Fragrance Reviews by Bigsly

Well, I guess I'm used to fragrances that are at least a bit sweet, because I don't find much of anything here. I'll just skip to the base, because I try to avoid the top notes of all fragrances. To me, this was a dusty green/floral, a bit dry but not very dry. It comes across as a one unit, so if someone calls this creamy that makes sense, but it's not the kind of creamy I like. Something is missing for me, as if it was somehow mixed incorrectly and some ingredients were omitted. It was a strange sensation, actually, smelling a fragrance that seemed to be missing a vital part, but what's there is fairly good, just not something I personally like, so I'll give it a neutral.

I have tried to find the notes on this but they seem to be unavailable. I'd guess anise, pepper (possibly with other spices), iris or orris, and vanilla are the major ones. I usually dislike strong anise, but something softens it up here, and it's very pleasant. I also think there's melon or a melon-like note in the top, but it is gone within a couple of hours. This lasts a long time and has very good sillage too. This is quite rich but not as dynamic as one might expect, though it's not "boring," probably because it is so rich. So, it's strong and rich, but also soft, which is what I prefer in a fragrance, though it lacks as much dynamism as I prefer (the anise may be just a bit too strong, preventing the all the notes from interacting as much as I'd like; instead it feels like the anise is bullying the other notes) . Still, there aren't many fragrances that are excellent in every way, and this one is very, very close, so of course it deserves a positive rating. It also cost me about $14 for 100 ml, and I'd call it "unisex."

I wouldn't go as far as Vibert and call this somewhat gourmand. Instead, it's softened and sweetened just enough to make the harsh element not just bearable, but enjoyable. What I like about it is that it avoids a super-musky quality that would have dated it terribly, and more importantly, made it unwearable (for me). Instead, this is a great blend that never goes too far in any direction while retaining its essential character (dry, woody, mossy, etc.). Those who once enjoyed various "niche" incense fragrances, yet now find them too harsh or dry should try this great "cheapo." With one spray to the chest, longevity and sillage were good to excellent.

I guess fragrance appreciation must be 100% relative, because I don't find this "synthetic," too sweet, too clove-oriented, or too "thin." If you want to know what a clove-oriented fragrance is, try Ava Luxe's Kretek. No comparison. I can barely detect clove in SFpH. A fragrance that is too sweet for me is Gucci Envy for men. Carven Homme is also fairly sweet. SFpH does not even register on my sweetness scale. I enjoy the opening because it is not too sweet, yet it's fruity. It's not really my type of fragrance because it's not sweet or spicy enough! Gucci Envy is also way too synthetic for me, but this is fine, a nice one to have in the monthly rotation. I got this in a swap for something I didn't like, and I'll be the first to admit I wouldn't spend money to buy a bottle of it, but I like it better than most fragrances I've sampled. And so I think it deserves a positive rating. Longevity and sillage are good if not great.

This one is the antithesis of what I look for in a fragrance, so of course I can't give it a positive rating. As others have said, it's dry, austere, harsh, etc. I'd much rather not wear any fragrance than this. If you have never sampled this kind of fragrance, do not buy it "blind" because so many BNers like it. I just wonder where the thought that something like this should exist as a fragrance originated. Perhaps with a certain kind of skin chemistry this one might be acceptable, but on me it's got the "bug spray" note going in full force.

I find the opening too much of a "nose twister" to my liking. There is a nice spicy blend behind that opening blast, but then it dries down to a rather boring leathery scent, and it doesn't last all that long. I found myself reaching for other fragrances, such as Lalique for men (lion), instead of HR, so I decided to swap off my bottle. In contrast to my "newbie" review, I don't find this animalic now, just too strange and yes, unpleasant, in the opening, with not enough in the drydown to make me want to endure those top notes. This one you need to try several times before you buy a bottle, and that's only if the notes and descriptions of HR seem to be what you're seeking.

My old "newbie" review:

I have tried the EDC version only. The first sampling did not go well. The animalic floral qualities were overwhelming and I washed it off within the hour. However, I was fortunate to get a nearly full bottle in a swap, so I took advantage of the offer, knowing that I could then re-swap it off again. Instead of wearing it again, I opened the top and smelled it every few days, before sampling it again. Doing this must have desensitized my dislike for the animalic florals, because when I sampled it again, over a month after the first sampling, I could handle the first several minutes. After that, it seemed to settle into a great spicy fragrance, with great "balance" amongst the different notes. I don't get strong vanilla at any point. Sillage is good but longevity could be better, though since it's an EDC I probably shouldn't complain about it. I enjoy spicy fragrances and this is not like the others, so I think it's got a permanent role in my rotation.

I found this "blurb" about it: "Everlast Original 1910 cologne combines top notes of mandarin, mint, grapefruit and lavender with a heart of geranium, nutmeg, cypress and cinnamon, and base notes of patchouli, leather, tonka bean and musk. It was blended by Givaudan's Antoine Lie."

This is very well blended, and is worth a positive review based upon that alone. It's also got good longevity and sillage. You can smell most of the individual notes, but none are too strong. On my first sampling, I made the mistake of smelling it up close on the skin (I sprayed in on my arm), which resulted in feeling like I was going to get a headache, so I don't advise doing this. Instead, this is great to spray on the mid chest and just let it come up or through your shirt. You may only need one spray. Chandler Burr liked this one, saying that it was not just good but also versatile. I usually dislike geranium and lavender, especially when used together, but as I said, this is a great blend, and there is no harshness if used correctly.

My old "newbie" review:

Strong grapefruit, and what I think is galaxolide. As Magnulus said in a thread on basenotes (not related to Everlast Original 1910): "'...drugstore deodorant' sounds to me perhaps like the fragrance contains galaxolide, which is a clean, vaguely fruity/'white linen' or 'laundry detergent' type musk. It's similar to musk ambrette..."
EO 1910 seems to be "powered" more by vetiver than by musk.

EO 1910 is similar to Very Irresistible for him, though that one has mocha. I think I detect just a hint of chocolate in EO 1910, and there is a nice, mild spiciness to it. It's also fairly strong and has good longevity. One or two sprays is enough for me.

This dries down to a subtle, somewhat "playful" fragrance, but I just can't find anything special about it. I wouldn't call myself a big fan of leather scents, so that may be part of it. I dislike the harsh or animalic ones intensely. The only one I like is Everlast Original 1910, probably because the leather note there is part of a real "group effort." This does have a subdued "zing" to it, but there's just not enough going on, at least the kinds of things I enjoy. You really need to know what you're looking for in a leather fragrance before buying this one, and if you like this one, you might like Nicole Miller for men even more, so try that one too.

I don't find this synthetic, and any fragrance can get boring, at least to me. This in some ways is the "perfect" fragrance, because up front you've got great spices, wood, and incense, then it warms up and softens up. A subtle musky quality lasts a long time, beyond the first strong couple of hours. There's nothing else going on that would be a distraction, yet it's not too dry, sharp, or harsh, as is so often the case for "niche" fragrances. It's not an "oriental," but in some ways forges its own category, because it's not really a "hybrid" either. Be forewarned that this is not a "newbie" fragrance. My first few samplings didn't go well, and I dismissed it as being too woody and too "dirty incense." However, I keep coming back to fragrances that I think have potential, and when I last sampled this, about
a year and a half after this new "hobby" of mine, I realized just how good it is. I guess that I got tired of the "masculine" oriental fragrances that dried down to something too sweet and vanilla-ish. Visit uses a little amber and musk to keep the party going, as well as to keep things sweet enough and "wet" enough to avoid the usual "niche" pitfalls. So, it's in between the typical designer masculine oriental and the typical niche woody/incense. And who would've guessed that's a great place to be?


My old "newbie" review: I didn't get much from this except for the incense and a little woodiness. After these notes subsided, about 2.5 hours later, there wasn't much going on. I prefer the sweet and spicy Oriental with a patchouli-dominated drydown (Adidas Victory League) or Cuba Red (dry, spicy wood), both of which have much better longevity (or it may be that Visit was too subtle on the drydown, which is basically the same thing, at least for me). I could've sprayed more, but the incense is not appealing at all, so I wouldn't want any more of it. This is definitely not a fragrance to take a chance and blind buy, unless you can't get just enough of fragrances that have strong incense.

Lot's of notes for a simple smelling fragrance, but it does smell good. I haven't smelled it on anyone else (that I can remember) so it's new to me, and fills an important spot in my rotation: a light spicy-woody. Sillage and longevity are good too. When I wear it, I think of other fragrances that are more complicated, for example, there are similar ones that have lavender, like Lomani, but for me the whole point of wearing Tommy is that on that occasion I want something light and spicy, yet with some decent potency.

