Weil pour Homme (1980)
by Weil

Visiting my friend Marcel in his hospital bed the other day, I was pleased to see that he seemed to have slightly recovered his health and his spirits. "I must tell you, mon cher Nitram," he informed me eagerly, "I have latterly made the discovery of Weil Pour Homme. An old school fragrance, if you like, but you know that I do like that sort of thing. It puts me in mind slightly of Cellini by Faberge, although the analogy is far from exact, Weil Pour Homme being somewhat drier, more haughty and more subdued. But Weil Pour Homme has something of the same overture of citrus and herbs, and something of that same rather delightful resinous quality. Its later developments are definitively smooth, warm and distinguished, in some ways like an expensive masculine soap, yet still with that herbal and resinous resonance. For some reason, it rather reminds me of the interior of a Bentley limousine. A rather traditional, elegant gentleman's cologne, to be sure. But, if you will excuse me now, I really must eat up this tapioca pudding which these kind nurses have put before me. I hope to see you soon."

EDIT: Weil Pour Homme Old and New: So as not to mislead potential purchasers, I should say that my review was for the older version of Weil Pour Homme (bottle with a large maroon 'W' on front and maroon plastic cap). The newer currently available version, relaunched in 2004, I believe, (squarish bottle with silver cap and faint horizontal silver lines on bottle) is a different, and to my nose, less delightful affair, having been reformulated. Lemon, lime and lavender have disappeared from the topnotes, to be replaced by pineapple. Lavender has been transposed to the midnotes and nutmeg added to them, although basil and jasmine still remain. The basenotes are also different, sandalwood replacing cedarwood, and tonka being omitted.
The newer Weil Pour Homme is still quite a nice, subtle, elegant scent but lacks the rather delightful resinous and soapy quality which I liked so much in the older version, especially in the basenotes. The basenotes of the newer version are an altogether more weak and boring affair, to my nose. Any comparison, however partial, with the excellent, discontinued Cellini by Faberge is completely inappropriate for the newer version.

17th September, 2011. (Last Edited: 10th October, 2011.)

Very nice opening—a close-to-elegant citrus and lavender. It would be truly elegant if it weren’t for the slight oily feel to it. The aldehydes do not seem to be very prominent, but it is a very winning opening. The mid notes are very typical of the 80’s fragrances and are done as well as most of the others; it’s a green / slightly herbal accord that is a little too old school “cologny.” I myself am not put off by this because this is what I used to think colognes were all about, but it does seem out of date now, and I doubt that I would be happy wearing it. The mid notes eventually settle down a little to a close-to-the-skin green / herbal experience that is still cologny, and it reminds me of Paco Rabanne Pour Homme. The dry down doesn’t really lose that cologny tang because the leather, tonka, and labdanum are not strong enough to smooth out the accord—the accord remains sharply mossy / cedary and is in need of mellowing out. I don’t mind this scent so much, but I think many would find it too old school; and if one wants old school, I think there are better choices.

6th April, 2007.

Somewhere between Generic-Zegna mod elegant and Salvador Dali PH (yes, the one with the lips) very good development. An elegant and little known frag.

11th October, 2006.