Total Reviews: 21
A soft plasticene rose with a bit of synthetic oud that hides pretty quickly. Closer to a rose fragrance than a middle eastern oud. Performance seems below Bond standards. I really don't see how this fits in their line as the signature scent?
Bond can be so good at times, and then they throw out a bucket of slurry in a kitschy bottle, and still believe it's worth your $300.
30th January, 2016 (last edited: 11th February, 2016)
This smelled fantastic in the store and I could not wait to get home and try out the sample on myself.
Complete and utter disappointment. On me, it smells like a mix of Clinique Happy and Axe Body Spray. I was embarrassed to be wearing it to dinner, because its so offensive and has such strong sillage.
It's too bad. I have grown to appreciate some of their scents despite being turned off by the tacky packaging. For me, this scent was tacky as well. I hate to think that this is a "signature" for Bond.
Oud and rose to begin with, but not with oriental lusciousness - this has a modern, slinky and elegant touch. The oud is a bit on the soft side initially, but then it develops a more convincing character. The drydown is a bit sweeter with a vanilla added, and in the later stages a more generic fruitiness is not particularly enticing. Performance is excellent though with very good silage and projection, and a total longevity of fourteen hours - this just tilts it into positive score territory. Good for warmer autumn days.
Advertisement — Reviews continue below
Incredible. Simple. Elegant. Classic. Very well done.
DELCIOUS! I don't know what all of these reviews are talking about because I am talking about the delicious, seductive Bond No. 9 Signature gold bottle! Fragrances don't last very long on me and this lasts from day until night and I continue smelling beautiful. Not to mention it looks great on my dresser! SO SO GOOD This is now my signature scent!
a floral oud that gets me going...totally summer nights out!
First off, let me boldly declare that I am NOT anosmic to oud. Why Bond no 9 itself carries a very fine oud fragrance familiar to me: HARRODS SWAROVSKI LIMITED EDITION. I am sorry to have to report, however, that Bond no 9 SIGNATURE seems like a serious case of "Mistakes were made." Have I been sniffing too much iso-E-super, and is it in fact fat soluble? I'm wondering because SIGNATURE smells to me suspiciously similar to a few different heavily iso-E-super-infused colognes. No oud whatsoever, as far as I can tell! No roses either, for that matter. Just that all-too-familiar "smacks of cedar" smell...
I have to give this one a thumbs down because of the mix-up in the lab or the decanting error. Either way, anyone looking for an oud perfume need not apply... Both this composition and HARRODS FOR HER appear to be the products of "modular perfuming" gone awry.
Completely uninspiring, boring and uninteresting. It's hard to remember what it smells like because it's so generic and plain. It's pleasant but thats about it yet it's strong in projection and longevity.
It's kind of 'gummy', fruity and is slightly rosey with a light hand of our. Quite fit for a woman rather than for a man. It smells rather cheap at times, I'm not against synthetics at all like most people(if it smells good then who cares?) but it doesn't smell all that great. There are so many better options out there.
The only reason to buy this is if you have deep pockets and you like Bond No.9 as a house. While Bond has many of my favorite scents I buy single fragrances, not because of what house it comes from.
I submit in this space my review for the new Bond n. 9 Signature whose for the moment we haven't a special space for reviewing and while waiting for it, sorry.
Decidedly feminine and sultry. This one is the smell of a woman that while sweating exudes all the scents, the balsams, the creams, the secretions and the cosmetics of its sensual, voluptuous and clean body. Unfortunately the initial evolution is a bit off-putting for my nose cause the opening is too much fruity and kind of synthetic with its resinous sort of gummy feel of chewing gum. The strong dosage of aoud tends to project in a while a dissonant, balsamic aroma as deep and acute to come out with somewhat salty nuances. The note of tonka is not smoky but caramellous and gummy and the outcome is like a sort of rosey honey vibe with a sultry kind of pungent floral fruitiness close to a neroli accord. Going ahead the gummy effect disappears and a nice woodsy rose starts to step up with a sort of decidedly basamic pungent whiff of floral and orangy white musk. Erotic, a bit chemical but sophisticated end chic at once. Longevity and projection are strong and powerful.