I think the problem I had with this one is that by the time I sampled it I had already come to enjoy fragrances like Michael for Men (Kors) and Trussardi Python (the "women's), and by comparison Egoiste is crude and has an un-natural quality. I really don't find anything appealing about it, though I often like something about a fragrance I don't enjoy enough to buy. I wonder if this is related to the fact that it dates back to 1990, when a lot of fragrances had these unappealing qualities, from what I've experienced. This is a must sample first fragrance. To be fair to other fragrances I've reviewed, I must give this one a negative. I can certainly understand why some feel that this has a "bugspray" or "medicinal" quality, though for me it is the crude and un-natural elements that doom it. If you feel the same way, I suggest trying Burberry London for men, for example, but it depends upon which notes you want to predominate.

This is one of those blended fragrances that you either like or don't. You don't really detect individual notes. There are hints of a gourmand as well as a subdued tobacco presence. I don't really find it "boozy." It's not too sweet or too anything, just a unique blend that it seems they tried to get just right (and succeeded, IMO). So if you like these kinds of fragrances there is an excellent chance this is for you. Sillage and longevity are very good to excellent. Too bad it was discontinued.

Perhaps a bit more refined that Lomani (the original one) but not worth the extra money (I've seen 100 ml bottles of Lomani for $7). Rather than this (or Lomani), I prefer the original Tommy Hilfiger or Azzaro's Silver/Black (also called Onyx), if I want a simple but pleasant slightly spicy fragrance. The Azzaro is a bit more complex. I guess Instinct is for the guy who thinks he knows what a "cologne" is supposed to smell like. I won't speak to the longevity because I can't wear it too long, but the sillage seemed moderate to good. I'll give it a neutral because it's not "bad," just of no interest to the aficionado.

A modern masterpiece. As a newbie, the top notes were so strong that I smelled very little later on, so I thought it was mostly top notes and nothing else. I also couldn't appreciate the dried fruit and patchouli. Now I can appreciate the wafts from the drydown, and it lasts a very long time (with sillage that is just right). The blend is great but individual notes are articulated well. This is what I call a "three dimensionally dynamic" fragrance. A "must have" for the aficionado, and it doesn't sell for much now (I got a great deal on ebay). What are you waiting for ?

Violet, geranium, and lavender. Three notes I can't stand, unless of course only small amounts are used. It's green, but it's also colgny/perfumey, and I detest fragrances like this. If you want to be "colgne guy" this is a good choice, because it's not as cheap and crude as others in this genre. Longevity and sillage seem good. I'll give this a neutral for those who actually seek this kind of scent.

Great juice! This may be really dependent upon skin chemistry. If someone told me this one was made for me, I'd believe it! And it lasts forever, 12 hours or more (but again, that might not be the case for you). My "mind's nose" is teased for hours by the great dynamism of this fragrance. It may not be "challenging," nor break new ground in any other way, but the simple dynamism of this fragrance is as good as it gets. I would have dismissed this one as bland and boring a year ago, so I'm glad to have obtained a bottle at this point in my olfactory understanding. Now, most of the time, I don't want to be "challenged," but instead want to enjoy the fragrance, and TFFM fits this job description perfectly (no I was not paid to write this! LOL).

I'll give it a neutral because it's certainly not bad. However, I'm not really sure what to think of this. At times it reminds me of a simple but nice amber fragrance, such as Etro's, but at other times it seems to be a Shalimar "wannabe." I don't get fairly constant sillage but rather a waft now and then. It's almost like too much of a tease, and makes me think of other fragrances that are similar but that I'd rather be wearing. At one point, at least two hours after spraying, I thought something great was happening, but whatever it was, it didn't last long at all. I "blow away" top notes as much as possible, so keep that in mind. I'll likely try it again, but I really don't look forward to doing so, and at this point, that's a very bad sign. Some might prefer this to fragrances like Shalimar Light, of course, but AF just seems too shy and awkward to me. My guess is that this is all about personal preference, rather than one being "better" than another.

I hate lavender gourmands (Chinatown, Animale Animale for men, Rochas Man) because they really nauseate me, and this one is no exception. However, it also has a synthetic quality that makes it even worse, and it's boring too. There are just too many better alternatives now, such as Ciel Mon Jardin or Amour de Cacao, to take this one seriously. I can't speak to longevity because I can't deal with it for any significant length of time. I also can't imagine this one working with anybody's skin chemistry (unless your skin just "eats it up" and you don't smell anything), so sample first and see how others respond to it. This is one of the most unbalanced fragrances from a major house that I've ever sampled.

This is for the reformulated EdP version. It's just too harsh and bitter for me. There's really nothing I find pleasant about it. It's almost like the "bones" of the Original Francesco Smalto fragrance (mossy, musky leather), and seems to me to be a relic of a bygone era (or error). So, if you find this too harsh and want a softer yet more masculine version of it, try the Francesco Smalto (while it's still available and super cheap). I'll give it a neutral because I can see this as a matter of taste, not "good" versus "bad."

I largely agree with shifts here, and I'll add that the original CdG fragrance is like the concentrated version of this, in that it has a "thick" quality whereas this is more "transparent." The original CdG also has a strong honey note, which this doesn't. Both have a scented candle/soapy quality. I don't get much incense from Costes (or it may be that it's blended with other notes and gets masked somewhat) and the lavender blends nicely here, unlike so many fragrances where it slaps you in the face. This is not a "beginner's" fragrance. For the novice, I suggest getting a sample and coming back to this every month or so, assuming you are doing some sampling in between. After several months, you will then know if this is for you or not. This is the kind of fragrance a "newbie" buys, hates and swaps off, then smells again months later and is angry with himself or herself for letting it go. Sillage is moderate, while longevity is very good.

Much ado about...? Musky lavender! Well, I don't enjoy these "old school" fragrances with lavender up front, and there's really nothing else here that's so special that I'd spend money on this one. The patchouli is strong (which is fine with me) and the wormwood smells nice, but the lavender is too much. After a few hours, there isn't much of anything remaining. If the lavender was replaced by another note, I might really like this, but it ruins it for me. For me, I'd give this a negative rating, but for those who like this kind of "masculine" lavender, I can understand why you would like this fragrance, though I still don't see it as a "masterpiece." The ingredients seem high quality, but the longevity seems no better than fair. Sillage is excellent, while it lasts.

On me, the mint just lasts too long, and obscures everything else (though there is a bit of muskiness that is clear). There is also the "abrasive" or "synthetic" quality that others have mentioned. I simply don't find this nearly as good as Michael for Men (Kors), and while wearing Cuba I can only think that I would rather be wearing MfM. I also have other fragrances with strong mint that I prefer to this, so Cuba really has no place in my large rotation. I don't find it especially pleasant and I like other fragrances with similar qualities more. Perhaps those with different skin chemistry will find this is smoother and more balanced that I did. If I took price into account, I'd give this a negative. Since this is not terrible and others seem to have better experiences with it, I'll choose the neutral rating.

This one smelled like two fragrances in a death grip, in the ocean. They are both going to drown, no matter who "wins" the fight. There is a nice "gray" amber smell, but there is also a very sweet smell too, which is very similar to the top notes of Belle en Rykiel. The clash between the two became nauseating to me after a couple of hours (or less). In Belle en Rykiel, those super sweet top notes calm down after a while, and an amber frag (with some clear but subordinate woods) come to the front. The two blend together well, if you survive that initial sweetness. This is not the case for Ambre Gris, which was so unpleasant that I am writing this after one sampling. I don't know if I will sample it again. Sillage and longevity seemed to be moderate to good, but I washed it off after a few hours. I'll give it a neutral because it may be entirely a matter of taste. From what I've read in the men's forum here, AG has plenty of fans, so it may be that it's so dissonant compared to what's in my rotation that it generates revulsion (sort of like ketchup and ice cream, whereas to others it's like peanut butter and chocolate).

