For as many reviews as I've read and my attempts to dissect various notes in various fragrances only to become completely confused, I find myself surprisingly in virtually complete agreement with zoghbi here. I got this one many, many, many years ago - I think for Christmas - and I just couldn't get over the cotton candy impression I got from it. The barbershop/Clubman, etc., comparisons just don't make the least bit of sense to me. It's a pleasant fragrance, all right, just not one that I would want to wear. It strikes me as rather feminine, actually, sweet but not floral, and so I'll give it a neutral in that regard. Whatever floats your boat - or canoe, as it were.
I like this stuff. A very basic male version of 'sweet'. Reminds me a little of Brut. Does NOT remind me of Canoe, which smells like cotton candy to me. Somewhat similar to Clubman, and and maybe less 'complex', but stronger and longer-lasting. Definitely not like Royal Copenhagen, which never did anything for me; neither did Jade East, as far as those 'types' of fragrances go. Also not like Jovan Musk for Men - also by Coty - which has some notes that I just don't like.
This is an OUTSTANDING product and fragrance. You don't last from 1935 for nothing, and anyone who finds it less than pleasing has some serious olfactory/sensory prolems.
Whoever came up with this scent was a genius. I just wish it lasted longer. There used to be a cologne version some years ago, but even that didn't last too long.
Genius. Sheer genius.
21st July, 2012 (last edited: 02nd January, 2017)
Never quite connected with this one.
Always reminded me of a 'mechanical' smell, like a hair clipper or the 3-in-1 oil used to lubricate it.
Open-minded, however, I still just may try a bottle.
This is an AMAZING fragrance - the ultimate epitome of spice, which, if you don't like spice, well, what are you doing here, anyway?
Those of you who don't like it because it reminds you of old people, well, you're just to old and old at heatt because you remember it from that. Too bad, so sad.
From 1937. You don't exist for that long because if you're not appreciated.
I never quite 'got' this stuff.
Powdery, at first, yes. Then, later on, I might as well have smeared sausage grease on my skin from the way it smelled.
Not even close to Canoe, which neverr eally impressed me, either. Canoe to me was like candy - like wearing jellybean 'juice'. Never picked up a hint of patchouli in that.
I like this. It strikes me as woody with a touch of pine and "the outdoors"; boozy with some tobacco - "the indoors"?; a little spicy and sweet; maybe a little leathery or an impression thereof; all nicely balanced, smooth, and masculine.
I've been sampling a bit over the last year or two, including a number of Creeds (which don't seem to last very long on me, and only two so far that I'm really impressed with). I've received compliments on two so far: McGraw Southern Blend and, of all things, Angel by Mugler, which I sampled before buying for my wife. Go figure.
Chocolate, chocolate, chocolate, yada, yada, yada. I'm not eating a candy bar here. My first encounter with this was after significant dry-down. A delicious, complex variation on patchouli, which I am just a sucker for. Just got some for my wife - we'll see how that works out. So far, just tried some on myself. Early on, I pick up a somewhat annoying sour note. This disappears and improves over a little bit of time. Not quite at the patchouli point yet, but very pleasing. Quite impressive.
This is nice, but it reminds me too much of Irish Spring and/or Coast deodorant soaps.
This one reminds me of Fahrenheit - or at least my memory of it, that is. I don't know if it was partly because of the color of the bottle, but Fahrenheit always made me think of iodine, of all things. I get a little of that with GIT, too. And I can see the comparison with Cool Water, as well. In any case, while good, it's not quite what I'm looking for.
Oh. Now this is lovely. Beautiful. Gorgeous, actually. It "smells" like a wedding to me (more so for the bride than the groom). Others will give you the notes, but it's extremely well-balanced IMHO. If a women were to ask me what perfume to wear on her wedding day, I would tell her that there's no way she could go wrong with this. "Perfect" may not be perfect all of the time, but if there were any exception, this would be it.
This reminds me quite a bit of Himalaya - with a twist. It may just as well be vice versa if it weren't for the fact that I tried Himalaya first. I get the initial ozone effect here, too. It's good, and so I'll give it a thumbs up, just not outstanding, meaning that it wouldn't be my first choice from Creed.
Oooh. This is interesting. VERY interesting. And that's a good thing in my book. So, this is honeysuckle? Well, in that sense it's floral, but I wouldn't say floral in the usual sense. There's enough of a harshness to it to make it masculine to me, i.e., I'd rather wear it than smell it on a woman. I definitely appreciate a fennel/anise/licorice note, and I'm glad to see from other reviews that it's not just my imagination. If you're looking for something different, try this.
This does not smell like vanilla, per se, thank goodness. And there's enough of the "barbershop" effect to make this both sultry and sexy for women, and wearable for men. Very nice. A definite thumbs up.
This is very nice, just not as I had imagined. I get mostly spice, with some woods - primarily cedar, I think - and a warm, underlying, non-vanilla-like sweetness. A vague impression of Dentyne/cinnamon and Old Spice (blasphemy, I know). Sophisticated and proper.
I also get an impression of melon initially, though I don't think it's listed as an ingredient. There is a familiar underlying Creed note throughout. Overall, MI is pleasant but not inspiring, and on me it's weak and fades rapidly. I'd opt for one of their other fragrances.
A little ozone-like initially and for a little while. Then a musky, not-so-sweet taffy-and-bubblegum (and tobacco?) distant memory from my childhood past. A playfully masculine scent, though not earth-shattering. (Sorry about all the hyphens.) Appealing but not alluring.
Wow. This stuff is not subtle. Potent. And - on me, anyway - long-lasting. Seductive in a feminine rather than masculine way, in my opinion. And aggressive. (Be still my heart, now!)
<p>I don't really detect so much the bergamot. The sweetness of the mandarin/orange is balanced away by the grapefruit and the white floral, which strikes me as including rose/rose geranium.
<p>Me likey, in that it makes a statement, however that statement may be interpreted. And that's the whole point, isn't it?
I'm sorry. Much as I wanted it to, this one just doesn't do a whole lot for me. There's an underlying sticky sweetness that hangs around and reminds me of a laquer/shellac/varnish/solvent aroma that I just can't quite place - pleasant as it wears on, just not exciting. And on me, it starts out fairly weak and doesn't last very long. It's OK, but just goes to show how fragrances can be different on people.
A "heavy" floral scent (go figure), as opposed to something lighter such as Spring Flower. Has, or creates the effect of, that "sticky-sweet lacquer/shellac/varnish/solvent" note that I mentioned with Tabarome Millesime but haven't quite figured out yet. Pleasant, and it lightens up a bit over time, just not my cup of tea.
A lighter, fresh floral that lasts throughout. Like walking through a flower garden that doesn't have too many roses. Initially there's some citrus fruit, mainly mandarin/orange and grapefruit to me, and perhaps bergamot. Not too sweet, not too tart, just right. I'm not really getting berry, melon, apple, or peach; nor am I getting mint/aquatics; and that's just fine. They may well be in the mix, they're just not figuring prominently for me. Not soapy or powdery, either. Primarily floral, and a very nice, well-balanced one at that.
A fresh, clean (rose/bergamot) fragrance with a certain ambergris/musk soapiness. Very pretty (feminine), with a European flavor and mystique.