ahead, and spritz a little Azzaro.

7/10.

Ergh...I don't even know how to describe this other than synthetic smelling, off and out-dated.

Now I wear many classics - Aramis, Lagerfeld, Lauder for Men, Givenchy Gentleman, etc...Indeed, many find these drastically out-dated - but I happen to wear them all very, very well, and get many compliments - but not from Tsar...I imagined it to be smooth, comforting, masculine and aromatic/chypre, borderline oriental in style...Powerful and classic in a romanticised sense...

All I got was "bleh"...No compliments - instead, after I wore it to my mum's place last week, my sis, girl friend, both brothers, my dad, an uncle, and my mum, all of whom usually love the way I smell - all asked me never to wear this again.

Sure enough, I will avoid this like the plague - I myself can't stand it, and still have trouble trying to describe and define the smell itself...

I just can't bring myself to like it. Sorry. 2/10 for sillage and longevity, and thumbs down...

P.S. At first I thought I might have received an off bottle, but after having tried it at various department stores since, I discovered, unfortunately, that I hadn't.

I love it, but a little too boozy for me. I actually smell a fair bit of bourbon in it, and I HATE bourbon.

That being said, I do love it, just that I have trouble wearing it.

Very heavy, very warm. To be worn in snow-covered countries. Doesn't go down too well in Singapore, where I first tried it, or in the Australian tropics/sub-tropics...However, I did wear it quite well in Sydney, which is much cooler.

I won't add anything else, coz other basenoters here are pretty much spot-on, except for not noting the "bourbon-ness" of it.

6/10, and thumbs up.

Definitely cologne-ish and soapy, clean and soft - fresh and Spring-like in nature.

Kinda reminds me a little of Irish spring.

I think I would have prefered it if it had more herbaceous-sharp notes, but whatcha gunna do? LOL.

I definitely think some more lavander and rosemary would have hit the spot - and even some vetiver and sandal, or maybe cedar. Bu then that would be me telling people how to do their jobs. I'm good at that. LOL.

But as it is, it is a great fragrance. I got a decent sized bottle for only $30 Australian Dollars, but wouldn't pay the usual $80 price-tag.

Still, I give it 7/10 (that good for me), and a thumbs up.

LOL - I totally agree with what a few other people here seem to point out - over the past few years, it has indeed become a stocking-filler sort of fragrance.

This perfume, along with Brut cologne spray, Piere Cardin, Lagerfeld Classic (a fantastic men's fragrance), Chloe and Anais-Anais, has indeed become a Christmas stocking filler perfume - well at least within my family.

That being said, everyone in my immediate family, including myself, have quite expensive tastes in fragrance, usually steering clear of stocking-filler fragrances - but this is one that everyone I know enjoys waking up to on Christmas morning!

Fresh, dynamic, relatively clean, sporty and quite unisex. Freshly natural smelling, not laiden with synthetic-smelling crap. The bamboo note is clear and harmonious - almost cerebral in nature - like unto pure mysore sandal essence, yet absolutely nothing like it! And the Granny Smith is clear and fresh smelling, never stuffy and sweet, as it quite often is in other perfumes.

The cedar and musk is light, and sticks very well to its name sake.

And for some odd reason, maybe coz of the name, maybe coz of the notes, I associate this with Baby Blue Jeans.

But anyway, I am a guy, I like wearing it, I get lots of compliments from wearing it in Spring and Summer, and can't wait to try the men's version, but I haven't seen it anywhere here in Brisbane, yet. But I can't wait - and I truly hope it resembles the original.

Cheers, and enjoy. 6/10 from me, and thumbs up.

Wow - I'd never have thought it possible, but I smell two classics in this - Aramis-like notes at the top, and Lagerfeld-reminiscent notes at the bottom - infact, after ten or 20 minutes, it smells like those almost stuffy turkish tobacco, vanilla and sandal notes in Richard James that Lagerfeld Classic originated...Those notes remind me especially of Richard James...But my opinion is that Lagerfeld does them in a far, far superior fashion, despite the formula having changed somewhat - they smell less stuffy, more sensual.

But to me, Lagerfeld and Aramis are wonderful on their own...I love each, and seek both out when not readily available...however, whilst Santos is 'different', it certainly doesn't smell like something I'd go hunting for like I do with others.

I dunno why. It fits the description of a new cologne to add to my growing collection - but it just doesn't make me feel that I should just go ahead and buy it...I'm not entirely sure why. Maybe its the semi-stuffy basenotes? Maybe its that it doesn't smell entirely original?

Maybe its because in Santos, I smell Lagerfeld Classic, Antaeus, Aramis and Richard James all at once - all fragrances that I own in my personal collection (not in my wardrobe here - that needs a good updating!).

I'm not entirely certain, but I can't seem to bring myself to purchase it, even though I like it...

I have very mixed feelings 'bout it, and don't know what to think - it confuses me a bit! lol.

Well, that's my 2 cents worth. And I'd say I'd give it about 5.5/10, mainly because of the confusion it has caused me.

Cheers, and happy smellin'.

Nice, fresh, clean and masculine.

It like a soft, smooth, clean and very green-smelling Aramis.

I also get a Shaving-Cream note in it.

To me, the closest thing to a "barber-shop" scent - mainly because of its slightly spicey, semi-green, semi-sweet Aramis-like Shaving-Cream-like smell.

