Perfume Reviews

Reviews of Not a Perfume by Juliette Has a Gun

Total Reviews: 16
A simple, warm, light and woody scent that sometimes becomes overwhelming and then can become hard to detect, but it continuously comes back to your nose in waves throughout the day.

When first sprayed, it seems to have massive projection and I was afraid of choking out a room. Later, it just comes and goes and doesn't feel heavy at all.

It lasted all day on me and I enjoyed wearing it. As far as it being unisex, I agree that it's suitable either way and apparently changes scent as per the wearer.

06th July, 2017
It's like Magritte decided to make a perfume.
12th April, 2017
Not a Perfume is a kind of non existent perfume - I only really get a musky, detergenty notion of a perfume, as if it's a part of a perfume rather than the whole thing. I'm kind of conflicted here; On the one hand, it feels like a cheap publicity stunt. On the other, I find that I keep trying to smell it after spraying. It's a typical JHaG "transparent" and inoffensive little thing... and yet, unlike with other JHaG fragrances, I keep coming back to it. I can't say I like it (not that I dislike it either - that's the problem, it doesn't feel like there's a "there" there) but I can't stop sniffing at it. Don't be surprised if you love it or hate it but this is the first JHaG fragrance that I think should be tried.
03rd June, 2016
Advertisement — Reviews continue below

Guys, I think many here are missing the point of this scent.

First of all, Cetalox or Ambroxan smell differently on every skin. I know this is said for all fragrances in general, but it applies to this chemical even more so.

Second of all, similar to Molecule 01 or Molecule 02, you will only very vaguely (if at all) smell this scent yourself, but will rather project it to those around you. Although, I have to say that I can actually smell this better on myself than the Escentric Molecule series.

I remember the first time I smelled this scent was at a bar. I tried to locate the source of what I thought was an indescribably beautiful fragrance. It's weird, because even without knowing the name or the composition, I thought it wasn't a perfume per say. It may sound weird, but if scents had a colour and a feel to them, I would've described it as purple and warm. A warmth that I felt drawn to. To my surprise, the person who projected it was someone I could not have otherwise been attracted to, physically. But it got us talking, nevertheless, and I asked them for the name of the perfume.

I instantly rushed to the only store that I found out had it in stock, a boutique niche perfume store, and bought it. It doesn't smell anything on me like it did on that person, as far as my own nose can tell, but I do receive compliments when I wear it (on its own), even in crowded bars, so perhaps it does!

One further note:
This scent also projects very differently on different people. One girl at work as telling me that she could smell my scent from the other end of the office and that she thought it was beautiful, while a few colleagues I actually asked, said they could barely detect I was wearing anything at all.

In conclusion, I do believe it's worth having in your collection, if you have one. If you're rather someone who only has one or two perfumes, or if you want to actually be able to smell your own fragrance at all times, this may not be for you.
19th April, 2016
Thank you so much to the reviewer who identified this as Cetalox -- I have struggled with buying perfumes for years because this chemical gives me migraines and I'm never sure which perfumes use it until I've already got them home.

"Not a Perfume" is indeed aptly named. It barely qualifies and I can't believe they charge money for this. I'm in the wrong business!
19th February, 2016
There's not much to write about *Not A Perfume* because the name says all we need to now about the *fragrance*. Basically a concentrate of all I don't like about mainstream perfumery and modern *faux* niche. Escentric Molecules did something extremely similar a bunch of years before but, at least, they put some effort on the marketing…

Not A Perfume. I couldn't agree more.

26th January, 2016 (last edited: 14th July, 2016)
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.
26th October, 2014
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).

27th July, 2014
Tony T Show all reviews
United States

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..

Pros: Ambroxan
Cons: why bother"

30th September, 2013
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.

30th August, 2013
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’.
18th July, 2012
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.
10th May, 2012
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.
26th April, 2012
Advertisement — Reviews continue below

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!
06th November, 2011
Well made, simple, and sexy. Well executed and well balanced.
04th August, 2011