Total Reviews: 79
I absolutely adored this perfume when it first came out – full-on, love at first sniff, couldn't wait to put it on again and again and again adoration. But I was on a very limited budget at the time, so I had to make do with a couple of tiny sample bottles, which I eked out very slowly, until the price dropped enough to be able to afford a full bottle. I loved it and I got so many comments on it whenever I wore it, and I’m probably on my fourth bottle (at least) of this – with a full, unopened box in my drawer (a Christmas present from one of my girlfriends). On me, this goes on in a soft, pretty, warm, floral cloud. It takes a while for the individual notes to come through, then after around an hour or so, the cedar, pepper, musk, patchouli and orange come through. Two hours in the bergamot and martini peep out. This perfume is true to its name – a lovely, soft, elegant floral. It makes me think of big, soft, fluffy pink clouds – it’s a scent that you sink into, soft, warm and comforting, and it lasts amazingly well. Although I don’t really care what time of day or night I wear a perfume, with this one, I tend to wear it to work more than anywhere else – I seem to overlook it when I’m looking for something to wear out at night or on the weekend. One of the ladies I work with wears it too, and I can always tell when she does – the sillage is amazing and it smells beautiful on her. All of that said, it’s been quite a while since I’ve worn this – in fact it would probably be at least a year, as I’ve not touched the bottle once this year. And it’s still pretty, but I’m said to say that don’t love it as I once did – it doesn’t make me feel happy like it once did. In fact, it makes me feel kind of, not sad exactly, but muted – not happy, but not sad either, and ever-so-slightly irritated, and antsy, and a bit anxious, and frustrated, and wanting more – oh. Ohhhhhhh…I just realised why all of that sounded/felt so familiar. It was pretty much what I felt like when I realised I’d fallen out of love. With an ex. Yep – I’ve fallen out of love with this, except this is a much more pleasant break-up ;) I still like it, and can admire it because it is a beautiful fragrance, but I don’t love it anymore – it’s just not for me anymore and don’t know if I’ll wear it again because I’m feeling so “meh” about it. Shame, because this was truly one of my favourite perfumes, for a very long time. I'm still giving it a thumbs up for old time's sake though and because it really is a lovely fragrance.
A pale generic woody floral.
Very chemical smelling, very light, almost nonexistent scent.
I cannot detect any of the notes listed. Ms. Parker certainly did not spend a great deal of cash on oil concentrations.
In contrast to the Emperor's New Clothes, this may well be the Empress's New Scent - in other words, none.
Bought a partial bottle of this to smell as I was reading Chandler Burr's book, "The Perfect Scent." I can't say that I love this fragrance -- it's not quirky enough for me to love -- but it's a very pretty, young, and eminently likable fragrance, with just enough masculine and non-floral notes to keep it from being as prissy and conventional as its packaging might suggest. I'll wear it from time to time because I feel like I "know" it after reading the book and learning about its creation.
Advertisement — Reviews continue below
The top notes include a detestable air freshener synthetic hyacinth, but once that settles down the rest of the scent reveals itself as a very pleasant, upbeat, sweet floral and wood composition: a kind of Ivoire-meets-Flower by Kenzo. A mere trace of the opening hyacinth lingers in the background, but in the company of the primary accord its sharp, green flavor provides a measure of welcome balance and contrast to the prevailing sweetness. The whole thing is clean and snappy, but also playful in a way that traditional green floral chypres never are.
In its bright, translucent texture Lovely reminds me of such crisp green florals as Drôle de Rose, Une Zeste de Rose, and Eau du Ciel, and I’m encouraged to find this happy aesthetic trickling down from niche perfumery into a mass market celebrity fragrance. Lovely is reasonably potent and projects well off of the skin, leaving plenty of sillage in the air. Once the notes arrange themselves into their central pattern the development is linear for a few hours, after which the floral notes peel away to reveal a drydown of clean musk and brisk woods, primarily cedar. This is altogether a much nicer scent than I’d expected, and I wouldn’t be embarrassed to find my daughter running around in it.
review by thanks sixx
I just received my bottle of Lovely. Eight years late, but oh well.
The opening is very floral, which I expected. I didn't recognize the lavender until about 10 minutes in, although it is listed as a top note. This may be my inexperience showing through.
My brain kept registering lily-of-the-valley, but lo and behold, the white floral influence is paperwhites, a daffodil! How clever of SJP to throw something so unexpected into the mix (well.... she personally didn't formulate it, but she did approve it).
Anyone who grows paperwhite bulbs indoors knows you either love or loathe the scent.
I'm not a big fan, but for some reason, it works in Lovely. It provides a white floral fragrance with a "dirty edge," totally unexpected from a pale pink juice in a very feminine-shaped bottle.
There is just enough earthiness in the drydown to keep this from being a run-of-the-mill floral perfume. It is definitely more Carrie Bradshaw than Charlotte York (for fans of Sex In The City).