In my Nan and Pop's bathroom, this has been sitting in their Victorian-style wall-mounted shaving cabinet for 16 years (the same bottle). Every time I have been to their home on vacations I have given it a good sniff - and it hasn't changed one bit in 16 years! So obviously, it has kept very well.

I only wish they'd put it back into production! I love it love it love it!!!!

A very refreshing change to most crap on the market today.

Masculine and gentlemanly. Very nice stuff!

Meh...Its alright...simply doesn't smell as wonderful as a lot of people like to make out...

A lightly vanillic semi-smoked black tea (or hong cha, red tea in Mandarin). Not special.

I have mixed feelings about this one: whilst the rubberish note makes it somewhat unique, it also ruins it for me...should replace this with some white tea notes, and maybe perhaps some guaiac - it would suit the fragrance better.

Its very urbane-smelling, a modern take on a tea perfume, quite palatable, and very acceptable.

Something about it screams out "MAINSTREAM"; I'm by no means a niche devotee - there are plenty of fantastic mass-market and semi-exclusives out there, particularly in classics, but there's something in this that just says to me "I'm mainstream, but its ok, coz I'm not 'usual'..."LOL.

Well, thats my honest opinion. spot on 5/10.

Cheers.

Oh my...I don't get what so many people appear to adore with this one...One of my aunts has been buying this for me for Christmas every years since its release...

I've given away 9 bottles and I still have 3 left, only because they are redundant in my collection - I rarely use it! It just ends up giving me an aweful headache in the first ten minutes!

I totally agree with 'nout' on the whole shoe shine thing - I got that too.

Just reading the notes, one might expect to find in this fragrance qualities similar to Goodlife for men, and even Cool Water. I found none of that.

Infact, all I could smell in it was a powerful blast of alcohol, shoe shine and synthetic notes. Yes, it smelled very synthetic to me. Not sophisticated or masculine, but VERY ordinary and synthetic.

And it smelled no different on anyone else I gave bottles away to.

Sorry, but 2/10 for effort, and thumbs down.

Cheers.

Not bad. But it needs to be remarketed to shake of that "hooker" association that my mum and nanna attach to it. And here, it seems, a lot of others do too.

Look, fundamentally, its not bad.

The feature notes are done quite well - smooth, ambery, vanillic, spicy and floral - not in a headache-provoking way, but it has this unnerving musty quality that to me, makes the perfume smell like its trying to be clear and more subtle at the same time, but struggling to permeate through a layer of cling-film. I guess I also get that because I find that it has this weird plastic-y quality that stops it from being what it has the potential to be.

I think if Dana sorts out those issues, it could be remarketed as something a LOT more classy, and provided that it was launched in the fall or winter time, and as a more up-market perfume, it might even make a killing in sales!

All in all, in this perfume, I see a LOT of Youth Dew. Does anyone else?

I'll give it 5/10 and a neutral, because of theissues that I have with it.

Heh......Nothing special.

Quite wearable - but it has never got me any compliments...I just use it as an every day sorta thing - nto sure what fragrance family to group it into, though.

I don't really understand this fragrance - and I have been wearing it for almost 3 years now...Just smells a bit confusing - not sure whether I like it or not!

Now - I usually can't stand fragrances like this - brand new, crappy name, theme leaving a lot to be imagined, generic in appearance...

But with this one, I was suprised. It doesn't smell nearly as generic and synthetic as all other offerings in the last year.

At first spray, after it has settled after 30 seconds, I get a blend of spicey coniferous notes and a certain light, but persistant church incense, in a totally inoffensive way...

It kinda smells like a liquidised and modernised version of my grandparents' home in Sydney on an early saturday morning - it's 112 years old, built shortly before Federation into the Commonwealth, and has this dark, earthy, historical smell, not 'old' or 'musty', but grand and historical-smelling, coupled with dew-drenched conifers planted under the windows and lining the drive...

After 30 minutes, the progress of the drydown reveals a modern, fresh and dynamic incense-like accord, lightly spicey and quite aloof. This, I feel, is givern depth by hints of cedar, suede and tobacco...

I don't know what the notes are, but overall, I get a dynamic, modern, slightly smokey coniferous-woody-suede like accord, with something added to it that smells quite cool and ozonic, a little out of place - but I found that that gave it character. Strangely, it must just be me, but I also get a very feint decaying gardenia note - and something else - I don't know what - but I have smelled it in about 20-30 mens and womens fragrances launched in the last year and a half...Can't quite put my finger on it. I don't think it is 'achieving' anything...and I don't think the sillage is all that brilliant either...

Anyway, a nice and perfectly acceptable contemporary men's fragrance - maybe something is missing? I dunno what, but that's another thing I feel with it...But look, its nice, and for some odd reason, I cant stop sniffing the back of my hand - but for what it is, I'd say I'd give it about 6/10. No more, possibly less.

Cheers.

I don't get any romantic spicey notes in this cologne. Just a LOT of geranium - and specifically, the citronella type that old people in the suburbs grow in window boxes, on verandahs and near vegetable plots in order to discourage unwanted insects.

I really think that if there are any spices in this, Estee Lauder/Aramis perfumers didn't put enough of them in.

