Perfume Reviews

Negative Reviews of Not a Perfume by Juliette Has a Gun

Total Reviews: 8
I received this as a sample in a beauty subscription box. Then note on the card proclaimed that this single note scent is simply Cetalox, and pointed out that one of the things that's so "great" about it is that it's hypo-allergenic.


Cetalox is the "perfumy" scent/ingredient that makes certain perfumes unbearable for me (Chanel No. 5, I'm talking about you). It's an immediate migraine trigger (which probably *does* mean I'm allergic to it).

This scent is repulsive, repugnant, and I loathe it as well as all the perfumes that contain this ingredient.
15th January, 2018
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)
Advertisement — Reviews continue below

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
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
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)