I don't buy celebrity perfume, per se. I don't care who's name is on the bottle. My sole concern is what the juice smells like on my skin.
After reading Chandler Burr's book, I felt compelled to try Lovely. I think what sold me is how involved Ms. Parker was in the creation of the first commercial perfume to bear her name.
Her involvement and passion paid off, figuratively and, I assume , literally.
Autumn is in full swing on the US east coast. I can wear Lovely today, and am also pretty sure I can still wear it when the weather heats up in spring.
I did not expect to enjoy this perfume as much as I do.
Great job, Coty.
Superb job, Ms. Parker.
It isn’t my fault! Chandler Burr and Katie Puckrik made me do it. HONIST! You see since I have fallen into the pit of perfume I must have hit my head on a protruding rock on the way down and when I came too I found I was a bit of a perfume snob. Not mind you in the school of thought that goes: “It has to be expensive to be any good.” No the other kind of snob. If I noticed a gaggle of paparazzo following a bottle of perfume I could be seen rubbing the tip of my nose on the ceiling. You can loose a lot of skin doing that and trip over your Italian loafers if you are not careful and end up looking rather foolish. So I turned a blind eye to Celebuscents by everyone from Alain Delon to Zazu Pitts.
I came to discover “Lovely” by Sarah Jessica Parker when I read Chandler Burr’s mesmerizing book, “The Perfect Scent: A Year Inside the Perfume Industry in Paris & New York.” I am sure you have all read it but if you are new to this like me then grab a copy or download it to your electronic reading device. It is an education in the creation of two perfumes, “Un Jardin Sur Le Nil” by Jean Claude Ellena for Hermes and “Lovely” by Miss Parker for the house of Coty. No recapping synopses here …go read the book and find out why I had to try “Lovely”. I wouldn’t want to ruin any part of that reading experience for you. (Un Jardin Sur Le Nil is on my must buy list).
Now how does Katie fit into this? Well, anyone who reads her blog, or watches her very entertaining and extremely informed video reviews over at YouTube will tell you that the lady in question smells. She smells real good. “Lovely” is in her top ten best female perfumes that men can wear. So that spoke to me. After all this His smells Her smells approach to perfume only began in the early part of the 20th century when the middle class was on the rise. The perfume houses wanted to grab the attention of men who might not want to smell “pretty” or like a Dandy. Before this segregation of scent was imposed on the world everyone who could afford perfume wore the same scent. Eau de Cologne Impériale and Jicky were unisex! As far as I am concerned if you love it, wear it! There is a certain thrill to being a daring pioneer of perfume. If Joel Cairo in “The Maltese Falcon” had the balls to wear Gardenia ….so can you.
“Lovely” opens like rain on predawn cobblestoned side streets in Soho. Not a clean rain but a bit dirty and risqué. The kind of rain you would love to walk in after an sweaty sexy all nighter in a dance club. The top notes of mandarin, bergamot shimmer lightly on the skin and are fleeting as they soak into the lavender and Brazilian rosewood which add a cosmopolitan sophistication. A dirty patchouli downs an Apple Martini grabs the hand of the bashful orchid and runs through the burst of rain down the street to hail a cab to midtown dry down. This is the woodsy central park of the fragrance with musk scampering in the early wet morning of Lovely though woodsy notes and cedar. As the sun dries the earth there is an echo of white amber balmy and richly warms the skin to a new day.
Yes “Lovely” is confident. Self-assured and shows in its progression from opening to closing that it was indeed a labor of love in its creation. Thoughtful and not rushed it is more than lovely, it is superb.
It is all about what is in the bottle. Sure there are going to be lots of Celebuscents that are not good. Cheap thoughtless creations with a name tacked on who had nothing to do at all with the creation of the perfume. But somewhere in there in the midst of the rushing crush on the red carpet there may be a fragrance worth trying even in the glare of paparazzi flash bulbs exploding in a night filled with promise and possibilities.
All I got from this was a soapy floral with a touch of musk, like you had just taken a shower with one of those little pink rose shaped guest soaps and had forgotten to wash a few places.
Beautiful scent that has the hallmarks of a classic, I believe this scent will stand the test of time. I was a bit disappointed with the rest of the range, Covet isn't bad, but they are not a patch on this.
Gorgeous bottle, gorgeous scent. I have to say this is very similar to Narciso Rodrigues for Her, they are alike but Lovely is softer in the drydown I think. I love them both, have them both, and wear them both.
On a SJP topic, I prefer Covet Pure Bloom of all her frags. I'm not taken at all with the Lovely Collection however, I have sniffed 2 of the 3 and I have to say.....Eurgh!!
Lovely is Lovely :-)
My grandmother had this on. Not sure how I'd feel about it on my Fiancé but I think this is perfectly suited for more mature adults. The musk and orchid are very comforting to the nose.
