Login or
register to rate or review Love and Luck for Men and access other features...
Fragrance Profile
| - Availability: In Production
- Perfumer: Olivier Gillotin
- Bottle Designer: Christian Audigier
|
|
Love and Luck for Men Fragrance Notes
Reviews of Love and Luck for Men
Showing 6 out of a total of 16 reviews
Show: 5 positive | 10 neutral | 1 negative
Add your review of Love and Luck for Men
 15 reviews
|  I like it. It's very fresh and delicious. Has something very alluring going on for it in the middle. That being said it doesn't have a spark to it. It smells generic to my nose. I'm also not a huge fan of citrus. It's not bad but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone, nor do I think I could get away with wearing something like this. If you're into fresh citrusy smells give it a shot. 24 June 2009 |
 3 reviews
|  If you wanna wear smw/hamptons for half the price pick this up. It's identical to my nose. Maybe a tiny bit harsher than the other two at open but the tire/current/calone accord is a bit rough anyway. P.s. I like smw/hamptons. I wore a sample of this today and all my friends who know i wear smw in the summer remarked on me breaking it out for the summer. Longevity is as good as smw bit better than hamptons. It has all the same benefits/drawbacks remains really fresh and currenty with a bit of a sharp edge. Much like smw though it can get a bit tiring with so little movement or development. m Gave it a neutral. It gets a - for the blatant plagiarism but a plus for being a cheap option for the same smell. 13 June 2009 |
 1 reviews
|  I just bought this and really like it. I smelled it months ago and was turned off by it for some reason. Those that say it smells like Silver Mountain Water are crazy. I've worn that stuff and for as expensive and popular as it is, I think it's really bad. Love and Luck DOES smell a lot like Unforgivable after the wear down. However, Unforgivable is probably the biggest rip-off ever. You can spray the entire bottle on and within an hour, it's GONE! Sean John should be embarrassed. Also, Love and Luck is much better than the original Ed Hardy, in my opinion! 07 June 2009 |
 35 reviews
|  BORING... This is like some cheap drugstore knock off. Don't get me wrong, it's not a bad scent. But let's just say you'd be better off getting a drugstore knock off and saving some $$ for a better scent. 24 May 2009 |
 111 reviews
|  Really baffled by the comparisons to SMW, I just dont smell it. Wish I did, because I love SMW. Fruity, airy, has many different similarities to other offerings, but not enough alike to compare to each other. Nice Violet/Wood combo. 14 May 2009 |
 11 reviews
|  it is a good fragrance over all its nuetral because of its lack of originality and its nothing great just a normal fragrance. it has a citrusy start which is quite pleasant and then just fades to a dark horrible soap and dirt which luckily nobody can smell off you. also it has bad longetivity so if you want a scent that is good at the beggining then slowly fades to horrible and doesnt last long then you should buy it 04 May 2009 |
Show all 16 Love and Luck for Men reviews
Add your review
You need to be signed in to be able to post your review and access other features. If you are not yet a member you can register here — it's free and simple. Registered members can sign in here
Related Love and Luck for Men products on eBay
The aim of Basenotes is to collect as much information about as many perfumes as possible. If you have any further information about Love and Luck for Men by Ed Hardy [Christian Audigier] that you wish you share,
click here. Although Basenotes strives to be as accurate as possible, errors and omissions may occur. This page may contain links to Internet stores and/or eBay. Basenotes is not connected with these sites and make no guarantees and accepts no responsibility for what you might find as a result of these links, and any future consequences. This page may contain opinions about Love and Luck for Men by Ed Hardy [Christian Audigier] from our visitors. These are the views of the credited author alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Basenotes