Login or
register to rate or review Cacharel Pour L'Homme and access other features...
Fragrance Profile
Cacharel Pour L'Homme (1981)
by Cacharel
| - Availability: In Production
- Perfumer: PFW/Paris
- Bottle Designer: Annegret Beier
|
|
Cacharel Pour L'Homme Fragrance Notes
Reviews of Cacharel Pour L'Homme
Showing 6 out of a total of 35 reviews
Show: 26 positive | 1 neutral | 8 negative
Add your review of Cacharel Pour L'Homme
 2201 reviews
|  I love nutmeg. Cacharel pour l’Homme is chock full o’ “nutmeg.” I can’t stand Cacharel pour l’Homme. Through some dark miracle of science Cacharel pour l'Homme makes nutmeg reek like chemical fumes. I urge anybody who confuses this miasma with the real spice to grate themselves some nutmeg, then (gingerly) sniff Cacharel pour l'Homme. I love many big, bold scents: Or Black, Kouros, Black Aoud, Knize Ten, Bandit, Musc Ravageur, Havana, Amouage Gold, Yatagan…the list goes on. Cacharel pour l’Homme is big and bold. It’s also loud, harsh, and crude, and its mere presence in the room distracts me from my work and curbs my appetite. Whenever I smell Cacharel pour l’Homme I wish its sillage, strength, and longevity were all much less. I have found a new nemesis. Its name is Cacharel pour l’Homme. 01 October 2009 |
 736 reviews
|  Did Cachrel with their seminal offering - Pour L'homme; release a scent with one of the most realistic note of Nutmeg...? i'm still in awe of this scent..by the way it executed this note. i would like to believe that they used the natural essense ..but i could be so wrong. is this a aroma chemical...? coz it doesnt smell like one..Basically, i love the smell of nutmeg but, never got a chance to experience it so clearly/explicitly as in this Cachrel release. if you have ever sniffed a jar full of nutmeg and i mean 100's of em..then, it's easy. Pour L'Homme smells "just" like that. 18 August 2009 |
 137 reviews
|  One of the first frags I ever enthused over. The zesty opening is beautiful, and I love the spicy heart (nutmeg and clove). To my mind this is an absolute classic! 13 July 2009 |
 2208 reviews
|  It was probably reformulated years ago so, if it was, I can understand why I don’t like this (while others praise it). It’s far too soft and fleeting for me to appreciate, and the cinnamon barely registers. I’ve tried to discover the appeal but to no avail. It’s a lame and underwhelming fragrance that must have been watered down at some point by Cacharel. Taking into account that this was released in the ‘80s, there’s a very high possibility it was. Zero points. [Original submission date: 10 April 2008] 27 June 2009 |
 744 reviews
|  A fine oriental spice. This is the winner of the warm fuzzy category. Merry Christmas. 19 June 2009 |
 3381 reviews
|  I have to go with the other negative reviewers here and say that this is way too soapy for my tastes. Must have an aromachemical in common with Prada Amber pour Homme because I get the same sharp, stinging soapy note. The fragrance otherwise feels very clean. A redeeming quality is that it is not as overpowering as many scents from the 80's. As a matter of personal taste, this gets a thumbs down. 18 September 2008 |
Show all 35 Cacharel Pour L'Homme reviews
Add your review
You need to be signed in to be able to post your review and access other features. If you are not yet a member you can register here — it's free and simple. Registered members can sign in here
Related Cacharel Pour L'Homme products on eBay
The aim of Basenotes is to collect as much information about as many perfumes as possible. If you have any further information about Cacharel Pour L'Homme by Cacharel that you wish you share,
click here. Although Basenotes strives to be as accurate as possible, errors and omissions may occur. This page may contain links to Internet stores and/or eBay. Basenotes is not connected with these sites and make no guarantees and accepts no responsibility for what you might find as a result of these links, and any future consequences. This page may contain opinions about Cacharel Pour L'Homme by Cacharel from our visitors. These are the views of the credited author alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Basenotes