Worth pour Homme (1980)
by Worth

Worth Pour Homme is an extremely classic fougere: no doubts. If you're into "first-wave" type of masculines and if your idea of cleanness brings to mind of Kouros, then Worth Pour Homme is for you. A slightly severe opening with loads of herbs (and the usual lavender accord) introduces a leathery/musky composition of incredible beauty. A remarkable woody presence reinforces the general masculine vibe while subtle floral patterns provide incredible refinements. Civilized yet not too mannered, long lasting but not overpowering, fresh with just a tad of dirtyness providing and incredible balance. Terrific.

31st January, 2012.

Worth pour Homme is the well-behaved and mannered kid brother of Paco Rabanne pour Homme. Both fragrances are aromatic fougeres. Worth has the classic lavender, coumarin (tonka), oakmoss fougere structure. Like its older brother, Worth pH has a soapy texture which subsides but never really disappears. Lavender and citrus are dominant in the opening, although rosemary plays a key role in Worth's development. The mid notes are green and floral. There is a distinct 1980's vibe to Worth, which I love, but others may not. I 've had people tell me it smells like an old man. I don't share that view. The dry down is leather, tonka and oakmoss. I get a sweet, dry, light musky sensation during the dry down. Worth holds its cards to its chest. It is not a sillage monster or an in your face projector. If you enjoy Paco Rabanne and similar fragrances you will lkely enjoy Worth. I prefer Worth to Paco Rabanne. Worth just feels more versatile, and well, younger.

17th December, 2011.

Unexpected encounters in elegant corridors. A cousin of the original Paco Rabanne, Worth Pour Homme is quieter and more reserved. A beautifully blended scent at a budget price, putting many more expensive fragrances to shame.

17th November, 2011.

The lavender is strong at first, and perhaps with the rosemary, creates that "hair spray" type quality that some people refer to when reviewing fragrances with top notes like this. It softens up, slowly at first, then quickly after an hour or so. I get quite a bit of moss in this fragrance, and it's quite similar to Azzaro Pour Homme, minus the anise note, once you get to the middle. The base is quite weak, so I have to spray more than usual to get decent longevity. Anyway, this may be best thought of as Azzaro Pour Homme with anise subtracted and leather added, especially after the top notes subside. It's now selling for next to nothing on ebay and some online discounters, so if you are a fan of this type of fragrance it would seem to be a "no-brainer" to grab one now.

19th July, 2011.

Now this is what a leather fragrance should smell like! A true classic from the old school, Worth Pour Homme is considered by most people to be a fougere, and when you first spray this on, it has a sharp, woody opening accord of lavender and citrus that is reminiscent of old-fashioned fougeres like Trumper’s Wild Fern (which I’ve heard is reminiscent of the venerable Fougere Royale). Within a half hour, however, those top notes fade to reveal a very warm, smooth, rich but discreet leather accord. This is not the nasty, gasoline-and-shoe polish accord that passes for leather in Knize Ten. To me, it is this leather accord that dominates and defines Worth PH, and in turn Worth PH exemplifies what I consider to be a leathery perfume. The leather really is the heart of this fragrance, and it does fade as the drydown emerges, but you can still sense it even in the drydown, which is very musky and virile.

I have the version with the clear bottle and blue box, which I believe is the reformulated version. I've heard the orignal formulation was a bit of a powerhouse, but the version I have is anything but. It has very good longevity (8-10 hours), but its sillage is that of a "skin scent". I need to really spray this on hard (oh, about 20 sprays) to be able to even smell it on myself, but then again I believe most fougeres are meant to be applied liberally.

Worth PH is not an extroverted, macho scent, but rather a very masculine, old-school but timeless fragrance for a refined, confident gentleman. It is extremely discreet and extremely good. Big thumbs up.

My rating: 8.5/10

5th December, 2009. (Last Edited: 29th April, 2010.)

Worth smells like a brighter and sweeter Paco Rabanne, which is saying a lot. I realize that I am comparing the fragrances in their new versions, but if I had to choose between the two, it would be PR. I suspect, from other comments, that the original Worth was the superior juice. Worth is a robust and heady tonic, so a couple of sprays will do, and it lasts forever.

23rd November, 2009.