I get the appeal, and I do pick up some other herbaceous notes, slight hints of lavander, sage and basil, for example, and I do smell a bit of rosewood in it - but what I mostly get is citronella geranium.

To boot, once when I wore it, an old lady on the bus, after I walked past her and sat on the seat behind her, leaned over to her friend and asked "Do you smell citronella candles?"

If Aramis really wanted to invoke images of Tuscany, the they should have included greater dosages of sage, basil, lavander, cedar, juniper, cypress, jasmin and neroli. I have been to Italy 3 times, and to Tuscany on each occasion - and believe me, those scents feature more frequently not only in local gardens, but more importantly, the country side...

Go figure...

When the sales assistant at David Jones sprayed this on at test strip, then my arm 5 minutes later, what I got was a delightful and sophisticated "Morning Fresh Lemon and Lime" dishwashing soap.

And I'm not being facetious there - thats what I really got at first - then the jus mellowed down into something that some might consider generically typical of fragrances that contain the word "gentlemen" in there names...

But that has never bothered me one bit - I find this fragrance to be perfectly masculine and refined, sophisticated and unique.

And the sales assistant was flabbergasted when I said "I'll take it", after she spent and hour shoving generic pop-culture driven crap in my face. All I wanted was something simple, fresh, clean, masculine and sophisticated - expensive smelling, without breaking the bank.

Thumbs up from me - and I give this fragrance, after some very careful deliberation - 6.9/10.

I can't stand it...It smells so cheap and common. VERY mainstream. Sells like hotcakes here in Australia. From 2000 until 2005, every 14 to 36 year old male owned this.

It justs smells synthetic to me - not warm or smooth or romantic as others have insisted - just synthetic smelling. Industrial fumes-like even.

Nothing special at all - I even found it hard to pick out the indivdual notes - and this embarrassed the sales assistant who insisted that "its got a very youthful sophistication that makes it easy to pick out the individual notes..." to which I replied "It smells like generic pop-crap!"...

Thumbs down.

I truly wanted to love this cologne. And the bottle is so beautiful...

But there is something about this cologne that agitates me and gives me a headache after an hour...this particular element of The Dreamer smells overbearingly sweet. I wouldn't say that that element smells effiminate - I could never imagine a woman wearing this cologne - but the best way I can put it, is that this element is pulled of very well by metrosexual dandies and gay men. But I wouldn't say this this cologne is especially suited to dandies of gay men.

The smell itself is nice enough - but there is just something about it that really agitates me, and I can't really figure out what it is. I tried to palm it off onto a very close gay friend of mine at work, but he found that particular element/note unerving as well...

Perhaps its the lily-orris-amber-synthetic tonka accord. Those notes seem to dominate too much.

Otherwise, I like this cologne as much as is possble, factoring in my other issues with it.

I wish I could love it, but neither myself nor any of my male friends can pull it off at all.

P.S. No matter what this note pyramid says here on basenotes, I must insist that it should include "synthetic tonka".

Cheers.

I don't like to smell like food. I will readily wear semi-gourmands, like JPG Le Male, but I think I'll steer well clear of this.

It gives me a headache. I wouldn't drink coffee that tastes like this! And believe me, all I smell is French Vanilla Roast, burnt chocolate souffle and something that smells like a blend of creme carmel and edible baby powder...

If you want something that smells gourmand-ish and devilishly sexy, something that will get women asking what the wonderful cologne is that you're wearing, go for Jean Paul Gaultier Le Male.

Doing this will also save all small children and most mammals within a 20 metre radius from certain suffocation...lol

First of all, I love the bottle. When this stuff first came out, I adored it. It smelled fresh and warm and masculine all at the same time...

But now...It smells like they've changed or altered the ingredients/structure...It no longer seems to exude the woody-spicey quality it once did. It now smells somewhat more "bleh"...I find now that it has a strange synthetic quality to it. Maybe they increased the quantity of Eucalyptus and Bergamot in it, cutting back on the mid and base notes...It just doesn't smell like it did 10 years ago.

It certainly smells a lot more synthetic, and I just can't get past that.

Maybe its just that my nose has matured and developed more over the years.

Now it smells dissappointing, given its beautiful bottle and packaging...

It now smells a lot like Boss One, minus the unrine quality - I also used to love Boss One too, but could never get over its urine quality lol.

Well, its 2007, and today when I was at the supermarket, I was in the personal hygiene aisle seeking out a change in deoderant. I after persuing various brands, I moved on to Lynx...The memories came flooding back...god aweful memories...

That last time I recall ever thinking about Lynx deoderants was somewhere around 2000/2001.

Lynx, as another basenoter here said, defined the end of the nineties. I recall with remarkable clarity the aweful, cheap stench that followed a group of teenaged males everywhere they went at the end of the nineties, smelling of industrial fumes. This one, Africa, upon revisiting, is somewhat different. Whilst unmistably synthetic smelling, it exudes this sweet, spicey, woody, vanillic auror, perfumey in nature. Probably the most acceptable Axe/Lynx offering available. The rest smell like cheap crap. And are unmistakably "of" the late ninties...

Sorry. Whilst most feminine offerings of Chanel are beautiful, this....smelled sweet and somewhat skanky to me...I couldn't help but think it smelled cheap...sorry, but thumbs down on this...

Just...I think its the mimosa in the top notes - it just smells overbearing and sweet. My girlfriend thought the exact same thing. And so did my mum, sis and both of my sisters-in-law.

