Touch for Men (2000)
by Burberry

Just THE most feminine fragrance ever to be named, "For Men." More like a teenage girlish perfume. Nice bottle, though, I guess. HATE IT!

Touch for Men is basically the only other Burberry scent I kind of enjoy together with London for Men, and the good old Burberrys from 1992. From the very first sniff, Touch screams “2000s” all over: that synthetic musky-watery texture, the spicy woodiness, the softer hint of violet leaves providing a powdery feel conforming to that “androgynous” type of “new millenium’s urban-informal elegance” so many masculine scents of that decade seemed conforming to. And a really enjoyable smoky vibe (I guess coming from vetiver), just to keep it “manly” enough. Slightly reminding me of Nemo by Cacharel, albeit much less heavy on the spices, but somehow they share a sort of common “mood”; both are mellow, kind of plastic in a fascinating way, spicy and exotic but with a peculiar sort of smooth and slightly aqueous texture. Touch smells just fresher and more focused on vetiver/cedar and spices, with a musky base and a powdery frame, but there’s indeed a tonka-nutty breeze that makes Nemo come to mind. However that’s it, the evolution is almost absent, the projection is elegantly close to skin. Miles far from being a groundbreaking scent, not the greatest quality around for sure... but still a decent crisp fragrance less generic than it may look.

6,5/10

Again I have to say......"not that bad" (in its synthetic range and level of cost of course otherwise we'd have to preseve from a thumbs down just a minimal part of scents around). Burberry Touch for Men is a fragrance that tends to gather tons of compliments just because its central accord of violet, oakmoss and smooth (vaguely vanillic) suede is appealing. I don't find the aroma "insipid" and have to say that the fragrance preserves an its own level of peculiarity. It's a fragrance that needs a bit of time and less preconceptions. There are fresh herbal/tart hesperides in the blend (lemon and mandarine combined with lavender, I suppose) well connected with mossy leather and notable violet. The spices (pepper but I suppose cinnamon too) are kind of sparkling (combined with citrus and herbs) and almost velvety in the middle of a freshly silky "suede-like" wake. The aroma is "fresh'n smooth" in the frosty night out (lavender enhances this feeling), musky and kind of glamour, "well trimmed" and virile. There is also a typical Burberry "touch" which I spot in a mix of tobacco/tonka and spicy/musky leather. On the complex the fragrance smells on me (and in general) enough temperamental and far more likeable in comparison with more quoted but less dignified "niche" scents bla bla bla. Excellent projection from my skin (very poor sillage??? I wonder how). Rating in the average or may be over.

Genre: Woods

Insipid, which is about as good as Burberry’s scents get, in my experience. On the evidence to date (London, Burberry for Men, Brit, The Beat, and now Touch for Men), I’d suggest Burberry get out of the fragrance business, but they apparently make money on this stuff. Touch for Men smells of politely soapy, woody violet, some lavender, and not a whole lot else. It’s as if someone diluted a drop of Grey Flannel in a ten gallon barrel of solvent. My advice? If you want a woody violet fragrance, just spend $15 US on a bottle of Grey Flannel and apply it very sparingly.

As an aside, the bottle is unusually nice for Burberry, which is to say it’s not hilariously homely.

very low sillage... peppery citrusy and woody.. lightweight scente, a rather good cheapo... but with a very cheap vibe!