I do think it is overpriced significantly, but I won't assess it on that issue. Also, I almost always try to avoid top notes, so keep that in mind (I don't get any major peach note). The first time I smelled it (one small dab to the wrist), I thought it was at least interesting, and not offensive. However, my policy now is to sample at least a few times over the course of a few weeks, or more (if I don't dislike it). On the second sampling (a "full" wearing), I liked it for a few minutes, found it bearable for perhaps an hour, then came to dislike it. I got some on a blanket during application, which actually was very helpful (I smelled it during the night), because I realized that Chinatown is very similar to Animale Animale for men, and I can't stand that fragrance either (but again, it does smell nice at first). My guess is that for whatever reason I really can't stand any fragrance that has a strong lavender, moss, and gourmand combination. I've got more than a few "women's" fragrances in my rotation now, so I wouldn't be the best person to ask about its "unisex" quality (or lack thereof), but you can always buy the "for men" Animale Animale one instead (and save "big bucks"). Sillage is good and longevity is excellent (unfortunately, for me). Sample this one (or AA for men) several times before buying a bottle! If you like the lavender/moss/gourmand type fragrances, this might be great to you, so I'll give it a neutral, even though I can't wear it at all.

There was a celery-like note at first, but that was gone in less than an hour. This is very strong and spicy juice! I only applied a few tiny dabs and it lasted for 8 hours and was at times borderline too strong. There was also a tangy/syrupy quality all the way through that some might not like (a bit sweet, for sure). It wasn't very articulated, but instead seemed like a one huge accord. I'm on the fence. This may be the kind of frag you can warm up to, but I could then see it changing the way I feel about other frags, so I'm likely to keep the sample I have but not buy a bottle. I'll probably keep the sample for "reference purposes" more than any other reason, because I don't find it pleasant or intriguing enough to ever find myself really wanting to wear it instead of other frags I own that feature strong spice notes.

It must be the magnetic wood that I don't like. Ever since I was a child, I've found that scent unpleasant, but that may be because I lived near a lumber yard that sold a lot of magnetic wood. Okay, seriously, this juice smells like a vanilla scented glue (has a "synthetic" quality). It lacks development, dynamism, and balance. It feels like some sort of heavy syrup was just poured on your head. If you seek a similar fragrance that actually is a fragrance (has the basic qualities, like dynamism, balance, development, etc.), I suggest Dunhill Desire (red). It also may come across as "synthetic," but if you don't mind Pi's syntheticness, you won't mind that quality in DD. I'd be curious about the assessment process in the decision to go with this juice. What could they have been thinking?

I don't like the minty lavender opening, and after about 2 hours there is very little of anything. If I sprayed more, the base notes might come out better, but I don't think I could handle a stronger opening. I sprayed twice to the chest, just above the shirt line, for maximum effect. Could I be anosmic to the base notes? Something is very wrong here. I've sampled it three times and the same thing happened every time. Two hours of a "barbershop" type of smell following by nearly nothing. How could I give this anything other than a negative rating?

I like Givenchy's Pi better than this, so that should say a lot. On the "plus side" (for those who like it), it has great longevity and good sillage too. It may be good for "beginners," but don't stock up on this one if you intend to pursue this hobby, because I think you would really regret it. It gets boring, then a bit nauseating rather quickly (if you like the opening accord, which I don't, though it's not terrible, if you don't spray too much). I have to give it a negative because I don't understand why Dior would create something like this, unless they wanted to compete with lousy fragrances that have done well financially, and if that is the case it deserves a negative rating.

Yes, safe and boring, and not worth the price, IMO, of course. I'll give it a neutral because it's good, I guess, if you want to come across as inoffensive and "nice."

Yes, it's "generic" and okay, somewhat similar to things like Derek Jeter's Driven Black and other cheapos (Adidas Victory League). I have those two, so I'd only acquire this in a swap (and if I was swapping off something I really didn't like). If you don't have a fragrance like this in your rotation, and you can get it cheap, then it might work out well for you. Otherwise, it's nothing to get excited about. I'll give it a neutral because I don't take price into account and this isn't a bad fragrance (but if you are used to the more complex ones, this will likely bore you).

calchic is right on the money. After the top notes subside (15 minutes or so), there is nothing like this! And I don't find it especially feminine, relative to some fragrances being marketed as "men's" these days. I don't find it especially gourmand, though, because the sandalwood is strong. If you hate strong sandalwood, you might not like this, but I can deal with it and I am not a big sandalwood fan. Otherwise, this is special, and I'm glad I was able to swap for a bottle, now that it is hard to find and expensive.

First sampling; indifference. Second; enjoyable. Third; somewhat irritating. Fourth; horrendous. During at least the fourth sample, several months ago, I seemed to have had a "chemical sensitivity" problem, and the anise and sandalwood really got to me. Now that seems to be gone, so I decided to sample it again, fifth time. Back to indifference. It's not quite a gourmand yet it's not really anything else, aside from being a decent blend that gets boring very quickly. With my skin chemistry, there is little or no development. I washed it off after four hours. Valenti's 101 for men is similar, but less gourmand and less expensive (though it might be a bit "synthetic"). It is also a nice smell that just lies there, becomes boring, then irritating. If you move around a lot during the day, unlike me, it might not bother you in the same way. Sillage and longevity seem to be good to very good.

As odysseusm stated, this is a smooth blend of nice ingredients (though as KiatBkk said, it does has at least a slightly "synthetic" quality). The problem is that it is a totally flat blend. It just sits there for hours, with no dynamism to it. And after a while, it begins to get nauseating to me (with only one or two sprays). Perhaps if you are going to use it while you are moving around a lot, this would not be a problem, but I sit around a lot, and the smell just sits there, becoming more and more difficult to deal with. Longevity and sillage are good but not outstanding. I'll give this a neutral because the price was right and I can see how many will like this, but for how long (especially considering how many really good ones are out there, and not expensive)?

It seems a little weak compared to other frags, but other than that this is excellent. I spray this right at the shirt line, twice in one spot (after letting the first spray dry), and then it takes a few minutes before I get the nice wafts. From the other reviews, I feared this might be a boozy, synthetic mess, and that it would be strong and "rough." It's none of those things. It's very well-balanced and pleasant. I also thought the apple, nutmeg, or vanilla might be a bit too dominant, but they aren't. When I saw I good deal for it, I grabbed it, and now it's got a solid place in my rotation. I like it better than Egoiste, and while I have yet to sample L'Anarchiste, I think I'd prefer this, considering the claims that L'A has a metallic or "blood" quality (which I'm not looking for).

For me this was a bitter, geranium nightmare fragrance. Way too "perfumey" for my tastes. The orange does last an incredible length of time, so if you seek a dry/bitter, perfumey orange, this is probably for you. Unlike Foetidus, I didn't find it especially "synthetic," but rather unpleasant. I bought a tester, and after spraying it the first time and not having a cap for it, the entire bedroom was overtaken by this smell ! I'll give it a neutral because it may just not be for me. I can't say that it's terrible, just way out of my personal comfort range.

It's certainly abstract, unique, and well blended, as well as being pleasant. It is a little musky, for those of you who don't want that quality (you have been warned!), but it is a clear, cool, non-oppressive musk. A true "quiet performer." If you want something "egdy"' or avante garde, this isn't it. It's excellent for when you don't want to offend anyone but you want something that is pleasing and interesting.

As rodent said "there are many more notes fighting for attention." This is a highly unbalanced fragrance that is also very "perfumey." If you want something similar to this, but less abrasive and more "masculine," I suggest Jacomo Silver/for Men. BalMan is good if you want to really stand out in a crowd (not necessarily in a good way), make people ill, or be known as "the cologne guy." It is quite powerful, though I don't consider that a positive characteristic with this one. There's really nothing good I can say about it, in terms of what I look for in a fragrance.

I wonder if Dorall's Mustang is a copy of this. The differences are very subtle. I haven't investigated thoroughly (comparing side by side) because I don't like either one much. They are musky, with what seems to be mostly a cumin/soft leather accord dominating all the way through (after the top notes are gone, which I try to avoid). I don't get any clear wood note. It's the kind of fragrance you will probably really like or will hardly ever want to wear, though it's not nasty in any way. The top notes seem to suggest this will go in a different direction, but in any case, the longevity and sillage are very good to excellent. I'll give it a neutral because it doesn't have the dynamism I seek, not because I don't really like the scent all that much.

Kretek is a powerful clove/tobacco. However, it is "soft." Some might find it medicinal, especially at first. After wearing it a while, you get used to it though, and it's almost like being in a smoke shop. Longevity and sillage are excellent (I only used one spray and people around me were telling me how strong it was). It doesn't have much else going on, so I can see how some would say that it's not a "perfume," really. Nothing animalic, floral, citrus, etc., so if you are looking for balance and dynamism, you may want to look elsewhere. I'll give it a positive rating due to it's longevity/sillage and because if this is what you seek, you will be satisfied. I will likely use it for layering mostly.

