Total Reviews: 9
Eau Sauvage is one of my all time favorite fragrances, but I had avoided sampling the EDP for reasons I really can't explain, but mostly because I didn't want to replace the original if I happened to really like it.
The two fragrances share a name, but really are quite different scents. The EDP is centered on the myrrh note, which is quite pleasant if not slightly subdued. I didn't get the performance I was expecting in terms of silage and longevity, and it seems fairly soft as well. The vetiver base is reminiscent of the EDT version, but not until very late in the dry down stage.
Nice scent, but only a neutral and a pass on it from me.
Whoa, this is a STRONG one!lol I don't think this is really anything special. Don't get me wrong, it's certainly not a bad scent by any stretch of the imagination. It smells good and is a most definitely a quality frag....but to my nose it's mostly a linear sweet myrrh scent and not much more. Hardly the masterpiece some make it out to be IMHO. Longevity and projection as immense!
I don't know….I tried this 5 times, and each time it morphed in very short order into the current formulation of Chanel Pour Homme. It's as if the two were the same thing. I don't get it. This is a perfectly competent, quasi-sophisticated man's fragrance, but it isn't compelling, and because to me it is so derivative of the Chanel (or is it the other way around? Well, since I already own the Chanel the chronology for me is Chanel was first and the Dior is derivative), I don't find this a "must have". I can see this as a dressed up, smart man's fragrance, but so is the Chanel. My advise? It wouldn't hurt you to buy the first of these you come across and pass on the other.
Advertisement — Reviews continue below
There are aspects of Eau Sauvage Parfum that I completely love (e.g. the incredibly good quality vetiver and the sparkling aspects during the opening) but, unfortunately, there are also several facets that I find thoroughly unpleasant. It basically shares the same marzipan quality already found in Dior's Eau Noire which, although I'm generally a big fan of immortelle, it's probably one of the very few helichrysum-centered fragrances I totally dislike. This facet is way toned down in Eau Sauvage Parfum but it is somehow still pretty remarkable together with some extra sweetness provided by the myrrh. All in all not a completely bad fragrance but way too far from matching my taste.
Lemony resinous smooth vetiver and sweet spices with dignity orchestrated in order to control the final "softness" and to preserve a certain level of hesperidic/spicy articulation (especially if you inhale the aroma at distance otherwise it risks to appear steady and pungent , probably too much intensely balmy/lemony). In the initial stage the bergamot is almost luxurious but just for a couple of minutes before the aroma starts morphing in to a flat hesperidic strongly resinous final ointment. The standout note of myrrh is indeed powerful since the beginning, "enveloping" any trace of classic/traditional subtle (herbal/citrusy) freshness (proper of the original historical version). The aroma is anyway elegant and subtle, never cloying or overly dense or spicy along the dry down. In the final phase the myrrh is indeed more restrained and controlled . I don't catch olfactory originality or special craftsmanship but neither see particular reasons to complain about the structure or the aroma "in se". The evolution is not for sure articulated or particularly laborious and in substance the fragrance embodies by soon (not more than twenty minutes over the fist spray) its final attitude. The dry down (which anyway I moderately like) is a more subtle resinous vetiver with sweet spices (cinnamon I suppose) and a lemon orange feel (hints of neroli?). Really long lasting and with a good projection.
29th March, 2014 (last edited: 07th January, 2015)
If Eau Sauvage Parfum had been released without the original having existed, I probably would have welcomed it as being an item of retro chic. It is not an enhancement of the original in anyway, but it does share the same DNA. The opening is much more citrus-centric, and it is pleasing, evoking a certain antique vibe. There are no nuanced subtleties to enjoy, this is more a fragrance of three distinct phases. Citrus, woods, and then a decent vetiver finish. For me it doesn't quite work as a whole. It feels contrived and a little ordinary.
Not only should you stick to the original issue of Eau Sauvage, go vintage too
A bit heavy I like strong perfumes but this one is too heavy or perhaps too sweet!
Let's start with the bergamot it smells like earl grey tea.
The middle note myrrh smells more like strong vanilla.
And the vetiver is maybe just a colorant to make the juice green.
7/10 not a masterpiece but good EDP if you like sweet smells with no ''macho notes''.
Perhaps it is better to use it on hot summer nights rather than on a daily basis.
This new Eau Sauvage is not awful, but it's very disappointing. For about five minutes in the opening I can smell similarities to Eau Sauvage, but after that, it's an almost pure vetiver scent. And it's a pretty boring vetiver scent.
I'm not one who bitches any time a flanker differs from the original fragrance. Flankers are a chance to expand on an original idea, as well as a chance for cashing in big time on the original's fame. But when a flanker is given the same name as the original scent, with only "Parfum" being the difference in the name, I expect the original scent, only much more concentrated. I don't think it's unreasonable for a customer to expect that. However, that is not what you get with Eau Sauvage Parfum.
I can't imagine buying this. When I smell Eau Sauvage, I expect something bright and cheerful. With this Parfum, I get something bitter and sour. Not what I expect at all from an Eau Sauvage flanker.
MY RATING: 5/10
I don't have a professional nose. However, this smells like tiger balm with Burberry Brit. I smelled both the eau de toilette and parfum version. They smell nothing alike;the edt gives me a headache just like Guerlain Vetiver while this one does not.