Charlie / Charlie Blue by Revlon, 1973

I love what Charlie symbolised - that emancipated Halston wearing Revlon girl of the Seventies. I love the original TV ads - especially the Shelley Hack version in high waisted satin trousers and a shingled bob - SO chic (check it out on Youtube). I even love the flourish of the signature. But the fragrance - OK til the dry down - I was wearing Chanel NO 5 on my other wrist and momentarily they smelled the same - but not for long. I will grudgingly give Charlie marks for longevity - six hours later it's still lingering, but boy does it smell cheap - a skanky honeysuckle that scarcely merits its bargain basement price. Whether it's been reformulated - I don't know, although what hasn't? Perhaps they should rename it Charlene - far more in keeping with its image today. ( apologies to all the Charlenes out there reading this)

I'm basing my review on the Charlie from back in the 70s. What I got was a bright citrus opening, followed by a mellow floral, very bright, with a clean drydown . In the mid 70s, I didn't know one girl who didn't have this on her dresser. When I see a tester of this in a drug store I always take a sniff, and it transports me back to high school. I think it is overlooked because of the low price tag, but it beats the heck out of some of the stuff that is so popular today (are you listening, Coach?)

They're still making this? What a trip! This was all the rage when I was in high school in the early 70s. For me it was the transitional scent between Jovan Musk and Rive Gauche. Every female I know got a bottle for Xmas of '73. It is a flirty, somewhat strident feminine floral. For the price i can only imagine that it is 100% synthetic, and I would prefer more natural fragrances at this point in my life. But it did serve a purpose in my adolescence, and I will remember it with a smile.

imo, under-rated. Strong, feminine, fresh, floral, green, citrusy, sillage, powerful, longevity- not in how many hours does it last, but how many days? I love it! Good for very busy, active women.

I have a vintage dab-bottle of the perfume concentration of original Charlie, and it does not smell cheap to me at all. It begins with a fresh, exceedingly cool burst of green + citrus, then evolves into a nice jasmine and rose floral before revealing a base of cedar, animalic nitro-musks, and oakmoss. It really is a beautiful perfume, I wear it quite often although I don't have a "past" with it. I was born in the late 70s and my grandma did have a large bottle of it on her vanity, but she never wore it and i don't have any scent associations with Charlie. I love vintage perfumes - at the moment I'm obsessed with 70s drugstore scents - and if the cologne version of Charlie smelled as good as my perfume concentration, then I can completely understand why Charlie was such a beloved and successful scent. It is very lovely if you're into vintage scents, but if you don't enjoy old-fashioned, pre-80s type scents you may find Charlie to smell unappealing.

A forgotten '70s drugstore classic, Revlon's Charlie harkens back to the days when women smoked filterless Chesterfields while ironing and watching daytime soap operas. Do any women still do that? Doubtful. The scent opens with a blaring lemon/orange zest, then quickly transitions into a somewhat spicy and chemical combination of white rose, lily, and half-hearted carnation on a very dry chypre oakmoss foundation. You can smell the florals distinctly between the tang of the opening and the moistureless base because they're decidedly "white" and lack any coherence amidst all the oranges and browns. I suppose that's a minus for Charlie, as a darker rose and more robust carnation might make the scent flow better. But all things considered, Charlie isn't bad, and is not the blobby peach and musk nightmare I find in so many reformulated drugstore feminines. She who remembers her soap opera and pack-a-day Chesterfield habit probably still hold onto this fragrance, but it lacks relevance in today's world for today's women.

I used to wear Charlie as a teen, then didn't wear it for decades. I tried wearing it again in my 30s and 40s and gave up, thinking it was overpowering. Now I'm in my 50s, and tried it again just yesterday. Now it's a green floral with a powdery drydown that is refreshing and different in this age of fruity gourmands. Time changes my perspective of certain perfumes.

Hah, a drug store fragrance and I think it's AMAZING in all regards. One regard is its boisterous attempt at being something "expensive" smelling. It's really potent and sometimes could be called "vile". Now something this cheap and old would mean that everyone probably wore it "way back when". Honestly, I don't remember in my youth a single women ever wearing this. Of course, I wasn't paying attention to such.

I bought a vintage bottle from an elderly lady and I told her why and she was ecstatic that I was collecting bottles.

I adore Charlie! For the price, its incredibly long lasting. To me, Charlie is a classic fragrance. Charlie Blue is too sweet for me, and I haven't tried any of the other Charlies. The original Charlie from 1973 is the one I love!

Many people talk about Charlie and i can't believe this fragrance was a FiFi winner. For me Charlie is like the poor unglamorous cousin of Chanel N5.

Please revlon working womans deserved a better fragrance! This doesn't even have own identity..

Cheap perfumes shouldn't smell horrible..