A noble and comfy sweet aromatic fougere that feels like a mix of De Viris, Antaeus and Revillon pour Homme. The best of the Burberries in my book.
Great stuff! This was my first "high end" cologne and was purchased when it just came out- eighth grade I believe. It's nice to see the TRUE original bottle pictured here. I saw another site that has a picture of the incorrect bottle. I laugh about this one because I have girls that come up to me to this day that remember me wearing it LOL! I take it there's not even a modern reformulation of it? It's no longer made in any form?
I'm no expert on fragrances. I buy what I like and own around 20 colognes today at age 50. When I was a teenager in 1980-82 I used to enjoy testing the available scents at the nearby department store and getting samples. In 1982 I finally broke down and bought my first bottle of men's cologne, the original Burberry. I loved it and it lasted for about 10 years. In the meantime I bought Aramis when I was around 21 and got Drakkar as a gift when I was 23/24 followed by the original Fahrenheit (I don't like the new Fahrenheit). I reminisced about having Burberry again some 8 years ago only to find that it was long discontinued. On occasion I've searched online for it with no luck or on the very rare occasion I found it, it was a lot more than I was prepared to spend. A few weeks ago I got the urge to check again and found it at auction on eBay and I won a new, full bottle for $52 with shipping. Heck, it's work 3-4x that and was cheaper than many of my newer colognes. I'll be sure to make this bottle last!
I did buy the new Burberry London about 6 weeks ago after testing it and finding that it was the closest to the original. This will be a regular and the original will be saved for special occasions.
For ages I have wanted to try this fragrance because of my love for the few iterations that came afterward with a similar name. It became sort of a 'bucket list' item for me. When I first sniffed the sample I finally wrangled I was utterly dismayed that it smelled like Burberrys #2; I love that fragrance but was immediately convinced the vendor giving me said sample had also been confused by the London-Not-London name game Burberry had created. I noticed a marked decrease, however, in the 'citronella' aspect of #2 which is among its most prominent features.
I remembered it said that the very first Burberry smelled something like what is now called London, and I can now attest this is true - with all the confusion that brings with it.
Here now I will provide a quick guide to help anyone confused as I was for the purpose of navigating this series of scents.
#1 - Much like Guerlain's Derby without the smoky intensity, sort of like Hugh Grant trying to be Clint Eastwood. An herbal, mossy leather which stays close but is quite strong for a couple hours. Despite the pyramid above, a beautifully authentic-smelling sandalwood base which reminds me of Jaguar Mark II without the overbearing patchouli. Contains a flowery, plantlike bitterness which will later be over-accentuated, using tagete, in the mid-90's incarnation. Just beautiful.
#2 - Citronella and spearmint over vanillic wax and woods, like an upscale Pleasures for Men. Endlessly enjoyable.
Burberry for Men ('95) - Very bitter opening, full of marigold and sunflower laid over a then popular vanilla and lavender duo. Well constructed and well dressed but a bit wearisome. The cedar and moss drydown hearkens to the first Burberry, an attempt at recreation following current guidelines and lowered cost. This was obviously an attempt to revive the brand using the early to mid 90's guidelines of floral-fresh. Thank the powers that be they stuck with floral-herbal instead of jumping ship for Calone.
Burberry London - Once again donning the now confusing 'London' moniker we see a boozy port and fir creation which seems like the first one on holiday, like a resinous extract of the original - eschewing dryness for a winey saturation. It is still very similar in structure, (especially the delicious use of pepper) but another attempt at reinvention of the Self, much like a Madonna album.
I was for years confused by the Burberrys series, thinking of each successor as its own entirely different fragrance, but once I finally realized the house was simply tweaking and reissuing its flagship to meet modern standards it suddenly made so much sense and I could see all the dotted lines joining them. I do not like these offerings any less for being rehashes because I feel they were tweaked with a beautiful nuance to fit their respective times. I am, however, confident that any of us who have worn the first two know there is just something special about their make which has largely eluded mainstream perfumers since.
Burberry can churn out all the flankers they want but they are going to need a serious overhaul if they ever wish to return to this level of quality. Burberrys (#1) smells like a personally tailored suit feels, while their new sport juice feels a bit more Old Navy.
Long rant short, five blooming stars for one of the most perfectly proportioned and utterly beautiful creations I've ever sniffed.
Hi. I am confused.
Here's the backdrop: I recently got this cologne on ebay by mistake; that is to say, the seller shipped me the wrong one. It's called Burberrys of London For Men. Well, the other buyer (wth my cologne I actually won) never responded, so I just decided to keep this and I even told the seller not to worry about giving me a partial refund (which she offered me to keep it).
Here's the story: I never smelled it nor sprayed it until it was officially mine, and whenI did, WOW!!!!! It is classy and awesome and just plain delicious! I think I may have an original, but I am not sure. The bottle has "Burberrys" in big letters, then "OF LONDON" underneath. Then, a little below that, "FOR MEN", and down near the base it says "EAU DE TOILETTE". Do I have a real gem or just a cZ? Either way, this smells GREAT!!