I can understand all the reviews so far. If you don't spray enough, you'll think it's a "nothing" fragrance. Also, if you are used to "power frags," forget this one. I used a few sprays right above the shirt line to get maximum effect without using too many sprays. It starts out like a toned-down Uomo-Moschino combined with a light fougere, but then it takes a sharp turn towards a slightly powdery tobacco/amber, which is very light (compared to the several other tobacco fragrances I've tried). You also gets hints of the nutmeg and pepper in the drydown. I don't get much oakmoss at all. I'd be curious to know what an EdP concentration of this would smell like. Sillage is low and longevity moderate. All in all, it's well done, and a good tobacco fragrance for those who find ones like Michael for Men or Bogart Pour Homme to be too strong. If you don't mind the low sillage, you'll probably like this one if the notes and progression appeal to you.

There is a sharpness to this one that I just can't tolerate, despite going back to it and sampling it several times. I think it's the lavender and "green leaves" combination. It also doesn't fade away over a few minutes, a half hour, or so, meaning that I have been unable to do anything to modify this unpleasant sharpness. In fact, it's still there the next day, though not as strong. I really wish this sharpness didn't bother me, because I got a bunch of sealed samples at a decent price and now I can only swap them off. A tiny amount is all you need. I'll give it a neutral, because if you like that sharpness this can be a great fragrance for you. If you want a similar fragrance that isn't as sharp, Jacomo de Jacomo Rouge may be the better choice, but it's not as strong as Rochas Man (after the top notes fade). If you want a smooth chocolate/vanilla that is strong, but smooth (no sharpness at all), go for Amour de Cacao.

I wish the reviewers who said this was too strong for them told us how many sprays they used, because I used one full spray just above the shirt line and it was a bit too weak (and I'm quite sensitive to strong fragrances and usually only spray once or twice, no matter which fragrance it is). Anyway, this is not "synthetic" or "rough" or "loud" (like Pino Silvestre). It's a very nice blend. I get a lot of the oregano, but because of the blending it smells great (not like pizza sitting next to a cheap pine scented air freshener). It's great for when you want an aromatic herbal experience, and it has an important place in my large rotation. After swapping off my bottle of Pino Silvestre, I was looking for something to replace it and surpass it, and fortunately I was able to obtain a bottle of this at a very reasonable price.

This is another case of sweetness relativity. I'm used to sweet fragrances, and this is not especially sweet at all if you are like me. In fact, the lack of overtsweetness is one thing I like about it. It seems to take a few minutes to warm up, but then the wafts you get are really nice. This is the kind of thing I was hoping Mugler's Pure Coffee would be like, and thinking about it, I would be willing to pay a lot more than the $12 I paid for a 100 ml bottle of this if this was a Mugler creation (though I would've sampled it first, rather than buying it unsampled, as I did with this one). I've tried several coffee fragrances and this is my favorite of the bunch. I can understand how some could say it lacks character, if you are used to fragrances with some sort of powerful kick to them (which this doesn't have). It's just a great accord that I've never come across before, so I have no complaints with it, because it fills a key niche in my large rotation.

Other than the top notes, which I usually try to avoid (as I did when I applied Tristano), I detect a strong green note, along with civet and what I think is juniper berry. It's strong for the first hour and a half or so, then settles nicely and lasts a while. Sillage is at least moderate. It's not really my kind of fragrance, so it's hard for me to assess it, which is why I'm giving it the neutral rating. If asked to compare it to Ungaro II, I'd say that U II is more blended and has a richer feel whereas Tristano is more articulated and straightforward.

I tried to avoid the top notes, as I do with most fragrances, and it dries down quickly to a creamy scent with what I think is castoreum and incense being prominent. I think if I had different skin chemistry this would be better, but this dry, almost dusty quality lasts a long time (when I said creamy, I didn't mean in a gourmand way; if there is any sweetness, it's minimal). Also, I think this would be good for layering (such as with Cuba Red) but I have yet to try it that way. This is certainly not one to spray more than two or three times, depending upon your skin chemistry. And it may be that different notes seem dominant, depending upon your skin chemistry. However, at 100 ml for less than $10 delivered (check around when the discounters are offering coupons, like just before or after the Christmas/New Year's holidays), it's worth a shot, especially considering the layering possibility. And if Kouros is just a bit too much for you, but you think you'd like it if it were less powerful, this might be the way to go. I look forward to "fiddling around" with this one.

This reminded me a bit of Gucci's Rush for men, which I didn't like either. It almost has a vinegar-like quality. It's dry and just sits there, becoming boring within 10 or 20 minutes. I wore it three times, spaced out several weeks apart, and just can't find anything special about it. I actually prefer Cuba Red, which can be had for perhaps 1/10 of the price of this (if not less), because it's more wearable and seems to become more, rather than less interesting over time (though Timbuktu is undeniably stronger). If you like excellent designer fragrances but haven't been that impressed by niche (like me), then you should definitely sample this first. I will confess that I generally like sweet fragrances, and this has no sweetness to it. When I'm in the mood for incense in a fragrance, I usually reach for Jacomo Rouge, so that should give you and idea of what I prefer. If I took price into account in my reviews, I'd give this a negative rating, especially considering the Cuba Red alternative.

I consider this the finest fragrance since the "classics," and I don't really like the classics due to my skin chemistry (but I certainly acknowledge the artistry), so this is "#1" to me. I like sweet fragrances, and on a scale of a little sweet, moderately sweet, quite sweet, and too sweet, I would rate EC at moderately sweet at most. The cola is quite strong to begin with, but then it smooths out fairly soon and it's fragrance perfection for hours after that (with two or three sprays!). And if you a guy and don't mind fragrances like A*Men (which I rate as quite sweet), this is "unisex." I was fortunate to get some samples at a reasonable price because the bottles have become "collector's items" and now it's very expensive (due to being discontinued; a fragrance abomination). The mandarin and sandalwood do not come across strongly. I guess this can be described as mild, slightly sweet and floral tobacco interacting with the cola. If you consider yourself a fragrance aficionado, get yourself a sample !

I can't give this a negative, though I don't think it's for me. It starts off boozy and fruity, then once the top notes fade, the boozy fruit plays off against a leathery note for at least 4 to 5 hours (two sprays to chest). I think I just don't like the boozy fruit accord, but there's nothing "wrong" with it. If there weren't several fragrances that fill this niche for me, I might look forward to this in my rotation, but as things stand, I wouldn't mind swapping this off for something that I think I'd appreciate more. Everlast Original 1910 is a citrus leather that I prefer to this one. I feel that EO 1910 is balanced better, has better sillage and longevity, and I like the smell of it, whereas I really don't find anything especially pleasant about Nicole Miller, for whatever reason. I made the mistake of smelling EO 1910 up close on the skin when I first sampled it, but it needs to mix with the air. Nicole Miller can be smelled up close, by contrast.

I found this about the notes (I haven't tried it yet): "Top notes of bergamot, neroli oil and citrus mingle with a spicy cinnamon middle and a complex base that includes musk, amber, patchouli and incense."

I like spicy cookies with prominent ginger, but this does not remind me of those kinds of cookies at all. It starts off similar to London for women by Paul Smith (dried fruit/black currant) but the drydown is more similar to Fire & Ice for women by Revlon (coconut and slight cherry). It's a bit sweeter and more powdery than London, almost syrupy. Good if not excellent longevity and sillage. It gets a bit linear after an hour or so. It's well done though I won't get a full bottle because I have bottles of both London and Fire & Ice. I think London might be the more complex and dynamic of the three.

This seems to be a love it or hate it fragrance, so I'll give it a neutral ! The reason why relates to my dislike of geranium if featured prominently, which I'm guessing is the case here. I can certainly imagine many liking this, especially if they like fragrances that have little or no sweetness, but I also get the "insect repellent" vibe too. It comes across as "harsh green" but slightly "metallic aquatic" to me. It did not come across as an incense fragrance, though. I'd like to know what would happen if the geranium was cut down and more amber was added to the formula (possibly more saffron and incense too). I get my saffron fix from Derek Jeter Driven Black, which is constructed more to my olfactory sensibility. This is definitely a sample first fragrance.

As has been said, this starts off sharp green and a bit "soapy." Within an hour or two it softens up and becomes a "skin musk" type of frag (depends upon how much you use). It doesn't have a "cheap drugstore" smell to me, just very sharp. I really don't like "green" frags and I hate the geranium/sandalwood combination, as is the case here, so it's hard for me to say how this compares to other, similar frags, because I try to avoid them. For the price, though, it seems to be a good buy for those who seek this kind of frag and want to keep the costs down. I guess the chain connected to it is a "conversation piece," at no extra charge. LOL.

