Oh Dunhill Dunhill Dunhill ..... What have you become? The quality days of Edition are long gone and that past master is becoming a memory. This modern junk annoys. Synthetic pap. Why do your bottles not have the name of the fragrance on them? Isit because even the bottle is ashamed of it ! The usual commercial stuff being churned out. London was overly sweet and fleeting ( with the rose making it overly effeminate too ) and this tries to sell on the basis of "nettle" accord. I have never gone close enough to nettles to absorb any aroma they give off and the only asociation i get is one of pain. Ah yes... pay £38 for an "unmarked" bottle of this, realise it is pointless and feel the nettle ( ie pain! ). Dunhill Edition 1984 issue was very clever with great sillage and longevity. As i said a past master ( from packaging to bottle to fragrance to reputation ) .
The first thumbs down i'm afraid. Too green. I'm not a fan of overly sweet fragrances but this has no sweetness detectable at all. After the first hour i began to feel sick and couldn't wait to shower this mess off. Synthetic with strong sillage and longevity. Not pour moi.
So this is London? I think not ! Rubbish offering from a once mighty fragrance house. James Bond was described as wearing Dunhill in the early days. Not a chance he'd be associated with it today. This is sweet, rose, nonsense which has no quality and is overly synthetic smelling. Flop.
Synthetic but pleasant. No great shakes.
Well somebody has to give this puppy a thumbs up so i better step up! It is a well blended subtle concoction in a well designed bottle if supported by slightly overly heated publicity ( you can youtube the commercial and be amused ! ) The fragrance is nice and i'm not sure whay people here seem to require something either very unusual or with overly loud sillage. This one attracts positive comments and just like some of the greatest Creeds ( such as Neroli Sauvage ) it whispers at people for attention...and gets it. Look, if you want something that screams "I'm here" and "I'm not subtle" buy the original Polo ( green bottle ) and spray it in copious quantities. You will be emitting fern like odours for weeks. As for Tom Ford for men this is a solid offering and i would have thought warrants more thumbs up here. Each to their own i guess.
Rubbish. Well actually that's a little brief and inaccurate. Lemon rubbish.
Silly rubber cap which sprays a silly smelling fragrance. The ingredients don't seem to go together at all. Musty weird smell. Not my cup of tea. Thumbs down in a big way.
Disappointing. The fragrance starts off ok but the base is sickly sweet in a synthetic way. Shame that as the idea of this one is nice and the ingredients on paper are nice. Not a disaster this one but it fluffs it at the last hurdle. The bottle is way too heavy and unecessarily so . Not great for the baggage allowance is it? P&G seem to be making overly synthetic stuff these days. Im my humble opinion designers should be focusing on a back to basics marketing ploy of selling the product based on purer raw materials being used ( not so much synthetic ) and trying less hard to produce something so original. A nice smell is a nice smell but something that is less chemical and more natural appeals. Well it does at least to me.
Not for me. Smells weird. Plus i hate bottles with an off centre spray! ( the bottle looks as much like a sports car as the Boss In Motion bottle looks like a cube )
Nice first offering from Vera Wang. Nothing ground breaking which is fine by me. I want to smell good ... not unusual ! Good longevity and quality in this one. Nice bottle if that's important to you. Not ubiquitous so another plus point in my book.
Simply sublime in every way. Perfect. Pricey as with all Creeds but perfect .
Citrus at its best. You couldn't wish for more from this if you like citrus oriented scents. Long lasting too despite what people say and think. Beautiful blend of sweetness and citrus.
Ok this one. Bit sweet and longevity a bit of a problem but overall acceptable.