This smells so nice and soft and clean and feminine. It gives off this happy, romantic auror that screams "The war is over! the Allies have won victory!"

Apparently, this was commissioned to herald the peace concluding WW2. Hence the doves on the stopper.

The fragrance itself smells soft, powdery, soapy, clean, musky, feminine and old-fashioned, but never old lady-ish. This is my Nanna's everyday perfume, which she has been wearing for the last 40 years. But I have never felt this was an old lady's perfume...Just classy, refined and happy.

Although my Nanna has many, many other beautiful perfumes that she wears very well, this perfume will always remind me of my Nanna, who lives a 1000 kms away from my family, and who I miss very much.

P.S. I know lots of girls my age that wear this very well, so its definitely not just some stuffy old granny's perfume...

I like this at first, warm, woody, spicey, powdery - but after a while, all I notice is this fake candy-like smell...Its like cling film is covering this fragrance...making it smell shallow and stuffy...

I can't get over that after having worn it these last two years...Sorry, if I had reviewed this even 6 months ago, my opinion would be different...but I can't escape it, so thumbs down...Furthermore I think it smells like a decaying Chritmans tree, still covered in plastic covered ginger-bread men and chocolate with nuts in it...

And its not just on me - my dad, both of my brothers, my sister's boyfriend and two close friends of mine wear this, and I can smell what I described above on them, and even my brothers and dad are starting to get it too.

I don't like this one one bit. I can't find anything pleasant about it...

It smells potently synthetic - some of the notes in it smell so synthetic and dominant that I can't even pick anything else out in it...

It just smells synthetic and highly generic, from start to finish...It is aweful and piercing to the point that it gives me an aweful headache...dissappointing - nothing like the original, which is a perfectly fine offering, and an exeplary budget fragrance.

Sorry, all I get from this one, on me, my brother, my dad and two other people that I know is a generic, woody syntheticness. Not impressed at all.

Smooth, powdery, clean and soapy. Lightly musky. Totally inoffensive. Whilst I wouldn't go so far as to say that this is an aftershave to wear when taking high-tea with the Queen, I certainly wouldn't say that this, as others have insisted, is an old-man's cologne...

Its dynamic, easily wearable, and comforting. Its quality is exactly as it was 10, 15 and 20 years ago...None of the ingredients has been altered in the name of cost-cutting...Personally, I'd rather it to be a little softer and warmer-smelling, but alas, it does perfectly well as is, and honestly, I can't truthfully imagine it another way.

Not at all a barber-shop perfume...I don't get that - at all!

It has this smooth, dark and cool stringent woodiness, peppered with a note that, for a long time, I found hard to determine, let alone describe...

As for now, I can describe this note as dense, sweet and bitter at the same time...a blend of clove, pepper and anise, with the anise dominating.

I have to say, most fragrances that feature a dominant licorice or anise note, give me a rotten headache...but not this. Its there, and its in your face, but it doesn't give you a migraine. I also usually find that that type of note gives my nose an unpleasant tingling feeling - yet again - it doesn't do that in this perfume - but it is there, and if I use too much, it perturbsme in a way that I can't say I like.

All in all, the patchouli, cedar, guaiac and oakmoss keep the balance there, and are all notably present throughout. The rosemary gives it a nice herbal coolness, coupled with the bergamot. However, as with all anise/licorice scents, this could do with a little less of that note, and more of the woody/herbaceous notes it otherwise features very nicely!

Honestly...this smells like everything else out there released in that last 2 or 3 years...

Smells very generic, run-of-the-mill, and like it has had a load of cut and spent gardenia blooms dumped in it...

Not impressing as a contemporary offering at all...

But if you're perfectly content with smelling generic, sweet and like a "skanky" teenaged-girl, then go ahead, be my guest, and waste your money on this cheap-smelling crap!

This starts out promising - fresh and smooth.

But soon enough, it melts down into something very generic and headache inducing.

All I can say is, I don't see many of the mid notes displayed here on basenotes comming through with any sort of clarity - all it does after ten minutes is give me a headache!

Right this minute, infront of me, are sitting two bottles of Old Spice; one purchased this morning, the same bottle I have been purchasing once a month for the last three years, and the other, 22 years old.

three hours, two hours, one hour then half an hour ago, in progression down the inside of my arm, 1.5 cm in between each spot, I dapped a little from each bottle - from the newer on my left arm, the older on my right...

And there is a definite difference between the older and newer......!

Immediately noted, was the fact that the older version, which has kept remarkably well, is richer, warmer, smoother, creamier and deeper than the newer. Secondly noted, was the fact that on my left arm, the new version on the 3 hour patch had all but disappeared; much the same was the case with the 2 hour patch...It could still be detected on the 1 hour, bearly, and the 1/2 hour patches...

The older version, deeper and more complex, lasted and lasted on my skin, all throughout, and maintained its depth and character right through the drydown! Even in the bottle, the older version smells far more luxurious than the newer.

Yet, despite the deplorable change exacted by Procter and Gamble upon this timeless classic, the warmth, comfort and smoothness, though not as good as it once was, exuded by the readily available newer version still draws me in - its what I use to splash around after a shower at night, and leaves me feeling warm and clean.

Tacky packaging, great fragrance!

