I do not think it makes sense to speak about the liquid of this perfume! My grandmother used this fragrance, and I suspect that even my mother uses both Laltrove 1002 and Chanel No. 5. This fragrance is a beginning, a total break with the past. For the first time a perfume was produced by someone who was not a brand of perfumery, for the first time the use of synthetic molecules becomes a point of strength, for the first time the packaging is not a pompous crystal amphora, but a simple bauhaus bottle. This fragrance was a really school for perfumery and also represented the key reference point for all movements of innovation in the field of fragrances. What happened then? Nothing. For nearly a century the whole perfumery has contented itself with one purpose: to sell. There are only two scents that have attempted to regenerate the dusty world of fragrances: Escentric Molecules 01 and Peety by O'driý. The rest is: tabula rasa!
ďFashion is made to become unfashionable.Ē
This reviewer may have conflicts of interest
10th May, 2015 (last edited: 12th May, 2015)
Beautiful. Have been fascinated with this perfume since I was small, and finally at 40 bought myself a bottle of the EDT. Actually, I bought the EDP first but was nearly knocked over by the strength of it. The EDT is much softer and just gorgeous. As the Chanel website says, you can spray it liberally and it just envelops you in this lovely cloud. Lasts all workday and I've never had a complaint, stays fairly close to my skin but I catch little delicious whiffs of it all day. The bottle is nice and feels luxurious, and the scent is pure luxury itself. I just love it. Soft but interesting, with different notes developing all day long. I never get tired of it.
This has always been the first fragrance using, besides neroli and ylang-ylang, aldehydes heavily in the top notes and afterwards, and whilst it gives a certain sparkle to it I am not sure whether it is necessarily a sign of quality, but it certainly was a novel and creative idea. The main wonder of this creation, especially in its original perfume version any years ago, has been the supreme quality of the roses; so delicious, natural and beautifully balanced by the classic jasmine notes. The sandal in the base used to be of great quality, but over the years it has become a bit less special.
I get very good sillage and projection with a longevity of about nine hours in the perfume.
The original perfume is a classic - 4.5/5.
This wonderful fragrance deserves its iconic status. Men love it on women and women love to wear it--for a reason. The sparkling aldehydes, the floral heart, the musky, vetiver base--it is beautiful through and through. It must have been mind-blowingly original when it first came out and the way that Chanel has developed the brand--which has become a cult--is amazing. Comforting yet elegant, totally feminine, it is as the Catherine Deneuve tagline went: "one of the pleasures of being a woman." And yet..... Is this the greatest perfume of all time? Is this the quintessence of the perfumer's art? Is this truly timeless, or a time capsule? I wonder. What I do know, though, is that the world is a better place because of it and women smell great in it and I am happy for Chanel's success in continuing to find new generations of wearers of this classic French scent.
I come at No. 5 unhindered by any associations with female family members or acquaintances wearing it - nobody I know is that classy. I had been testing the EDP for years now, just a random spritz here and there when I was in a perfume store, just to make sure it was as deeply repellent as I had remembered it. The EDP never disappointed, in that regard.
But recently, I was on my way back home from a holiday and realized I had forgotten to pack my precious little decant of Bois des Iles for the plane ride home. I am an extremely anxious flyer and have found that the calming scent of sandalwood is practically the only thing standing between me sitting quietly in my seat with clenched buttocks, a silent moan of terror trapped in my throat, and running down the aisles butt naked screaming "We're all going to f*^$#&őNG DIE!!!!". It is safe to say that I was mildly disconcerted to find that I had no sandalwood on my person. As was my husband. Anyway, in desperation, I looked at the bottle of No. 5 EDT on the duty free shelf, figured there had to be some good sandalwood in the base, and so spritzed it on liberally. It worked. The EDT has a rather short performance trajectory, so I was well into a glorious sandalwood dry-down by the time I was boarding, maybe 90 minutes later. It is true that I may have bruised my husband's forearm during take-off, but at least there was no screaming and naked antics from me, for which we are all truly grateful.
The slight similarity to Bois des Iles in the far dry-down had me intrigued. Was it possible, I wondered, that I could get my ruinously expensive sandalwood fix through plain old No. 5, which is, compared to BdI extremely easy to find and not as hard on the wallet? I conducted a little investigation. I bought a small bottle of 1940s/50s pure parfum from a Basenotes member, as well as a small purse spray of the EDT (current version). Here are my thoughts:
The Good: The vintage pure parfum is simply exquisite. It is a smooth, round thing of beauty. They say that Chanel has secured the harvest rights to all the best jasmine and roses in Grasse for generations, and you can tell. I would not be surprised if they have St. Peter under contract to collect the tears of angels in heaven for this too. The florals are deeply abstract, super-blended, and buttery in the way only Chanel can pull off. I can't identify a single one of the flowers used here - it's like they picked some flowers, dipped them into liquid gold, waited for them to dry, then broke them up into little pieces and put them back together all mismatched, like a sort of Picasso's Desmoiselles d'Avignon, with the the bottom part of the jasmine welded to the top of a rose. It is all very fuzzy and abstract. Later on, I detect something pleasingly animalic in the dry down, as well as that soothing sandalwood.
The Bad: The extreme abstraction comes close to feeling synthetic at times, and there is this weird plasticky netting cast over the florals, as if the golden, fluid smoothness has been pushed to the brink. In the parfum, this plasticky feel manifests itself as a semi-pleasing sort of nuttiness, like unsweetened almond essence. It is an odd effect, like I said, half-pleasing but half-unsettling and synthetic, and I am not sure that it belongs. I perceive this plasticky, almond thing in the parfum to a small but noticeable extent in the pure parfum, but not at all in the EDT, leading me to think the effect is due to taking the abstract richness a step too far.
The Ugly: The EDP takes this plasticky effect to the florals and pushes it to the limit of my tolerance. Actually, the EDP smells like burning plastic for much of its development on me, and it is quite unpleasant. It is joined by a synthetic note from the laundry or household detergents aisle in the supermarket.
I enjoy the EDT a great deal, perhaps the best out of all the versions. But it is surprisingly light and last for only three hours on my skin. What I have taken to doing is dabbing the pure parfum on pulse points, and then spritzing the EDT all over my body, so that I get both concentration and volume. Then I am surrounded by a lovely fug of golden scent all day long.
I have to add two important things, though. First of all, putting on No. 5 is a conscious act of melding with the madding crowd - there is nothing to tell you apart from the legions of women who put it on just because either their mothers did before them, or just to wear something famous. There is nothing about it that says "Hey! I am wearing No. 5 because I choose to, based on the notes!" You will just smell like everyone else (well, of a certain age). For those of us who like to express some aspect of their individuality through choice of perfume, putting on No. 5 feels like you are willing accepting to be an anonymous face in the crowd. It is so recognizable and such a cultural shorthand for luxury, class, and "poshness" that it has, I find, a depressing sort of flattening effect on your own individuality. And you can't bend No, 5 to your own personality either - forget about it. You can wear it defiantly with shorts and flip-flops, but your smell will still say "I am a posh woman, slumming it today. I have my pearls and twin-set waiting for me at home".
Lastly, I discovered that although No.5 is an acceptable short term alternative to Bois des Iles for a plane ride home, it really cannot replace Bois des Iles in the long run. Note to self: Just buy Bois des Iles and be done with it.