This fragrance might seem a bit of an oddball. It stands yards apart from the gooey, syrupy gourmands and fruity florals of its year (1999.) It also keeps its distance from the tradition of Beautiful Florals. It is neither expansive, nor powdery, nor sweet, nor symphonic, nor, well, particularly floral. Even aldehydes, so often used in floral fragrances to ramp up from the descriptive to the superlative, just give I dl F a lacquer.
To stand apart and to be eccentric are two different sensibilities, and I dl F captures this precisely. (Mugler’s Angel is eccentric; unhinged, actually. I dl F may be misunderstood but doesn’t care in the least. Compare even the bottles. Impractical [“But I’m artistic, dammit!”] star from Mugler; sqat, clean, unadorned inkwell from I dl F.) There is nothing clamorous about this scent; she’s not trying to win you over. Apparently a completely different train of thought than that of 90s perfumery lead to its creation. Combining white florals (I get tuberose, ylang, jasmine) with a little peach skin, and a rather medicinal benzoin gives a comfortable, rounded feel.
This would be a brilliant signature scent.
29th November, 2010 (last edited: 03rd May, 2012)