Total Reviews: 9
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.
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.
Advertisement — Reviews continue below
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.
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.
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)