Despite the 12 ingredients listed in this revival, I can only detect two. It begins with a blast of rose - much like the dry masculine Turkish Rose note in their Hammam Bouquet. This soon fades as it balances for a time with orris root (Iris) and finally gives up altogether to allow the orris to be the one-note for the entire drydown.
This is decidedly old-fashioned and reminded me much of their own Victorian Posy. It smells like an old woman's cologne from the 19th century, powdery and evocative of an old potpourri or drawer sachet.
I am surprised this was revived, since at its original release in 1977, it was already hopelessly out of date. Not a bad scent, not a good scent, just so-so.
30th June, 2011 (last edited: 13th July, 2011)
Review of the new 2010/2011 release
A new release of a classic scent launched for the first time in 1977. It's a greenish, herbal concoction with hardly any flowers and a wry dryness...so it's not a floral chypre in my books (it says so in the press material). This fragrance does not talk to me at all. I can't say that it is unpleasant, but it bears no element of surprise, no fascinating chord. It comes across like a well-established, decent toilet water for people who want to obey the code of conduct. Absolutely devoid of any erotic hues, this seems to be respectability in a bottle. It's prim and proper - and could easily pass as a scent created for Victorians...when it was dedicated to Elizabeth II.
I was extremely keen on trying this, butthis scent does not fill me with any enthusiasm at all.
3 out of 10 points on my personal scale