Well, Cetalox, (admittedly) one of the Romano Ricci's favorite ingredients, effectively just an ingredient (yes pure, artificial, transparent, "post-industrial"), it seems a chemical aqueous cedarwood with a touch of anisic musk and calone. Yes, Cetalox is for this fragrance what ambroxan (in a different way) represents for Molecule 02. The aroma is close to a sort of postmodern detergent due to remove make up and to clean up the face's skin. It's curious that I can't catch anymore the Not a Perfume's aroma on my skin after a while, the scent seems appearing and disappearing systematically. Close (more than to D&G Light Blue as many declare) to a sort of ideally less "minty" and earthy KenzoAir. Anyway, minimalism? I would say ghostly experimental un-artistic (cosmetical) simplism. A boring medium rating just cause there is far worse around.
When did this idiotic trend of selling mono-molecule fragrances start? "Good for layering"? It surely is, that's why they use it for making perfumes, it's an ingredient and so it should be marketed. But for God's sake, do we need Juliette has a Gun passing off a bottle of that at 10 times the price of its only ingredient – for "layering"? That does not make sense to any extent. It's like paying 100 EUR a bottle of water because it's good for layering with your lunch. Unworthy any review (like Molecule 01 and similar pathetic phenomenas). And by the way it's cetalox, not ambroxan, bit different (cheaper, less complex, more on the clean/white side, they use it for floor cleaning products).
I don't get it at all..
I do not wish to look up Ambroxan either..
a plain and uncomplex light-airy scent that is unisex..
Stays close to the skin but is delightful..
Not FB worthy..
Cons: why bother"
Advertisement — Reviews continue below
Review by thanks sixx
If this product is acknowledged for what it is.....diluted ambroxan, and nothing more......and if one asks oneself if they like the smell or not....the argument is over.
I, personally, LOVE this scent. It doesn't matter to me that it is a single molecule. It is overpriced, if one wants to purchase plain ambroxan and dilute it. Some folks might not want to go through the trouble. The perfumer here, in my opinion, has the concentration just right.
I like to spray it on my skin, then apply a drop or two of real ambergris 3% solution over it. This rounds out the note and makes it more creamy and luscious.
Not A Perfume can smell a bit strong on the skin at first, perhaps even clinical. It quickly settles down into a feminine, soothing skin-scent. It is reminiscent of ambergris, being one of the molecules found in natural ambergris. But here the comparison ends, as ambergris is a complex wonder of nature.
Like any scent, either you like ambroxan or you don't.
Personally, I love it.
Like it says on the tin.
Ricci got so excited by the synthetic amber Ambroxan that he decided to bottle it (in the right dilution, of course). Now Ambroxan is not without its virtues. Andy Tauer writes of it thus: ‘Ambroxan is a single molecule, but is smells very complex (amber, vibrant wood, floral tobacco) and not cheap like other synthetic ambers that you find in washing powder.’ It has a soft and polished satin-like feel about it. So far so good.
However, most synthetics on their own – even fairly complex ones – don’t have the variability over time that makes naturals exciting and lively. This is like a musical chord prolonged for hours on end stripped off any of the harmonics that would normally begin to dance around it. Or as my non-perfume-wearing partner announced rather bluntly: ‘quite insipid’.
I went to Romano's talk and he said it's good for layering. I just don't see the point in creating something so derivative.
I agree. It's not a perfume. There's a light scent-a warming of the skin- but that's it. I think if I'd bought a full bottle (rather than the excellent value set of samples from JHAG) I'd be feeling rather disappointed in what I'd got for my money.
I couldn't smell it so i used the whole sample. I still couldn't smell it. My girlfriend visited later in the afternoon and commented that i smelled like the smoky stuff they swing around in those globes connected to chain/rope in church ceremonies. she said it smelled strong. I'll have to take her word for it because I can't smell the Ambroxan myself. It just seems like such a novelty fragrance, not something to take seriously and spend money on.
24th February, 2012 (last edited: 14th March, 2012)
Apparently Escentric MOLECULE 02, launched in 2008, is essentially ambroxan, and Juliette Has a Gun NOT A PERFUME, launched in 2010, is also essentially ambroxan. Is there a problem here? Well, I guess that everyone has the right to bottle an aromachemical and sell it at 10,000% profit if they want to. And, amazingly enough, some people really will buy it, even at niche prices!
Although I have not smelled MOLECULE 02, NOT A PERFUME does remind me of my memory of MOLECULE 01: vague woodishness, a bit perfumey. Smells okay, which is to be expected, since this is used to boost the perfumic quality of perfumes, right? To my nose, NOT A PERFUME smells like the base of a men's cologne featuring cedar. It's not too masculine, but it's definitely not feminine.
Okay, I think that this once original idea has exhausted its fifteen minutes of fame. Time to return to perfume, thank you very much!
Well made, simple, and sexy. Well executed and well balanced.