It's a sweetly romantic fragrance with an off-note in it that keeps it from playing it safe. At first I found the scent unsettling but after having received it as a birthday present I am in love with this fragrance. I'm almost out of it and I'm ready for a replenishment!
It is flirty, understated, innocent yet sexy. I often wear this when I'm in the mood to wear flirty dresses, soft cardigans and jeans, or vintage romantic tops with a kitten heel. It's one of the few fragrances I have that I feel I have to dress according to it.
My only complaint about the fragrance is it's lack of staying power. Luckily I was given a fragrance set which included a lotion and a rollerball. I definitely have to wear the lotion and carry the rollerball in my purse if I want the scent to stay with me all day.
This fragrance is anything but boring. It's uniqueness lies in that one discordant note. I love this one so much!
I love this scent. The floral mixed with a musky undertone makes it a little less "old" feeling to me, even though it is so floral. Frankly, it reminds me of the camelia bushes outside my grandmother's front entrance. It is a nostalgic scent for me.
It remains a mystery why I ever acquired a bottle of SJP LOVELY, not being a fan of SJP, and not a fan of celebrity scents in general, but it happened somehow, so about once every six months I take out my undeniably lovely bottle of LOVELY and try to figure out why I don't really like what's inside.
I watched a grand total of one episode of "Sex and the City," which featured the looking-for-love-in-all-the-wrong-places SJP coterie grappling with one of their cases of crabs. Seriously. Was it the luck of the draw, or were all episodes of this series about venereal disease? I did not stay tuned to find out.
Last night, however, I decided to give Carrie Bradshaw another chance and watched the movie "Sex and the City," which over the course of a long, somewhat tedious two and a half hours relays the trials and tribulations of the same group of gals as they approach menopause but without having changed much of anything about their outlook. Shoes and bags and dudes remain the focus of their lives.
LOVELY edp is a floral woody musk perfume with a slightly skanky and dominant musk note which generally reminds me of the sole episode of "Sex and the City" I watched long ago. It's just not my kind of thing: too sweaty and slightly dirty and somehow suggestive in a not-so-appealing way, like a guy who leers at every woman who walks by, making eye contact as though there were some deeper meaning behind the gesture beyond the fact that he's looking for casual sex.
Not for me.
Advertisement — Reviews continue below
If Chanel No. 5 is your little black dress, Lovely is your favorite pair of jeans.
I bought this blind after reading THE PERFECT SCENT by Chandler Burr, and after owning and liking SJP's subsequent fragrance, Covet, so my expectations were shaped by two influences. (And yes, I may be 6 years late to the bandwagon, but what celebrity fragrance purchase doesn't benefit from an intervening 6 years to let the price come down a bit?) Based on what I knew about Covet, I'm pleasantly surprised by Lovely: it's a more coherent fragrance than its successor, if less daring. I now recognize that what I've been smelling ambiently on coworkers/friends/the general subway-riding public for about five years now is, in fact, Lovely, and so I don't feel entirely surprised by what I'm smelling. I don't get the "apple martini" accord at all, just an unobtrusive, musky floral with a slightly papery sense about it. It seems like a very versatile fragrance: I can imagine dressing it both up and down, like a summer dress that could go either way with the right accessories.
I want to like this fragrance. I really, really do. Unfortunately, this is one scent where it's appeal to Mr. Turin will forever go over my head, as I simply can't smell it. I get white flowers and then nothing. Light, airy, instant vanishment.
I'll be honest. I hate this scent. I tried to like it, i bought it blindly off this fragrance site i regularly buy from and they had this on sale...I soon realised why. The initial smell reminded me of a nauseating bathroom air refreshner. Very florally, which usually i would love, but this was just a bit much for me. I didn't like it at all. I thought maybe after a couple of hours it would dry into something more pleasant but for me, it just didn't work.
I soon sold this on ebay and was so thankful someone else liked it enough to buy it.
I think this would appeal to ladies who enjoy a soapy clean bathroom floral refreshner smell.
The bottle design is quite lovely and girly, that i did like. It makes a nice elegant accessory on the dresser.
Notes as described by fragranceheaven.com.au:
Top notes include mandarin, rosewood, lavender, apple martini and bergamot, with heart notes of orchid and patchouli. Dry down notes combine cedar, white amber, woods and musk. It is recommended for daytime wear.
I loved the bottle, but not the scent. It wasn't an offensive fragrance, but it was too predictable and common for my liking. It was also one of those fragrances where you have to push your nose onto your wrist in order to smell the scent. I think I expected a little more from SJP's first perfume, hence the reason why I was so disappointed.
I liked this for the first week, then never touched it again and want to give it away. I don't like it. I don't think this blends well with my body chemistry. I don't even like the scent anymore. Too something that I can't quite pin -pointe.
