Chelsea Flowers has a very timid, dewey quality that is so lacking in personality and interest that one might wonder if they've smelt anything at all.
Chelsea Flowers’ bland mix of unidentifiable pale flowers is neither pretty nor dainty; it has a faint synthetic aroma that one would expect form a Glade plug-in. Perhaps I am being too harsh; Chelsea Flowers is certainly not hideous. It’s not offensive or intrusive, it’s simply...nothing.
I guess for the atmospheric price point I expect a little more.
For those who care for/appreciate this type of shmaltz-pap: I am sure Chelsea Flowers is a monolithic goldbrick.
I might appreciate this if I cared; but I don't.
I find it to be AGGRESSIVELY INSIPID.
It's less floral than it is fruity, especially apples and melons. It's Bond's answer to Creed's Spring Flowers. Of course, Chelsea Flowers is no where near as refined and elegant as Spring Flowers.
08th February, 2009 (last edited: 08th March, 2009)
I'm a fan of florals, don't get me wrong, but Chelsea Flowers seemed to me like a slightly too "pretty" flower-shop scent, but it just didn't strike me as particularly wearable or amazing. I'm developing a theory that Bond #9 line of fragrances is aimed at people for whom money is no object and the very act of purchasing a scent that's "nice", but not remarkable, but at Bond's prices, is a huge status symbol in the manner of: "Hey, I can afford to pay this much for something that's just plain NICE. How about that?"
A sprite white floral, drying down with a healthy dose of greenery. As I first applied Chelsea Flowers it brought to mind Tommy Girl. As the initial topnotes eased, CF remained an ultra fresh bouquet of white flowers with loads of green sprigs - much better than Tommy Girl could ever hope to be!
This is one of Bond no.9's better offerings!