29th May, 2011 (last edited: 14th July, 2014)
Luxury trash. No oud, but plenty of cheap synthetics. Thus a fitting signature fragrance for this house.
I tried this on at Saks. It smelled exactly like our toilet bowl cleaner. I had my husband, then my daughter smell it-- they thought the same thing. Hideous.
I've been trying many of the Bond N.9 perfumes but I really can't say which ones as they're all basically the same. Well, they're not really the same, but toally looks like.Very loud, vulgar and a bit annoying. The "street name concept" is ridiculous, the bottle is ridiculous, prices are ridiculous and most of all the scents are ridicolous. Mass market expensive scents for rich women with no class but with a platinum credit card. One of the most overstimated perfumes brand ever. Sorry!
05th March, 2011 (last edited: 05th September, 2011)
This has oud??? I cannot find it. Smells like a screechy synthetic rose. Loud and cheap.
Advertisement — Reviews continue below
I've had this on for about 5 hours now, and it shows no sign of dying down! I love how unique it smells, and it instantly stands out.
Harrod's Limited Edition. I think this may be a different fragrance than the one listed above, so I am editing this review to point which fragrance this is I am smelling. It is especially confusing because the bottle does not actually list the name and the SA called it Harrods Oud, which is not listed anywhere by that name. This is the Harrod's Swarovski Lt. Ed. but my bottle is the version without the crystals.
The notes to Harrod's Limited Edition are: Black pepper, cumin, amber, myrrh, oud, vetiver. The blending of the amber, oud, myrrh and vetiver are outstanding. The scent is very warm and smells of oud and amber from the start. The sweetness of amber/Oud stays steady throughout the scent development but as the base arrives the mix of cumin, oud, amber and vetiver gives a nice warm leather scent that is still quite sweet. After a few hours the amber very slowly wears down and it scent is a dark dry leathery oud. The smell of this scent is very assuring and comforting. This is the best Bond NO. 9 fragrance I've tried.
15th June, 2010 (last edited: 01st December, 2010)
This is Sheer Luxury !!!
1 spray in your chest will last all day...
I appreciate the quality and longevity of this fragrance as well as the blend of wood resin and rose. I think it smells different than Creed's Tabarome. I think the story is different. The vial must have at least 4 applications due to the 30 percent concentration. Although the fragrance retails for $330, I think Bond has a value added product here. A collectable bottle and 3.4oz of perfume, not EDP(and their EDPs last). For $300 or $600 one normally receives 1oz of perfume. In the case of Clive Christian, one pays $800 or more. It's not always about how much but how much one enjoys the fragrance.
This is getting really tiresome.
"This" refers to being let down (yet again) by another lackluster performance from BOND.
Original? F**k no!
There are roughly 100 others (mainstream, nonetheless) fragrances on the market, that share the same trend/vibe as this.
The only one worth mentioning is TABAROME MILLESIME.
It has been kicking around in the streets since....Oh.....2000 A.D.
Where is the oud? To call this underwhelming is an overstatement and this can go for any freshie in the market for 1/10th the price. Longevity was 2 hours on my skin and the whole thing disappeared with no trace. This is a waste of time and a waste of money. Double thumbs down
23rd March, 2010 (last edited: 03rd April, 2010)
I walked into Saks today and tried this fragrance for the first time. Upon first smell i thought i had found my holy grail, as i had never smelled anything like this fragrance. Chalk it up to experience, or chalk it up to the uniqueness of this fragrance. The opening is very pungent and is sweet with an almost acrid bite, but is soothed by flowery notes which i could only assume to be the rose. It was if i had fallen in love, but sadly after inquiring about the price was shocked to find it was almost one hundred dollars more than a normal bond fragrance. Also, after about four hours of use this fragrance fails to pass the one dimensional test. This fragrance smells the same throughout its lifespan, but i would not consider this a bad thing. Overall, i would say, if money is no object and different is what you are looking for then this fragrance is for you.
I like bond scents and enjoy this, may never purchase full bottle but I need more time to decide. I gave this a thumbs up because I judge a scent on how I like it not the cost, if I were to include price/value in my review would give this a neutral for now.