This is a very novel and interesting blend, but it is very blended, so it's difficult to determine individual notes. It lasts 3 to 4 hours with 2 or 3 sprays, and that's on me (I tend to hold fragrances very well), so longevity may be an issue for some people. Sillage/projection is average. I'd say this could be unisex. So, it unique and interesting (and not really sweet, like so many are these days), but I'll guess it will be too blended for some aficionados. I found the notes on a web site for this, but of course it may not be accurate:

Top notes are green tea, gera & pomelio juice.

Heart notes are thyme, fir balsam, cypress, & cinnamon bark.

Base notes are guaiacum wood & amber.

This smells like a meat marinated in something spicy, with one other element. While you are cooking that meat, "cologne guy" comes over to look at the meat. If this sounds great to you, this is your fragrance! If you want "pumkin spice," I think Carven Homme is the way to go, so long as you don't mind rosewood. I don't like this Vintage composition at all, because as I said, it smells like two different fragrances being worn at once, neither of which is that great. However, I do think it's the kind of fragrance that is really subject to personal tastes, so I'll give it a neutral rating.

I agree with Foetidus' point that the lavender is too strong and really "synthetic." Very poorly blended/balanced fragrance overall. Somewhat similar to Eternity for men. CCR is simply awful compared to any halfway decent fragrance, but if you want to cover up some horrendous body odor with a "soapy" smell, this might be for you. It's really inexpensive, after all.

For me, there is an anistic quality about this one, and the leather comes through loud and clear. But it's also nicely blended, and certainly wearable if you don't apply too much. One spray is enough for me. I couldn't imagine spraying this one three or four times per application. Why complain that this juice is too strong, when it means you can just spray once and save money? There's absolutely nothing "wrong" with this fragrance, though it may not be to your sense of taste, of course. I like it as a "change of pace." It was very inexpensive, and definitely more wearable than Jacomo de Jacomo, Quorom, and some of the other "old school" ones I've tried.

At first, this is very "medicinal," even with a minimal application. I could also see many people finding this too sweet. It stays sweet and medicinal for a long time, at least a couple of hours, which is too long for me. Finally, more than two hours later, it's really nice (again, with minimal application), but rather subdued. I think I like Jacomo Rouge better. It's simpler but the overall experience is more pleasant. You get your mild incense fix much quicker, without the medicinal or super-sweet qualities of Signature. Since Signature is become harder to find, but samples are still around, I suggest sampling this one first. I'll give it a neutral because it's not "full bottle worthy" to me, and I can understand why many would not like this one.

I don't see how this can be viewed as "unisex." I like several "women's" fragrances and Iquitos as well (used in moderation, of course), but this one is basically too similar to other truly feminine fragrances I've sampled (like the original Gucci, though this one has some nice fruit element in the top notes). Yes, it's a little different, more "modern," but it's not unique enough to me. If I were a woman who liked typical feminine fragrances, perhaps I'd find this to be superior to similar ones, but I just couldn't detect anything particularly interesting about it for me, nothing. I also think it lacks a certain dynamism that I seek in fragrances, with notes moving around, swirling about. I didn't get any of that from this one, which would have at least allowed me to appreciate it.

Wow! This is really similar to Individuel by Mont Blanc. As I said about Individuel, it's pleasant, and is certainly good for once in a while, or when the occasion calls for it. The aficionado might find that it gets boring quickly, but it's solid technically and anyone who is used to sweet fragrances will probably like this, though he may not want to pay the typical Creed prices when other, similar ones are available at a much lower price.

I think the teak in this is offensive to many, and also if you overspray this one you might find yourself in olfactory misery for a while. Another thing is that it's quite strong for an hour or so, then calms down considerably, and so some might think it has poor longevity. I would have liked it to be more "linear" and "smooth," but that's just my personal taste. Otherwise, it's certainly an interesting fragrance and not too expensive. It's definitely one should should try first. Cuba makes a copy of this one, Cuba Red, but it seems a bit weaker. However, you can get a 1.17 ounce Cuba Red really cheaply now, and then if you like that you'll probably like DD. I'll give DD a positive rating, because if it's what you are looking for then you will really enjoy it.

This smells largely of a snuffed, scented candle, and it's just a bit "soapy." Very strong stuff, so I diluted it with vanilla extract and "tamed" it. I like the smell of my concoction better. The small amount of added sweetness with the vanilla smooth it out nicely (the vanilla extract I used has corn syrup in it). So I've got to give it a positive rating, though I'm actually giving myself one too (is that a conflict of interest? LOL). Anyone, if you get this or try this, I suggest just one spray for your first application.

This is a good fragrance to use if you want to judge your sense of smell. I pick up the cocoa, but it's clearly not what I'd call.dominant. What does dominate is vanilla and that slightly soapy, snuffed candle smell (which is really powerful in Comme des Garcons Parfum). I'm thinking of spraying a little of the CdG (which I own) into a vial with a little vanilla extract to see how close it is to Monk. This is indeed an interesting scent, but I'll guess it's a "love it or hate it" one. If I were to assess it with price considered, I'd give it a neutral rating, because there are so many excellent fragrances for half or a quarter of the price of this. Since samples are available and some will really enjoy it, I'll give it a positive rating. Longevity is good and you can apply at the base of the neck so that you can smell it well without using too much per application.

I'm mostly interested in how a fragrance works over a period of hours, and I don't care much (if at all) about top notes, unless they persist into the drydown. That said, there's something about this fragrance that is dynamic yet not "rough," which allows me to appreciate it for hours. I do only spray once, which is an issue because the spray mechanism is awful. You also may have trouble controlling what kind of application you get, because it doesn't always come out as a nice spray (rubber flask). That's the only "bad" thing I have to say about this fragrance. I'll guess that most negative reviews are due to excessive application, which would certainly be unpleasant for me. I'd rather have a fragrance that lasts a long time with one spray than one that lasts a long time with 4 or 5 sprays, due to the "bang for buck" element. All aficionados should at least sample this one.

Not bad, but something came across to me as "synthetic," and it just never went away. It was also too sweet, and I like sweet fragrances, so I'd guess that it's an issue of "imbalance." Excellent longevity and sillage. I actually like the women's version of this, which is not too sweet and doesn't come across to me as "synthetic."

I find that I prefer this to traditional (1980s) "macho" fragrances, like Versace l'Homme, which is excellent but a bit too harsh. I like the softness of Iquitos. Also, it doesn't come across to me as a too floral, as some others have, like Anucci. In fact, the fruity quality of the top notes is much better than any other fruity top I can think of, off hand. I have only used one spray per wearing, so some of the problems with this one may be related to those who spray three or more times per wearing. Longevity and sillage/projection are excellent.

I find it interesting how many positive reviews this one has, and I wonder how many of those positive reviews come from people who don't usually wear fragrances dominated by vanilla. I like several fragrances that have a dominant vanilla note, such as Carven Homme. Dzing! strikes me as a bad version of Carven Homme, with some sort of odd "synthetic" note replacing the rosewood so well blended into CH. Whatever Dzing! smells like to me, it's too blunt, linear, and forceful, but it never really smells pleasant, which is important to me. So, while interesting, I don't find it "wearable." It's a good example of "niche" fragrances, in that I can see it being called "avant garde," and if that's what you want then this should work for you, but if you are used to well-blended designer fragrances, this is probably not for you. I'll give it a neutral for that reason, but considering how expensive it is, I'm very tempted to give it a negative (I've made it a personal rule not to assess based upon price).

I think Vibert nailed this one; from ash tray to a bar of soap, more or less. It's not a terrible fragrance, but the problem for me is that there are two other fragrances that are better, going in two different directions (one of which I would have liked BdP to go). There's the super-"cheapo," Lomani, on the one hand, and Carven Homme on the other. CH has rich rosewood, vanilla, spices, and amber in the drydown, with the lavender playing no more than a background role (and hence no "soapiness"). With Lomani, the lavender is much stronger, but it plays off citrus, spice, oakmoss, and amber, and I find that it's never boring. BdP is too strong initially in one way, then it's nothing special in the drydown, in a different way. If price is taken into account, I'd give this a negative rating, but I'll go with neutral, judging it as if they all cost the same amount.,

I am in general agreement with Vibert on this one. There's not much tobacco, and it's not anything special. However, there is a minty toothpaste/root beer thing going on here that I usually can't stand. I don't get much citrus or woods. Rather, it may be anise, mint, benzoin (slightly camphorous), and vanilla. It comes across as "synthetic," almost like candy flavoring gone terribly wrong, and it doesn't go anywhere. It does last a while, so if you don't like it, you are not going to enjoy it. I used to like this one, as a "newbie." It's funny how taste can change so much and so quickly, so I advise anyone who will listen to not "stock up" on these kinds of inexpensive fragrances (I bought two bottles, so no big deal) until you have done a lot of sampling. I'll give it a neutral rating because it's better than Brut, though similar in important ways, and it's really cheap. It's also not terrible, especially if you don't spray too much, but I would never call this "refined." And I just don't think it really comes together, like the great ones do. It remains a sum of its parts, and if you don't like those parts, you won't enjoy this.

