BLUF: This is in regards to the “reorchestrated” version released in 2016…I think – because the fragrance/juice/liquid is now an orange-pinkish color (in my LuckyScent vial) and smells nothing like what the reviews from 2008-2012 describe.
What I smell is unequivocally disappointing: an overdose of heliotropin and ethyl maltol, even more so than L'Homme Ideal (which I can't stand), some cheap, sweet, powdery "tobacco" notes, and an amalgamation of recent masculine designer releases currently sitting on the counter of any given Macy's. It basically smells like someone mixed a cheap knockoff of Back to Black with a cheap knockoff of L’Homme Ideal.
For a brief 10-15 seconds in the opening, there is something like a nod to Salvador Dali Pour Homme underneath it all – a weird grungy patchouli, but it is swept away post-haste, in a torrent of sugary almond pig slop, along with any hope of my enjoying it. The powdery almond tonka slop gets even sloppier as it continues to dry down, eventually leading one of the messiest, uninspired, most piecemeal bases I’ve ever smelled.
The one thing I like about the drydown, relative to the rest of the show, is that the sweetness of the heliotropin has waned a bit. This would be what I consider a "lipstick on a pig" type of situation.
This is a huge miss for me, it's just way to sweet and overtly synthetic for my tastes, not to mention boring. “Insipid” comes to mind. Just another overly sweet tobacco/candy scent.
If this is somebody’s idea of an improvement over the original No. 3, first, I find that hard to believe, and second, if this truly is an improvement, you couldn’t pay me to wear whatever this used to be. Nowhere near neutral territory.
Frank No 3. is the latest release, and the latest to be reformulated (now in 2016) of the original trio of Frank Los Angeles fragrances.
I certainly get the fruity and spicy elements in the opening but it is much more powdery on my skin than the note breakdowns and reviews I've seen/read, I almost expected to see iris as a note. Perhaps it's the jasmine that combine with tobacco to create a powdery unisex vibe. Ultimately, I don't get much amber in the dry down either, so I'm a little disappointed from the description but also borderline suspicious that there's something wrong with my sample, though it's from Luckyscent like
Unlike No 1. or No 2., it's not particularly masculine at all, as this is wholly unisex as far as I can tell. It's a bit unique, too, as the powdery tobacco vibe isn't one I've gotten often.
5 out of 10
A great fragrance for Spring and Summer. Smells like Polo Blue, only better quality. For the price, this is a must buy for me. I get tons of compliments with it. A VERY under the radar fragrance, it seems. I guess it's better that way! :-)
I agree with Foetidus - the opening had promise, but as soon as you get a bit into it the 'aqua di gio' takes over. In fact that's exactly what this scent reminds me of. If you're looking for that you may be satisfied, but I certainly wasn't.
too bad! I also liked No.1 and 2
Notes of light citrus and a light musky base. A cooling top note of cucumber gives this a wonderful chill to it which makes it great for the summer. Nothing special, though.
Fresh opening of cucumber and melon – fruity but not really sweet to my nose. I enjoy the opening considerably, until about ten minutes into it when I begin noticing the lavender that is joining the attractive fresh opening. As so often when they do the lavender thing, I feel that the clarity of the cucumber and melon (in this case) is sacrificed for a dubious bandwagon accord. To add insult to injury, a basil note is then brought in, resulting in a complete mess IMO. That’s about the end of it: I lose the scent. I get nothing from the drydown. I have tried this five times over a three week period, and I get nothing after the basil.
I am a fan of the FRANK No 1 and a somewhat fan of FRANK No. 2. I was expecting to like this one. I don’t. I guess that linear regression works every time.