My girlfriend has this and the Eau de Toilette version.

I prefer this one: can detect everything in this perfume - although I am usually more turned by things like Opium and Chanel No. 5, I like this one very much.

Feminine, makes a statement, and doesn't go overboard with the florals. Does it quite nicely.

Unlike certain other fragrances, the Tuberose in this is not too sweet, but somewhat natural smelling.

The main reason why I like this concentration more, is because the EdT reminds me a little of Paris by YSL.
$$$
Still, very nice, makes a statement, romantic.

Hmmm. Despite being a guy, I think its possible the classiest offering Gaultier offers!

That's not to say I'd ever wear it - but my gf does, and I love it on her.

The original is quite good as well - essentially - the same notes as the original, but lighter.

Once again...I hate the Summer and Fleur du Male versions with a passion...

Ok, this is not as bad as those versions, but its not much different to the original...

Just blander...like a generic sun lotion has been dolloped into it and mixed around a bit...At least that's what I get with my nose!

I LOVE the original Le Male...

I HATE this version as much as I hate Fleur du Male...

It smells watered down, like, as the other two reviewers have mentions, it contains cheap window cleaner, making it smell like an inferior knock-off...

Awesome. Manly. Luxurious. Rich. Satisfying.

I really love it!

It smells so 'secure' and 'sturdy'.

Comfort scent for me...

Not bad at all. Reminds me remotely of Lagerfeld Classic, but a lot more balsam-ish, if that means anything!

Very strong and powerful, manly too.

Can be got cheap, but ignore the price tag.

If used well, i.e., judiciously, it emanates a very sexy aura, or so I was told by a 19 year old girl on the bus this morning!

Two thumbs up, for it sultry, manly auror...

Ergh *shudders*.

It has this nice herbaceous-woodiness to it, but behind all that lies a sweaty old greek man, and something that smells like semen. There, I said it.

I tested it on a card strip and my skin, and my gf said:
"it smells like something very nice, but spoiled with animal piss and...I dunno, I guess something that smells like semen. I hate it, wash it off, and put some of your lagerfeld on..."

That ws exactly what I was thinking from first spray.

It can be better. As it is, it smelles like a male Greek porn-star after a 6 hr shoot on a hot, humid day!

Gross!

Oh my Lord...How can so many people think this is "light and bubbly..." or Champagne-like.

Creamy it is. And very sweet. And very sickly. All I get is awefully sweet and sickly Buddleia and Mimosa, both plants of which are serious pest-species in most countries outside south-west Europe, especially here in Australia.

I live, as I have mentioned in at least one other review, that I live in a nice, clean, well-kept, middle-class suburb called Forest Lake. Around the lake are planted native specimen and ornamental exotic gardens, for public leisure purposes.

But every year, early spring, when the migratory birds stop of to wet their feet, so to speak, they carry along with them, in their guano, Buddleia and Mimosa seeds, which spring up, flower, and by mid to late spring, fill there air with a noxious pollen-sweetness. It takes an entire month for the community watch and up-keep committee to rid the lakeside of the noxious things.

Not at all reconcilable with my tastes. And nor my mother's, as I discovered one eventfull birthday where my father, who insists on buying sickly sweet toilet cleaner perfumes for, threw it back at him:

"I TOLD YOU - NO MORE SICKLY SWEET TOILET CLEANER - the thought was there, darling, but you know I can't stand these perfumes...why not just buy me a bottle of Shalimar, or Rochas or Chanel Non. 5...or even a $15 bottle of Je Riviens from the Chemist would be lovely...I don't want to walk around with a migraine-headache all day, smelling like a spinster tramp...sorry...You do the same thing every year..."

Hmmm. I like it. I meets my approval.

I get the "guerlainade" comming through quite strongly.

'BradtheImpaler2' suggested it was like a Shalimar for men. I agree with him only to a certain degree.

Unlike Heritage, Shalimar has a very regal, oily quality to it, especially in its parfum form; but I do see a similarity in notes - the orris-opopponax-vanilla "guerlainade" accord showing through loud and clear.

My personal opinion of Heritage is that it has a sherberty-spicy quality to it, similar to Habit Rouge, yet nothing like it. I think its the coriander and pepper it contains. It is masculine and powerful and sweet, but not too over-bearing.

However - if one uses too much, one will give oneself a migraine-headache and end up smelling like baby sick...Used judiciously, however, and one wil smell sexy, classy, mature and sophisticated.

7.5/10.

I tried a few Ralph Lauren perfumes today, and I'm not quite sure if this is the one, but I rember the smell clearly. Actually, going by the notes here, what I picked out of the composition of the Ralph Lauren in question, matches pretty well.

So here goes. I hate fruity perfumes. Not fruity in the sense of crisp, clean citrus notes, but fruity in the sense of sicky and sweet, and over-bearing.

At first I though this perfume would be that; I was mistaken.

Whilst its not my favourite female perfume, its fruity without being sickly sweet and sticky. Its light, fresh and summery, popular in spring and summer here in Australia.

Even if it does smell a little hairspray-like in nature, it doesn't go over-board, and works quite well.

Contrary perhaps to its target group, I have noticed that a LOT of middle-aged women, NOT at all beauty freaks clutching desperately to the last vestages of their youths, but rather ageing with grace, wear this perfume when jogging or strolling by the lake near where I live.