I'm a guy and got this in a swap. It impressed me as the smell of cake icing the first couple of samplings, then as floral tea with heliotrope on my third or fourth wearing (after I understood what heliotrope smelled like). And there's also something that comes across almost as smoky or something burnt. I only use one spray, and that's enough for me. I'll freely admit to enjoying it, but I can imagine too many sprays leading to a migraine. Women I know who have tried this don't seem to like it much, but I don't know what to make of that, since none of them are perfumistas. Something similar but more "feminine" may be Today by Avon, which is more available and cheaper, so that may be the one to try before this one, and if you like it and want an "extreme" version, this may be it.

This is a fruity wood fragrance, similar to some "women's" ones I've sampled, actually. There are soft woods on the drydown (balsam?), and it's well blended, and just a touch musky perhaps. Longevity and sillage/projection are good but not overwhelming. It's very inexpensive, so if this is the kind of fragrance you seek, this is an excellent deal. I'd call it "unisex." The wood is pronounced enough for it not to be clearly in the feminine category.

This is a like a super-subtle version of the original Montana ("red box"). It's almost like they tried to tone down those strong lavender-based men's frags (like Lomani, Witness, Horizon, and as mentioned above, Montana) and succeeded, whereas I haven't done so well when I've tried to do this. "Power frag" guys will be disappointed in this one, though. Can be obtained now very inexpensively, so if those other lavender fragrances are too much for you, this is probably the one.

I'm a guy and got this in a swap, because I liked the note pyramid on it. I don't get much in the way of florals, though there is a minor presence clearly. The citrus is clearly there, as is what I'd describe as a dried fruit base. It's not sickly sweet, though I'm used to, and enjoy sweet fragrances. There's almost a burnt quality to this at time, like someone is cooking a bunch of different dried fruits. There isn't much development, but longevity and sillage are good (I've only used one spray at a time, to the chest). I can see how "ubuandibeme" didn't like it after wearing it for a couple of days in a row, especially if too many sprays were used. For me, this is definitely a once a month or fortnight fragrance, but it does have depth, and is interesting every once in a while. Luca Turin described it as similar to Shalimar Light in his (and Sanchez') perfume guide book, but I don't see any major resemblance (obviously, some of the notes are the same, but that's true of a huge number of fragrances too), so don't think that this is the same, or even close, really. I think this is a good example of the kind of fragrance that calls for several full wearings, spread out over time, required before a decision can be made about whether it is "bottle worthy" for someone.

Citrus, vanilla, and amber, with some light florals, and without the "synthetic"/rubbery note I smell in Shalimar EDC. Otherwise, it's similar to Shalimar EDC. Longevity is at least good, as is sillage/projection.

Vanilla and herbs, somewhat like Safran Troublant, but this is sweeter and less herbal (and no burnt sort of thing going on). There are also woody notes here that work very well, but not much in the way of fruit (which is good, considering how many fruity/woody fragrances I've sampled lately). One thing that's very important to me in these kinds of fragrances is what I call "rough edges," and many expensive fragrances have them, but not Devotion. Is it the blending? It's strong at the beginning, to be sure, but then settles down in an hour or so, yet it's never "rough." Now that I've sampled a large number of fragrances, I realize how good this one is, especially at current prices.

It sounds like Arneblaze is commenting upon Quorom rather than Vetiver de Puig in his review. The VdP that I have is very gentle, from top to bottom, with some minor floral element that I think is lavender. I agree with Foedtidus' review entirely.

This is really nice, but not for the "newbie." As a newbie, I couldn't get a grasp on it. Sometimes it would even smell like curry to me. I stuck with it, because it was so interesting, wearing it about once a month. Now I can distinguish clearly the mint and rosewood, which predominate. It also has a "clean" smoke quality to it, and can be light or somewhat heavy, depending upon how much you apply. This is nicely blended, with no "rough" edges, and you can get for incredibly low prices, so there's no reason to pass this one up (if you are an aficionado) !

Ken_Russel said: "Rather a concept fragrance, an unusual experiment than the classic formal-wear cologne... A revolutionary scent that will render your everyday life(if you decide to wear it regularly) into anything else but daily grind, into a sweet-spicy adventure or joyride." On the other hand, in the perfume guide book, Tania Sanchez calls it a generic masculine fragrance. How can this be? I think there are two possibilities. Either this one is really dependent upon "skin type" or else the way this fragrance is perceived varies widely, from person to person, depending upon slight differences in how we interpret smell. For me, there is a dessert-like quality to U?M, perhaps like lemon meringue, but there is also a woody quality, herbs, etc. It's not especially sweet, but for those who are used to non-sweet fragrances, it might seem sweet. For me, it's not sweet, because I like sweet fragrances and this one does not come across to me as particularly sweet. I do like a fragrance that is a bit "challenging," but in a "swirling" way, meaning that I can't pin it down and it's enjoyable. U?M is more up front in how it challenges you, almost as if it's saying, "I'm going to throw all these different notes at you and you've got to figure out what to do with them." Since it's strong, I suggest one spray on your first sampling, not on your chest though, and don't blind buy a big bottle. My verdict is neutral, because this is interesting and not horrible (if you don't use too much), but it generates an experience that I don't find optimal, and since I have so many fragrances now that do, I don't think I'd use this more than once every couple of months (or more).

Like Connoisseur, I also got a "strange sickly, pungent, rotting garbage smell," only it was "synthetic" on top of that! This is what I call a "challenge frag." It challenges your olfactory limits, and whatever you do, do not smell it up close on the skin! So, try before you buy this one, and wear it more than once before you buy a full size bottle. You might like it, and that's fine, just make sure you actually do like it, and don't get convinced that you like it after one wearing.

This one is a fragrance aficionado's lesson all by itself. This was one of the first fragrances I bought for my growing hobby. I tried to get several that were different. At first I really liked the top notes, but then could hardly smell anything. As my sense of smell became more refined, I found the middle/base notes to be a bit synthetic or just strange in some incomprehensible way. Then, a couple of months after not wearing it, I tried it again and the incense mix was obvious to me and very pleasant. I try to avoid the top notes of this fragrance to avoid having my sense of smell calibrated to them, which may be why some have said that this is all top notes and nothing else. For the price, it's an incredible bargain. I enjoy it much more than any of the super-expensive incense fragrances I've sampled. It may not be for the "newbie," however, unless he is willing to have patience with it, as his sense of smell becomes more refined.

Very subtle and well blended, yet not a lightweight by any means. Not much in the way of florals (thank goodness), yet delicate in a way that one usually expects only in a floral fragrance. For me the longevity is good if not excellent and the sillage is just right (with one spray of the EDT bottle, to the chest). It could get boring if used every day, but for me, that's probably true for every fragrance I've ever tried. I'd call this more masculine than feminine, but then I can't imagine it smelling bad on anyone under normal conditions. Very high quality juice here!

There's something about Envy that I find distasteful, and it's also boring, and I like other, similar fragrances much better (such as Prada and Richard James Saville Row). I've sampled this four times and it is just unappealing to me. It may be a bit too sweet or "synthetic" smelling. A frugal application might be okay if you want to use it for a specific occasion, but I can't wear this to enjoy it by myself, because it's just not enjoyable in any way. This may be a good "training wheels" fragrance for newbies, and I think that's why there are so many good reviews. I thought I liked it on my second sampling, but the third time I found it boring, and the fourth time I found it flat, "synthetic," and inferior to other fragrances I enjoy that are similar. I also think it might be appealing to those around you, and so many people like it for that reason, which is understandable.

For me it was more floral than woody, but that might be what some call "soapy" in this fragrance. I do get the peppery/smoky qualities too. It's quite mossy, similar to Francesco Smalto in that way. I no longer find these fragrances very appealing, but this is certainly a quality one, especially for the prices I've seen it sell for.

