H2 (2005)
by Hummer

For me this is a fresh-ozonic, rather sweet, vaguely greenish scent.
'Greenish -- with the emphasis on ish rather than green.
In fact, thish is incredibly ish.
Simple, a bit bland, certainly predictable.
The usual freshly-laundered smell of towels and the recent zap of a lightening bolt.
It does not appeal to me.

19th December, 2010.

Hummer2 deserves much more credit than it gets here. It does not smell disgusting or overly synthetic by any means, according to my nose. It is actually smells very good to me, even though I normally hate these kind of scents.

I don't consider H2 to be an aquatic fragrance, but rather a light spicy and woody oriental fragrance with a touch of cardamom, which is a note that sometimes gives fragrances a semi-aquatic smell. The so-called "aquatic" note is not overbearing at all (I hate aquatic fragrances), and is merely one facet in this rather multifaceted and complex scent. I like this because I get different whiffs of various notes throughout the day - warm sweet notes, woody notes, the "aquatic" note, pepper notes, etc. - and this makes for a very interesting wear. IH2 is well constructed because none of the notes dominate but rather work in harmony with one another. It's also very transparent, which allows the various notes to smell like they are sparkling.

Despite the association with Hummers, H2 is not just another bland, faceless sports fragrance. This type of scent has certainly been done before, so H2 is not groundbreaking by any means, but it is an interesting and spicy take on the mainstream "fresh" fragrances, and I do feel it sets itself apart from the norm. I typically don't buy these types of fragrances, so it's a bit of an anomaly for me. All in all, I am glad to have Hummer2 in my wardrobe.

MY RATING: 7.5/10

21st July, 2010.

Not as bad as everyone makes it out to be. It's a bit of an aquatic with a spicy twist to it. Notes are hard to separate and pull apart due to its syntheticness, but it doesn't smell horrible. As it dries it becomes more floral and soapy and smells completely different from its opening. Then it changes once again into something completely different (and my favorite part of the fragrance) as it becomes a peppery/leather/grassy mix with a little vanilla -- rich, yet very soft and subtle. There is a metallic note or accord in the opening but it's not nearly as bad as Chrome or Jordan (both of which I hate)

Surprisingly a complex fragrance, perhaps the reason people dislike it is because they can't understand it as it takes twists and turns. All of its phases are different from the next and astonishingly remind me of 3 totally different fragrances. I bought this blind and I'm gonna try and return it only because I don't see any use for it in my collection. I can use the 14.99 I spent towards something better I think. All in all though, it's not a bad fragrance.. more something for somebody who just wants one fragrance to make their signature.

Is it worth retail? God no, it's barely worth 14.99 for 2.5 oz like I paid. To me it's worth 5 bucks for 2.5 oz. but that's subjected to my personal feelings towards it and how it fits into my collection. Looking at it in a less selfish way -- I think 15 bucks for 2.5 oz of H2 is a good price.

24th May, 2010.

Even though I have many high-end fragrances in my collection,
this budget cologne still gets a fair shake. I think that this
is a good year-round office frag that doesn't make me feel
like I'm going to offend anyone. A coworker once noted that
I smelled like dryer sheets!

13rd February, 2010.

This is a surprisingly good scent, and I don't like many scents. Even though it's pretty cheap, it is a very competent blend. Like its namesake, it is a very broad selection of notes, yet subdued at the same time. It also lasts very long, and I think it's the sandalwood that stands out the most after a few hours.

Another upside to this is that it's hard to find another smell similar to it, but it's not deviant enough that it's repugnant.

I also find that is has one of the best spritzers on the market. It's very hard to put a lot on yourself, and the spray-coverage size is impressive.

2nd October, 2008.

I was very skeptical after receiving H2 from a friend who picked it up a local Marshalls and gave it to me as a goof (knowing my taste in fragrances is generally beyond those named after GM vehicles). According to the box this is an Elizabeth Arden fragrance, so it's not like the boys in GM were tooling around with the perfumer kit.

I don't sense the depth that iMaverick does, but nor to I get an intense synthetic feel as I do from, say, Dunhill Desire. H2 is a dry fruity scent similar to many others (Bob Mackie comes to mind) 2-3 hours in you get slight spice and musk notes poking through, and H2 lasts longer than Mackie. The vanilla does temper the fruitiness well. Sillage/longevity average to slightly better than average.

I can't imagine a day where I'd say "I'm going to choose H2 over the rest of my wardrobe". But I can't honestly say this is a bad scent. I analyzed it with a couple sprays on one arm as I placed a couple sprays of a very expensive, niche fragrance with similar notes on the other. There was no appreciable difference in the quality of the scents, development, sillage, etc.

11th June, 2008.