Its nice, but not my cup of tea. 6/10.

Another, mediocre, run-of-the-mill, faux clean, faux fresh, faux sunny, I'm rambling on, and do you get the picture? lol.

Well, you should. It is BORING...nothing at all special, or remarkably fresh and clean, or even smooth and sexy.

With a fragranced named 'Romance', I expected some smooth, soft and warm - classic in nature, contemporary in structure - and all I got was a bland, boring "Eau de Generique"...

Ergh...I don't like this at all...

I totally get what its trying to do, but its just not doing it...

This is the problem with modern perfumes: too many syntheics are used, and too often, the perfumes can be better blended. Indeed, it would even make a difference if they used higher quality essences and what not.

I DON'T hate all contemporaneus, modern perfumes...just a LOT of them. I LOVE what they try to do, but the never hit the spot, instead smelling generic and highly synthetic...They end up smelling cheaply synthetic like those body spray-colognes available in the personal hygience aisles in supermarkets...honestly, how can so many peole find things so generic-smelling, so 'already done before', and so headache-inducing so sexy and attractive?

That's why I am very careful when I go out to select a contemporary style fragrance - and very rarely do I find something worth-while (Marc Jacobs for men, Armani He, especially after dry-down).

I'm sorry to say, DKNY Be Delicious is not one of those 'diamonds-in-the-ruff' - I think that the synthetic notes take over too much, giving it a harsh, headache provoking edge.

I love the concept, but if the fragrance had been toned down a bit in terms of synthetic-ness, sweetness, and over-all generic-ness...It might be acceptable. This is just too generic, too popular, and for god-knows what reason. What self-respecting man, or male adolescent would want to walk around reaking of synthetic fruits, hairspray and coffee beans? (I know what types would, the ones that will do ANYTHING to get into anyone's pants - you know, those pretentious, short, spikey/mini mo-hawked, half-bleached haired little sh*ts.)

Ok, I'm not saying that its not 'unique', but there are elements in this perfume that resound in commonality with a LOT of its contemporaries.

And, this'll sound nasty, but the only girls that I know that like this, and boy do I know a lot of girls, are a bit 'skanky'...Your run-of-the-mill wannabes.

Not sexy, not attractive, and certainly not delicious. 3/10 (for effort - lol).

Its a really nice classic. I agree with everyone else - fresh, clean, and easily wearable.

I remember for a long time, my mum just kept to her 9 precious perfumes, and never ventured away from any of them. They're all nice perfumes, but after 18 years, it got a bit much.

So for her birthday last year, my girlfriend and I went shopping to find three small to medium sized bottles of nice, classy, non-offensive, not overly sweet, and non-fruity perfumes, just to do something nice, give her a nice suprise and get her something different.

After 4 hours of shopping, we came up with three perfumes: Paris, Fragile and White Linen.

On her birthday, she, suprisingly, took immediately to White Linen, remarking how lovely and floral it was without being over-bearing and sweet, and how nice and clean it smelled.

Couldn't put it better myself.

(btw, her '9 precious perfumes' are Chanel No. 5, Joy, Je Riviens, Aromatics Elixir, Hypnotic Poison, Opium, Rive Gauche, Youth Dew and Shalimar - in addition, she now has, thanx to me, White Linen, Paris and Fragile, all of which she adores!)

Ergh. "I don't like it" *in voice of Andy from Little Britain*...

Aweful stuff. I can;t say that its particularly sweet, but it has an aweful sickly presence...

I used to think it was ok, but then my Ancient History teacher went overboard with it...Then after, the more she wore it, it seemed, the smaller the class became...Room-clear, is what Red Door is.

It'd be ok if it wasn't strong and sickly!

Wow...for the first 15 minutes of this perfume, I get a LOT of patchouli and vetiver.

Then, in it's drydown, it become significantly softer, warmer, smoother and spicier.

I have always liked the smell of patchouli, but most patchouli perfumes, single-note or otherwise, are too strong on the stuff.

Sure, thhis starts out a bit strong on the patchouli, but warms down to somethinh much nicer.

I like it. Ok, I really like it, but I don't absolutely love it.

Very nice stuff - be careful on the applications - can know people out!

Ergh! I can't stand this one!

It smells like th type of sickly-sweet deoderant that teen-aged girls purchase from the toilettries aisle in the super-market!

Sweet, syrupy, "fake" smelling and just...aweful explains it...

No class, just sicklyness. This is the type of fragrance that teen-aged girls want tp buy as their first perfume, and the their mother says "no - you don't want to end up smelling like a hooker!"

Its bad enough that they made this a men's perfume!

Yucky! Too sweet, too gourmand!

I can smell JOOP (ew), A*Men (also ew), and something else...Drakkar Noir, all together in one!

Not for me; I like my coffee to drink, my chocolate to each, and Drakkar Noir to stay where it is currently: the magical land of Obscurity...

King: "Urgh! Someone, help me, I've been poisoned!"

Mystrious guest: "I have just the thing, Your Majesty! Wait one moment...here we are! I have an Antidote..."

King: "Hurry up, give it a spray!"

*thump* The King falls to the ground, and the Royal Physician proclaims death by Antidote...

Ok, I admitt, that was a hoplessly lame anecdote...

But honestly, when the sales assistant sprayed this all over my arm, I sneezed and coughed and spluttered as if I was being poisoned.

