Red for Men (1991)
by Giorgio Beverly Hills

It's no coincidence that none of the reviews on Red For Men can adequately describe what it smells like. There are allegedly over 600 ingredients in this, making it just about impossible to point out individual notes. I don't find any of the traditional fragrance categories apply here - fougere, oriental, chypre, leather, floral, etc..

What I can say is that the two most prominent notes I smell are leather and moss, and everything else is just all spice, herbs and wood notes, many of which are obviously synthetic. Two fragrances which are very similar to it are Preferred Stock and Trussardi Uomo. It's an 80s styled heavy power scent, with concrete-like transparency.

I like Red For Men, but it's lacking something. I guess I'd say it doesn't have the charisma of a powerhouse like Quorum or Lapidus Pour Homme - sure it's loud, unrefined and crude, but it feels like it's a strong scent simply for the sake of being a strong scent, and that's it. I think it's the heavily synthetic smell and the sheer volume of notes that blur Red's identity and make it a fragrance with an identity crisis. It lacks the darkness of most 80s powerhouse scents, plus it was released at a time when that style of fragrance was beginning to be out of style. It's trying to be part of the Fendi Uomo and Kouros gang, but it came too late to the party, and it shows in the way it smells.

All in all, however, Red For Men is a good fragrance that every power fan should check out.

MY RATING: 7.5/10

29th May, 2011.

For a scent released in 1991, Red for Men smells like a throwback. Its swaggering clary sage, artemisia, juniper, and cumin top notes must have felt like a Neanderthal brow ridge in the age of Cool Water, Acqua di Giò, and Kenzo pour Homme. The pungent aromatics represent one half of Red’s peculiar design: a 1980s-style “powerhouse” fougère grafted onto a sweet spiced woody oriental. It’s roughly one part New York to one part Drakkar Noir. I can only guess whether Red represents nostalgia for the spirit of masculine fragrance past or a quest for novelty in a time of stylistic transition, but the result is unconvincing to my nose either way. The clashing olfactory cues are more cacophonous than complex, more confused than stimulating, in their massed effect.

Boundary blurring between aromatic fougère and woody oriental styles worked well for Givenchy’s Xeryus, where the execution was relatively subtle and nuanced, but Red suffers by comparison on at least two counts. Red’s two main structural components are crudely composed to begin with – the aromatics are loud, coarse, and abrasively chemical, and the resins are oppressively sweet and cloying. Worse yet, these parts are awkwardly joined, the seams closed with clumsy sutures to leave abundant scar tissue, like an olfactory Frankenstein’s monster.

When after two or three hours’ striving on the skin the mêlée subsides and the dust settles, it’s the aromatic fougère side of Red that remains standing. By that time the olfactory landscape is so thoroughly scorched and cratered that the victory is hollow. My advice? If the fougère-woody oriental hybrid idea appeals to you, go try Givenchy’s Xeryus, recently re-issued as part of the “Les Mythiques” collection. It conducts the same experiment without smelling like a laboratory accident.

22nd April, 2011. (Last Edited: 30th May, 2011.)

This one straight out of the bottle gives you that powerful spicy throwback cologne smell. Other reviews don't like the sweet and powdery components of the drydown. I find those characteristics allow for this one to be worn now, 20 years after its release. Without it, this would be another unwearable overbearing powerhouse. I enjoy this one and when I'm in the mood for that throwback feel, I'm glad I've got this one handy.

4th February, 2011.

The wildly mixed reviews on this one are astounding. I generally don't like colognes that I would qualify as "sweet" - i.e., I think A*Men is a too-sweet mess. Red for Men, by comparison, is not a sweet cologne in my book. It is, rather a spicy cologne with just enough sweetness to smooth an otherwise dry edge. I suppose the combination of cumin, wormwood, thyme and geranium help to give it a slightly herbal, dirty, masculine feel and dryness. I like it. RfM employs quite a large symphony of notes, only a few of which I can detect individually - so I won't even try.

As aptly written by our esteemed fellow basenoter, Grattola, maybe our noses are different. My nose likes Red for Men!

18th January, 2011.

After looking at the previous reviews of Red for Men and seeing the praise around the forums here on Basenotes, when I finally got myself a bottle I figured that the ones praising Red for Men must be talking about the old formulation, or maybe we just have different noses.

Regardless, I did approach Red for Men with an open mind, and managed to snag a bottle of the current formulation at TJ Maxx for a good price. Well, excuse me for being flaccid, but all I smell is just a big powdery spice bomb. The opening is a spicy, powdery obnoxious floral opening that surely boasts all kinds of stuff, but it doesn't impress me. As it dries down I get a pronounced Cumin note that I actually can tolerate, which is rare as Cumin is probably my least favorite fragrance note. Anyway, this stuff just stays a powdery spice bomb on me for most of its life and projects like a beast as well. And yes, it does last a while. Sorry guys, but if I want a powdery floral fragrance for men, I'd just as soon reach for Tiffany for Men.

15th January, 2011.

Ever been decked by a boxing glove stuffed with herbs?
The opening of Red is actually very green, and though I normally dislike taco mix cumin as a note I am quite impressed with its partnership with wormwood, here creating a fascinating dirty effect. I hear this one is packed with ingredients, and I don't know exactly what causes it to come off so sweet, but it certainly is sweet. It's a thick cluster of gritty, earthy herbs and spices, ambery leather, and red-tinged dry woods. The sheer manliness in Red seems to have trampled the florals in the heart, but not for the worse. This will either come off as utterly crass or curiously alluring depending on the wearer's bearing and self control.
Side note: The recreation of Red by new owners Elizabeth Arden is heart-warmingly faithful to the original; it is only (perhaps thankfully) marginally less potent. Perhaps they feared repercussions from its fanatical devotees?

11th January, 2011. (Last Edited: 19th January, 2011.)