Unique? Not to me. This is about as unique as a typical Adidas or Nautica. Very generic smelling, nothing special.
Oh Dunhill Dunhill Dunhill ..... What have you become? The quality days of Edition are long gone and that past master is becoming a memory. This modern junk annoys. Synthetic pap. Why do your bottles not have the name of the fragrance on them? Isit because even the bottle is ashamed of it ! The usual commercial stuff being churned out. London was overly sweet and fleeting ( with the rose making it overly effeminate too ) and this tries to sell on the basis of "nettle" accord. I have never gone close enough to nettles to absorb any aroma they give off and the only asociation i get is one of pain. Ah yes... pay £38 for an "unmarked" bottle of this, realise it is pointless and feel the nettle ( ie pain! ). Dunhill Edition 1984 issue was very clever with great sillage and longevity. As i said a past master ( from packaging to bottle to fragrance to reputation ) .
Can Dunhill ever climb back up the slippery slope they are falling down with their fragrances? Not with this one I fear. I thought 'London' might shake them to their senses -- it was so horrid, but hey maybe it sold well? Firstly, there is nothing 'black' about this. It has a green, oh so familiar opening, the supposed lavender is non-existent and the jasmine was of the dirty kind and not well executed -- not a good combination in my book anyway. It does get a bit leathery very late on, but again it's not really worth the wait. Dunhill have thrown their lot in with the populist male fragrance mass creations and can't be taken seriously anymore as far as fragrances go.