Indeed, there's a certain note in this that reminds me of rat-poison! It has a poisonous presence to it...Not too nice...

Yes, I know I went over-board, but it proved my point, didn't it? Well I hope so, other wise, I have wasted 5 minutes on a cologne that reeks of synthetic-ness AND generic-ness!

To be honest, this is only a little fresher, and no improvement on the original. Still strong, and little over-bearing, just the original was.

A little fresher: indeed. An improvement? No!

Very heavy, powdery, spicey and floral. Too much nutmeg, too much cinnamon and clove, too much tonka.

Staying power is fabulous for an EdT, which some perceive as a serious problem with this men's perfume.

Still, sillage is great, its very smooth-smelling, and its pleasant.

I used to love wearing this, but in the past two years, it seemed that I'd developed a "reaction" to it: that of a migraine.

If, however, this was dilluted somewhat, and certain notes cut back on, it would make a perfectly tolerable children's and young mans perfume.

I ended up giving this one to my sister, who inturn let me use her Ombre Rose, which, as a perfectly straight guy, I get a lot of compliments from.

Cheap and synthetic; from 1998-2003, all the guys at primary and highschool wore this, it counter-pary deoderant, or something else smelling, just like this, cheap, fume-like and nauseating!

Sporty, dynamic, light, fresh - it smells like the creek nearby my house after it floods through on a stormy Friday afternoon - ferns and native grasses washed by crystal-lear run-off.

It nice, and it actually doesn't smell as generic, synthetic and industrial chemical-like as others in its genre.

I have two bottles of this purchased on sale four years ago kicking around the back of my walk-in. I think they were $7.50 each - so I got the last two as it looked like it was going out of production.

Nice and easy to wear. Bu not special; and its definately not a "must-have-love-it" perfume, but its nice to wear in that yard or around the house. Not too in your face.

Thou shalt listen to mine words, for I am the God of perfume, and mine are the Truth and Light...lol

That was directed at the people at Gucci. Why on earth did you decided to discontinue this!

The original, as I remember it, smelled VERY masculine, fresh, clean, aromatic, woody and powerful.

The newer Gucci pour Hommes are abominable!

Loved this stuff!

Mmm, I agree with some aspects of the reviews here. But I am affraid to say that I DON'T love it, but I DO like it.

It smells simple, smooth and clean, but more smooth than anything else.

Excellent training wheels fragrance. Nice. Good price, too. I think this was the first fragrance I ever owned (or was it Tabac? hmmm...)

Has a very slight, muted boozy quality. Very acceptable.

No way that it could possible offend anyone...

Not particularly impressed; it just smelled "weird", not quite sure how else to put it...

Stick to the original, which is great stuff.

Mmmm, I agree, disinfectant and pine-o-clean come to mind...Also, perhaps "Dettol" anti-septice liquid? Not very "Lime-y". I expected this to be like the English Leather (a perfectly fine, under-stated and under-rated men splash - I say splash because the spray is unpleasant, with too much aerosol), but with a Lime twist to it.

I just can't handle this...If you're a struggling univeristy student, then maybe this will do until you get your degree and a decent earning.

Love the original though!

I don' think this is necessarily out-dated or old-fashioned, but it is classy in the classic sense.

Apparently, this also contains Jasmine and Moss (?), but I dont really get any Jasmine...

Simple, clean, under-stated and masculine. I say this because too may people poo-poo it these days.

Its easy to wear, and very versatile. But not necessarily something that I would go out and buy particularly for myself per se, but it is nice.

In this sort of genre, I prefer Lauder for men, just as available and versatile, a little less expensive, and less harsh. Lauder itself sits somewhere in between Eau Sauvage and a lighter, brighter Aramis.

Nice, non-conformist, rich, luxurious - it all been said before.

Be careful with the applications here, adhere to the guidlines the others set out for you...

If misused, it WILL clear a roome.

But it is very rich, mysterious, complex and masculine.

Quite nice, also quite satisfactory.

Lawn-mower. Cut, dry grass. Gasoline. Diesel. Forest-fresh toilet cleaner...

Something piney, but not disineftant like at all...

A lot of middle-class fathers and eldest-sons in my neat, well-kept middle-class suburb wear this on pic-nics, strolls around the lake, and browsing at the Sunday Markets.

7: 30 am, like clockwork, on a Saturday morning, I swear I can smell them all going walking down to the lake for a pic-nic or tending their pretentious Bansai gardens and flower beds in this.

Its nice, but for the first 15 years after its release, over-used as a Saturday outing and yard-work cologne. And now that image is stuck in my head.

Sure, its unique and nice and masculine-smelling...but, alas, not for me...

I don't think I need or want to continue here...

Once again...Disappointing. My opinion of this is negative.

I just find it boring and I feel that this has already been done.

And Double Black is NO improvement over it.

I do appreciate it on a friend of mine, but this is certainly nothing I would go out to buy for myself, or anyone else...

I dunno where I think I'm getting this "already-done" sense or feeling from, maybe to my nose it just smells a little to generic, or soemthing.

I do like its dark feel, but just nothing exciting, and the drydown/development leaves a lot to be imagined.

Sorry guys, thumbs down on this one.

