Must de Cartier (1981)
by Cartier

Must de Cartier was a real surprise for me. I had expected it to be a big spicy oriental, but I didn't expect that it would unfold from start to finish in the complex way that it does. Luca Turin basically described it in The Guide as being the perfume equivalent of the ugly leftover chocolates that nobody wants in one of those big box of variety chocolates with strange fillings. While I can agree that the opening is such a cacophany of notes that can be overwhelming at times, it immediately settles into one of the most sensual and animalic scents I've experienced so far. I would say that I tend to agree with JaimeB's review. Yes, there is that looming chocolate-y note that remains from initial application to the warm vanillic drydown, but there are also big notes of leather and civet on me and that's why I'm smitten.

Other reviewers have said that the vintage is much better than the newer version. I have both in parfum strength and have tested them several times to see what the differences are. While I usually agree that the vintage is better, in my case the newer version works better with my skin chemistry. I get very little leather and no civet from the vintage version. On me the pervasive notes are chocolate, balsamy notes, leather, civet, amber, musk and vanilla, but sometimes it can be very woodsy. At other times, this scent can smell a little like Shalimar because of the big vanilla that starts to emerge closer to the drydown. In some ways this is a scent that's hard to pin down because it seems to shift slightly with each wearing, but for me that's okay because its always full of surprises. The sillage and longevity is perfect, as you only need to apply this once and it will last until the next morning. It's definitly a unisex and those who love gourmand scents should try this. I don't think you'll be disappointed.

Jan Moran's Notes:
Must de Cartier (1981 Oriental-Ambery)
Top Notes: Bergamot, tangerine, lemon, aldehydes, peach, rosewood
Heart Notes: Jasmine, leather, carnation, ylang-ylang, orris, orchid
Base Notes: Musk, amber

A huge scrubber for me. It smelled like someone set fire to a car in a field of dandelions.

Amazingly bitter from the first sniff, only settling down to burned rubber and plastic smell. I think that's the rose; I'm a known rose killer.

Cartier does make some of the most beautiful perfumes. Take Must de Cartier (for women- vintage) for example. Such a captivating, heady blend of the most romantic notes. A scent of great seduction. Not cloying at all. I love, love this very much. Even more than Cartier pour Homme. Just heavenly! A must for all Cartier's lovers.

A rich top of citrus and other fruit notes leads to a dense and heady heart of rose, white florals, carnation, orchid, orris, a hint of leather, and vetiver; all this is rooted in a base of vanilla, sandalwood, amber, tonka bean, and civet. The overall effect is rich and voluptuous for a blissful moment, whence it tones down to a warm and slightly animalic effect; then the drydown goes through the florals and leather to a purring oriental accord softly whispered like warm breath in the ear. The whole is one of the gentlest, most captivating romantic voyages a perfume can offer. Discontinued, very hard to find, but if you can find it, grab it and make it last for as long as you can.

Reminds me of Obsession at certain points during the development (and I like Obsession), but unfortunately Must turned sour on my skin and I couldn't enjoy it after a while. I would like to try the parfum version sometime to see if I get a different experience. It is promising. Could work very well on a man.

I second the recommendation to find the old version, if you can.

Must was my first big perfume love. I found it in about 1990. Bought a bottle, a large extravagance at the time, and loved every drop of it. I have since bought another EdP and the EdT. They are nice of course, but I've wondered why I didn't get the same overwhelming sensory experience as I did with that first bottle. Now I know it was reformulated in 1991 or 92, using cheaper ingredients. But try the new one--if you love it, go searching for the older version. The modern version is only disappointing if you remember it being better...