Show all reviews
I have had a mini of this for years, and every time I try it, I'm just...confused. I guess that's the best word. Maybe it's the concept I don't understand. Or the fact that it's in the same bottle as Lagerfeld "Classic". Except it's black and meant to remind one of a camera. So I guess in my mind I'm thinking...sporty version of Lagerfeld classic. But then I smell it and it's nothing at all like Lagerfeld classic, which further adds to the confusion. And then the scent itself is so thin I can't get a bead on it...so I end up putting the mini back on the shelf. But not today. I made a point to put on a lot of the stuff so that I could really follow it through its progression. And I've been doing that while I've been reading the other reviews. Shamu, The Cologneist...all have really nailed down what Photo is all about. And it makes perfect sense that it came out in 1990. It's a tamped down powerhouse with elements of (at that time) the newly emerging fresh acquatic notes. And now I'm certain it just doesn't do it for me. It's missing that X factor that a fragrance needs to distinguish it. I can't really explain this X factor, but I think most of you will understand what I mean. Lagerfeld classic had this X factor. KL had the X factor. Photo doesn't. It's not bad, now that I understand it, but for me it's not unique enough to actually wear. Whatever the driving note in Drakkar Noir is; is a note that is in Photo as well...and I 've discovered it's a note I really don't cotton to.
25th September, 2011