I read Chandler Burr’s story of the ridiculousness of the making of this scent and an Hermès Jardin fragrance, and then, of course, was dying to try it. What’s funny, though, is that for all the attention centered on Lovely and the Hermès scent, I found them both to be first and foremost dull. I thought that I would at least find Un Jardin sur le Nil intriguing or memorable. 5 minutes after testing it, though, I could only vaguely even remember it, and never went back to try it again.
As ho-hum as Lovely is, I like that it’s a musk fragrance. Little wood, little flower, BIG MUSK. Enough musk that this could be a musk-in-the-title perfume if it chose to be. Soft, when used to describe musk usually means rounded and comfortable. This is soft like soggy. The cloying musk burdened with flowers and patchouli is all weight and no buoyancy. Also a bit like chewing a taffy ‘til your jaw aches—it takes effort and seems to go on forever. Still, if you like sweet, this is better than most candy-perfumes.
29th November, 2010 (last edited: 13th January, 2015)
I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but this is like the lame version of Narciso Rodriguez For Her EDP. Similar rose/musk combination but boring. None of the richness that made For Her stand out.
A "C" grade knock-off of a really great perfume...
I am fairly certain that I am anosmic to the musks used in Lovely, because I have tried two different bottles and can smell hardly anything, except for a chemically woody base that smells like cashmeran and not much else. Where is the florals and musks? Very sad, but that is not even wearable to me as I find the chemical drydown unbearable.
I think Lovely smells like detergent. Gain, to be precise. If you can get past the opening, it's not bad. And then another part of me says "skanky." It's clear I have a love-hate relationship with it.
Upon first spray Lovely smells more woody and herbal than you might guess looking at the beautiful pink packaging it comes in. The top notes create a fresh, slightly spicy scent and there is very little sweetness in the top layer. However, it doesn't take long for the citrus notes to fade and for the woods to really show through. Cedar and Patchouli offer a light warmth to Lovely, while Amber and Musk in the base notes create a 'powdery' scent which I find to be very comforting.
Lovely is beautiful and easy to wear, while it's not an overly complex or striking scent it's perfect for daytime or quiet nights spent cuddling on the couch. It stays fairly close to the skin and the musky notes cling for a few hours. I don't find it's a perfume that others will comment on but it's one that makes me feel warm, safe and happy. I also think that Lovely has a timeless quality about it, there is a slightly old word gracefulness about it yet Lovely doesn't smell dated - it is a fragrance that will surpass trends. For a celebrity fragrance, a genre which can garner much cynicism and criticism, I think it holds it's own very well.
I'm kind of wanting to thumb this down because I CAN BARELY SMELL ANYTHING! I really can't believe it. I've doused myself with this (10 sprays) and all I smell is very faint roses and champagne. Maybe my nose is broken.
I wore this to the office one day and a co-worker commented (quite loudly) 'Who's got musk sticks?' (those vivid pink, long, thin, corrugated, soft musky sweets) It took me a minute to realise it was my perfume. Uh oh. I slid down in my chair and slunk off to the ladies room to tone it down a bit. Nonetheless I persist in wearing it (just not to the ofice) because I like it. It really is lovely. But, I do think that it may be best on young women and teenagers, and it is time I moved on. If you are too old to eat musk sticks then you may be too old for this one.
I used to really love this one but somehow I have grown so used to it that I cannot even smell it any more! It is an excellent perfume for daily wear. It can be smelled from a distance but is very mild and composed. It has excellent longevity and leaves a lovely fragrance on coats and scarves. It is very very clean. It is not a fragrance that shouts out, it is not something fantastic but it is 'lovely', exactly as its name implies. Quiet and unassuming, unlike the name of the woman it bears, it still makes a statement.
14th December, 2009 (last edited: 15th March, 2010)
Lots of sharp points here, but alluringly feminine all the same- I really enjoyed this one and would buy it again- and the bottle is nice to have around, too- piquant and energizing, yet not "in your face" about it-
Some people have compared this to Narciso Rodriguez, but it reminds me more of Eclat De Arpege by LANVIN. The apple martini, cedar and amber give it that fruity floral kick.
The patchouli is very high quality and manages to keep the fragrance "musky" without ever becoming spicy.
I have to hand it to Sarah Jessica Parker, I wouldn't touch most "celebrity scents" with a 10 foot pole, but she did her homework on this scent. A great women's scent for those who like musky florals. A hidden gem !
To know what "Lovely" smells like, picture this: a young woman in a strapless summer dress steps out of her house, fresh from the shower. It is 11 a.m. in July. She's late, so she walks fast along a hot sidewalk to get to the subway. "Lovely" is the scent she exudes when she just...starts....to sweat. ("glow"-- sorry-- men sweat, women "glow.")
Clean, fresh glow. Sexiest scent imaginable.
Two thumbs up-- way up.