Just nothing special, and everyone I know raves on about it, and its new younger, darker brother, Double Black. I have a ling-time affinity and passion with and for fragrances, but I can;t find anything "GREAT" about these Polos.

BORING!

Just plain uninteresting...I am not pleased at all.

I don't get why sooo many people love and bathe themselves in this stuff.

Just generally boring, its been done before.

Not interested. The other day I snapped at the SA as she tried to spray it all over my right arm and persuade me to buy "smelles common and boring!"

I felt really bad after that, and appologised!

INTOXICATING!

Gourmand, but NOT gourmand.

Perfumey, but NOT perfumey.

Yummy...but...no, no, make that sexy...

Thumbs way up!

Once again, what you see in the fragrance notes here is EXACTLY what you get.

Nice enough. Once again, with a fragrance like this, I suggest layering is the best option, istead of going over-board (as so many do) with the EdT.

Complex, masculine, "western", hint of romance.

Good cheapie store fragrance. Not for the feint-hearted, sorry...

What you see in the notes given, is essentially what you get.

I feel that it set out to be exactly what it is. That's that.

Not too shabby. Nah, its quite nice.

The key here is to use in moderation. I pinched a bottle from my dad's dresser 5 years ago, huge bottle, and it has lasted to this day (I actually don't wear it that often).

Sorta in the same genre as Lagerfeld Classic.

Something, like many others, Lagerfeld Classic, Opium PF, Antaeus, Aramis, and the like, that quickly becomes boring if used every day. Space it out. Use it judiciously, and you'll never receive a complaint...Just compliment after compliment!

I agree...totally with 'tvlampboy'...Quite potent.

Thisone just didn't do it for me.

It smelled a little "tumultuous"...

It made me think "hmmm...meh!"

Very potent, impressive in that sense. I can wear it, but something I am likely to go "hunting" for.

Pleasant; and what you see in the notes above, is more or less what you get, so I wont waste too much of your time...

It alright.

Urgh! You are the most utterly offensive thing I have smelled since I relieved myself in the public toilet this morning!

Honestly, this smells like a boozed-up hobo!

It needs a good, long, hot and soapy shower, a shave, a hair-cut and a check-up.

This fragrance has the potential to be more, but just won't get up off of its butt to do anything!

Hmph! You're almost as noxious and insulting as your older brother..

Very contemporary, but bland, and to be frank, exactly what is to be expected.

Certainly a LOT more tolerable than its progenitor...But I personally just cant wear either...

Not for me. Watery, warm, spicey, tangy, freshy, needs a shower and a shave...all-in-all, confused (The Fragrance that is!)!

Does anyone get pencil-shavings and body-odour?

Let me enlighten you on the "type" of b-o I mean: the b-o that publicly-employed, county maintenance workers sport on a stinking hot day...A sharp-dry type of b-o, the type typical of the hight of summer...PEEEEE-EEEWWW!

Then, add to this, essence of pencil-shavings...stir in a hint of incense and vetiver, and to enhance everything that is wrong with the scent, add a few drops of oil of papyrus...stir well, and bottle. But don't foget to dust with white pepper, to induce sneezing and give a sharp dustyness to that good-awful pencil-shavings-body odour-smell!

Granted, the incense and vetiver in this is good, but the other elements runi it for me...!

Ummm...hmmm...well...

look, everyone seems to love it, and to this day, I smell it EVERYWHERE!

It's alright, I would not necessarily go out and buy it per se, but I wear it because I got a huge bottle as a Christamas gift.

Its not bad at all, but just not what I'd usually wear. And so many people do wear it...

But even if only a few people wore it, it would still not be something that I would "hunt" for.

Longevity and sillage are alright, the smell itself is alright as well...just not as special as everyone makes out!

I'm sorry, but this perfume is very harsh-smelling.

First, it starts off industrial cleaner + Lemon Pledge-smelling.

Then, this is given OOMPH by a harsh-smelling peppermint...

This is only reinforced by the woody base.

Ergh! I wanted to love it, but in so forcing myself to do so, I ended up hating it.

I was really suprised By this one!

Nutmeg, yet I didn't get a headache.

I received this as bday gift on my 15th from a friend who didn't know what I liked, let alone what to get me at all...

Not bad at all, but I think a smell a hint of jasmine and carnation and clove in the mid-notes?

I know hedione is derived from jasmine, but this is definitely in the mid-notes.

Nice stuff, I "get" the sexy element in the actual fragrance, but I don't "see" it, if that makes any sense...

I think it makes more of a comfort perfume than a sexual one, but it can go either way.

I got a rather large bottle, plus the deo, which lasted me three years, but I just can't find it anymore...damn...oh well, that's life I guess!

Yeah, its nice enough.

Warm, soft, powdery vanilla. Very easy to wear.

Nice and comfortable.

Not an out-and-out vanilla; its got a lot of woody-mossy-powdery tones to it, from start to finish.

Doesn't evolve a lot, but it does a bit.

One basenote-er hinted that it was trying to be Jaipur pour Homme. Well, I agreed at first, it does share certain warm, powdery characteristics with Jaipur, but the more I think about it, the less reconcilable the two become.

I used to use Jaipur, which I love, but gives me a good-aweful headache. So I swiched to this, and got a LOT more compliments, from both sexes.

Fresh, soft, floral, innocent, aldehydic, romantic.

Really nice fragrance for