This is undeniably a high-quality fragrance, but it reinforces my notion that I just don't like strong florals, though it may just be some flowers that I dislike. I'll give this is positive rating, but if you don't like florals either, I suggest Prada for men if you seek a similar fragrance, with a dusty/powdery/soapy quality, or Mustang by Dorall if you want smokey, mossy, earthy, peppery qualities. For a gourmand incense fragrance, go for Jacomo Rouge.

I agree with Foetidus fully. The clove is too much for me, and this is simply not the best "cheapo" of this type. I prefer Carven Homme, for example, though if you hate rosewood you should avoid CH. Longevity isn't great for JdJ and it's quite tame after about 45 minutes, so I'm not sure who this will appeal to, because those who like the strong clove won't like the timid drydown, while those who do like the drydown won't want to wait 45 minutes of strong clove before getting to that drydown.

I agree with wsr93 that this is not an "amber frag," but I disagree with SirSlarty about the sharpness. With one spray to the chest, it is very mild, yet quite pleasant. It's not a floral "soapy" either, and it doesn't really register with me as "soapy" at all, though I understand why some would think so (I only use unscented soap, so I don't have to worry about these associations). It's actually a milder version of Richard James Saville Row. It's got a dusty yet not dry quality to it, which is very nice. I enjoy this as a "change of pace" fragrance, but would get bored with it if I wore it every day.

To me, this has an "old lady" perfume quality to it. It reminds me of my Mom's perfume, Ysatis, when I smelled it as a boy. It would certainly nauseate me if I gave it a "full wearing." I sprayed once, just above the ankle, and that was too much! If I'm going to look for something like this, I'll reach for Habit Rouge EDC instead. This is a definite try-before-you-buy fragrance. I have to give it a negative because there was nothing I found pleasing or interesting about it.

In trying to conjure up an image for this fragrance, it struck me that if I took a potato skin, rubbed some spices on it, sprayed it with some sort of scented cleaning fluid, then let it dry out in the sun for a week or so, this is what would result. It's interesting, but I can't say it's pleasant. I prefer something like Witness instead, which is a lavender/cinnamon with a dusty quality, if I'm looking for something along these lines. It's well done, no doubt, but I can't help comparing to others, and while I'm wearing this, wishing I was wearing something else.

A superb "blended" fragrance. It's somewhere between dusty and powdery, but not to the point of being overwhelming. There is a touch of "soapiness," but not in a bad way, and it's not sweet or too dry. Longevity and sillage are excellent, but it's not a "power frag."

The teak and vanilla are strong. I don't get much of the top or mid notes; perhaps my bottle is old. Or it might be that the blending is extreme. One spray is all you probably need. Though "linear," it doesn't bore me, as other ones like this do, and this may be a matter of personal taste, rather than anything to do with the fragrance itself. However, it's something I only like once a week or more. If you use it for nights out, and are on a budget, this is probably what you're looking for. I enjoy the teak here, more than the vanilla, which is so common these days. It's very inexpensive too.

I found that this is too strong if sprayed on the chest; one spray to just above the navel seems best. Otherwise, it can smell "synthetic" and overpowering. I think it would work better if it was just a bit drier and had more of a dusty quality, and I can see why some would think it too sweet. However, once I came to find sweet fragrances appealing, I didn't find this to be too sweet. My guess is that this fragrance is good to use as a test. If it's too strong for you, you should avoid all the strong ones, whereas if it's a bit weak, you are a "power frag" person. The only thing I don't like about it is its "linear" quality. After a while, it gets boring to me, like the common citrus-woody "masculine" fragrances do (for me). It just doesn't have that extra special something a linear fragrance needs to keep you interested. Another Bogart fragrance, Witness, is a dusty lavender/cinnamon that doesn't get boring. Perhaps it's just the effect the tobacco smell has on me, and others may not feel this way. I'll give it a positive rating because it's certainly a great value. However, I do find other fragrances much more appealing, so I don't have much interest in wearing this often.

Yes, this is a creamy/fruity scent, along with a bunch of other gourmand notes, but everything is so discreet it doesn't smell like food. L de Lolita Lempicka, for instance, dries down to what smells like vanilla pudding. The complexity of The Parfum makes it never get boring, though it has no "rough edges." It's strong and has great longevity. I don't care if it's a "women's" fragrance; to me, it's just an excellent gourmand.

For those who don't like this, I suggest trying Cuba Gold (if you like the idea of a vanilla/tobacco frag). Won't cost you much and it doesn't have that "synthetic" top note issue that Dreamer does, but it does have decent longevity and sillage.

Seems quite mossy to me, and the musk is obviously there too. A bit of smoke, a bit of spice. Reminds me of Polo a little, but I find this to be more wearable. Not dry or sweet, well blended. Just complex enough not to bore me. I'm surprised at how good this is; I wasn't expecting much. Just to be clear, I have a green bottle that is similar looking to the one for Mesmerize for men by Avon. Since I didn't pay much for this, it's definitely got to get a positive rating.

Reminds me of prune Danish pastry with some mocha added. Very strong, and doesn't develop. After a while, it started to smell like pastry that had something wrong with it. Very cloying. I'm a big fan of gourmand orientals, but this may be too close to food for me, so I suggest sampling first, even if you are a big gourmand fan too. For me, NH supports the idea that if a fragrance is too close to smelling like food, it gets sickening. A*Men, for example, with the tar note, prevents this situation, and I like A*men (once in a while, not every day). I don't like Rochas Man either, but I think it's because of the sandalwood in it, making it too "perfumey" for me. However, I can see that some might like the qualities that NH possesses, so I'll give it a neutral.

This is a fragrance that many "newbies" will dismiss as glorified baby powder. It's only after you've sampled many orientals and spent quite a bit of time with them that you can appreciate Jaipur (I've only used the EDP version). As one reviewer said, it's best too use it sparingly and get a dispersed mist (I noticed this with Witness by Bogart too). After several wearings, you should be able to appreciate this really nice blend. If you are trying to appreciate it, don't wear it several days in a row. Come back to it every couple of weeks, and you should be able to detect more complexity in it than you did on previous wearings.

Wow! This one is special. Not much to add to the previous reviews. Excellent longevity and the sillage is just right (for me at least). I'll also mention that I got a splash EDT, and I thought there was something that just wasn't working, so I put some in an atomizer and that seemed give it that extra something that seemed to be needed.

The top notes are gone fairly quickly, and lavender is then pronounced, though it's not a really cheap, "synthetic" type lavender I've experienced in other fragrances (like Carlo Corinto Rouge), or perhaps it's nicely blended with other ingredients, though it does come through loud and clear. I dislike lavender, but it works fine here, and there is a slightly "soapy" quality to this as well. The amber is great here, not too strong as is sometimes the case. I like it more than most of what I sample in department stores these days, and this cost me around $7 for a 100 ml bottle. It's not my style, but it's great for the money, and it's not bad as a "change of pace" for me. Longevity and sillage are excellent. It makes me wish I liked lavender though !

Excellently blended ambery herbal fragrance. I think I detect some rosewood and vanilla, but because it's so blended it may just seem like that to me. There's also a mild, subtle sweetness to it. Don't overspray this one, or else it will likely ruin it for you. And if you like clearly defined notes in your fragrances, this might not be for you either. Another ambery herbal is Jovan Sex Appeal for men, but I'd rate Mesmerize much, much higher than that one, because of the sweetness, nicer mix of ingredients, and lack of a "synthetic" quality.

For me. there's something just a bit disagreeable in the drydown, and the top notes are not appealing to me at all (as another reviewer said, more like stale coffee). It's almost like an anistic coffee smell in the drydown Some might really like this, presumably, though. I was hoping for something like that aromatic sensation of sniffing a fresh bag of high quality coffee, but don't expect that kind of thing with PC. Instead, this is "heavier" than I thought it would be. It's certainly not terrible, and I'd gladly trade a bottle of a few things I have for this, but I don't think I'll feel the need to buy a bottle of it, unless I get a great bargain or someone wants to swap for it.

This is way too animalic for me at the beginning, then it softens up, but there's still too much animalic jasmine for me to want to wear this regularly. If it wasn't for that, this might be quite nice, though too feminine for some men. My guess is that this might work well for a guy who sweats a lot, unlike myself. I don't mind the spices or powderyness to it, but due to the animalic qualities, I much prefer something like Carven Homme, and since they cost about the same, there's no reason for me to reach for Stetson.

SirSlarty talks about a lot of different notes dancing around, and I'd say that is a good way to describe Mambo. I like it! Also, there's nothing unpleasant going on here, and I don't get a "synthetic" vibe from it either. It is a bit musky, so you don't want to overspray with this one, especially in warm weather. I can spray once and I'm set for several hours, at least. A good "cheapo" that's nice if you like a lot of variety, as I do.

Superb powdery rosewood fragrance. I don't like the top notes, so if you don't either, just wait about 20 minutes, when the magic happens. Warning: I don't think I would have liked this as a "newbie;" it's more for a "refined nose" (my guess is that I didn't appreciate rosewood back then). Also, the younger crowd might not appreciate this, if they want a "lighter" fragrance. A must for the aficionado though.

One thing I tend to dislike about these kinds of fragrances is that they are often "heavy" (like some by Cartier, for example) but this one is not. It's also fairly dry and not sweet, giving it a somewhat aromatic quality, which is uncommon in the powdery fragrances I've tried. This is very rich and yet there is nothing in it that is out of place or "rough," but again, I can imagine the rosewood causing problems for some.

I'd call this nondescript pleasantness. Blended to the point of boring. It sometimes smelled a bit like wine to me, but again, so nondescript overall. Not for the aficionado, unless he wants some sort of change of pace. Another thing this is good for is if you are worried that you have to do something that will lead to unpleasant memories. Wear this fragrance! What's the worst that could happen? Of course if you just bought a large bottle and intend to finish it, that might not be the best idea.

I wouldn't compare this to Carven Homme or M7 at all. Actually, it's about as close to Burberry London for men as I could possibly imagine. CH is ambery, with nice rosewood, and a bit of sweetness. M7 is powdery, with oud and a bit of a raspberry scent in the background. Cuba Red is not sweet, has a bit of succulence though (citrus?), and is grounded in cedar. It's very spicy, but dry. If you can sample Burberry London at your local mall, do that first, then I'd suggest buying Cuba Red (I got a 4.2 ounce bottle for less than $10), if you like BL and are on a budget. I like CR, but I like others more at this point, so this is a once a fortnight or once a month frag for me.

Very similar to a cheap bottle of Brut a relative owns (and I sampled). Sort of a cross between root beer and and minty toothpaste, possibly with some spices mixed in. Horrible stuff. It may be that on my skin, some fragrances don't seem to "progress," such as Kouros. They just get stuck in a stage that is nauseating. In any case, for vanilla, I suggest Ignition by Lomani (or Jaipur EDP if you don't mind forking over a lot more money). For an oriental that is spicy but well-blended, contains nice rosewood, a little amber, a little sweetness, and is not nauseating (unless you spray too much, of course) I suggest Carven Homme. If you want pungent spices and cedar, go with Cuba Red. The ultimate oriental for men is Witness by Bogart, though. There are just too many better choices that Opium.

With a fragrance like this, the key question is: am I going to get bored with it? I don't know if I like an aromatic sensation more than most people, but I find that if a fragrance has me breathing deeply once in a while, when I catch a waft, and it's a pleasant experience (no odd, sour, or "off" notes), it's something I'm likely going to want to wear at least once in a while. Compare this to my experience sampling Kouros. I found the scent unpleasant, and it was always there. With Gucci Pour Homme 2, I didn't get any aromatic experience. It wasn't pleasant enough for me to want to breath in deeply when I caught a waft of it. Something about Tumulte, on the other hand, makes me feel that it transcends a mere wood smell. It's like the essence of wood, an abstraction of the best wood, as a scent, has to offer. There's nothing unappealing about it, and I enjoy getting that waft once in a while. I haven't tried any of the CdG Incense frags, so I can't compare, but if money is a concern, try to get Tumulte on ebay, from a reputable seller, of course (and be sure to pay with paypal).

I've got Silver Black, not Onyx. No need to overspray, which I could see might cause problems. I use 3 sprays. Well blended, yet you get hints of individual notes, or at least you think you do. There is also a nice aromatic quality to it, but it's also a bit musky. When I think of other well blended frags, I remember that I get bored with them after a while (Pasha, Must, and Valenti's 101, for example), but that doesn't happen with SB. It keeps you interested in it, yet never becomes boring or overwhelming.

This is solid, and I'd say Foetidus' review is right on the money. However, AA is not only linear, but it stays at the same level of intensity for hours, which some may like and some may not. I like A*Men better, because it is more intense at the start, then in about two hours you get nice, gentle wafts (assuming you only use one or two sprays, as I do). This is important for me because the chocolate smell can become irritating after a while if it's too strong. It may be that AA gets a bit weaker too with the chocolate after a while, but because you don't get the A*Men blast at the beginning, you don't notice the drop off in strength as much as you do with A*Men. Still, AA can usually be found at about half the price (if not better), so if you don't mind this difference that I described (or prefer the smoother ride of AA), I'd say go for AA instead.

I wore it for about two hours, but never experienced the florals and spices that Vibert did. Instead, I liked the powdery aspect of it, but the smell was like a sweet carbonated beverage or candy, and after a while it was irritating. I'll give it a neutral for those who think this kind of scent is exactly what they want. Since I washed it off after two hours, I won't comment on longevity. Sillage was decent but it's not a "sillage monster."

I envision a futuristic world, like the bubble-domed one in Logan's Run, where Kouros is sold in a novelty store, situated between the rubber chicken and the fake vomit. Or perhaps it will be in a museum, and visitors will be able to actually get a whiff of it, if they dare! By that time, public restrooms will smell much better than they do now (in most nations).

Kouros is a powerful, long-lasting, sickly chemical scent that features no subtlety and no development (on my skin, at least). Keep in mind that I'm not some twenty-something aquatic guy. I like Vermeil, actually, which I'd recommend to anyone who likes this kind of frag over Kouros (it's got powerful animalic notes and also that "fake clean" quality). Or Ungaro II, if you can find it at a reasonable price. I also like Carlo Corinto once in a while, which features strong leather and dark amber notes.

I recently tried Brut (before trying Kouros) and that is similar, in that you get a strong, long-lasting sickly chemical scent that has no subtlety and doesn't develop. It's amazing that these two fragrances are on the opposite ends of the spectrum, in terms of price and prestige. I can only image that if you sweat profusely, somehow Kouros will develop into something that is remotely tolerable. I'd also warn you that this kind of fragrance can cause your sense of smell to change, as Sung Homme did to me. Now I have such sensitivity that I usually can only stand one spray of an EDT, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, since it saves me a lot of money, though I don't appreciate the stronger fragrances the way I used to (when I really liked Vermeil and had to wear it once a week).

I don't know if my AVL is the same as this, because there is date listed. This is an Oriental, but a spicy (a bit hot even) one, and not like a mellow ambery one of the KL Lagerfeld variety. It has good sillage and longevity. There's not much development over time, which can make this seem boring. For the price I paid, it's not bad to have around, because it's not like anything else I have. However, because I dion't have experience with recent, high-end Orientals it's impossible for me to say whether this is a great deal or just a decent one.

In some ways, this is a light, more defined (and less muddled) version of Sung Homme (a couple of hours into it, at least). I'm wondering if foetidus reviewed the blue box or the red box version, because I get strong Caribbean style spices right from the beginning, then it settles down into a milder spice with a bit of muskiness. The other possibility is that he applied a lot more than I did. I just sprayed once on the upper chest. I got some on my finger when I sprayed, so I tried to get some of that on my neck. It was an excellent experience, though nothing earth shattering, in other words, nothing weird. I can't imagine not be able to experience this once in a while, at the very least. When I first tried it, I sprayed in on the back of one hand and smelled it every once in a while, but that is the wrong idea, because if you do that, you just get diminishing spiciness. If you sprayed it on the chest judiciously you get the musky, spicy combination, which is just great. I never tried Havana, but I don't like boozy or sweet frags anyway, so I don't feel I"m missing out there.

It started off like Montana (red box) or Witness, except with florals, then developed into something very similar to KL Homme (Lagerfeld). If you're in the mood for this, it's great, if not, it's too much. Excellent longevity, at least decent sillage. This is a love it or hate it, and the ozonic/aquatic guys are likely to be the ones to hate it. It's an excellent frag (some might find it too feminine, so if you want super-masculine stuff, this is not it), so I have to give it a positive.

Possibly a minimal application would lessen the unpleasantness, but I tried some that a relative owns, because I don't want to be a snob, but it smelled like an attempt at a new candy flavoring that went horribly wrong. I probably put too much on (back of hand) by accident (I thought it had a small hole on top, like the one I had when I was young), and it was like olfactory torture. Got to give this a negative, based upon the fact that I couldn't wash it off and tone it down, even after trying several times.