Armani Eau Pour Homme. A decline

That sucks. I have put off a full bottle purchase of this for years. (Did the same with Gucci Envy). Lesson learned - if you really like a fragrance, buy it early on. Don't procrastinate just because you have samples or miniatures. If you adore a fragrance- buy a larger bottle or two smaller ones.

Can you tell us or take a picture of what the new bottle and packaging look like?

Could be so kind as to take a picture - that way I can see about locating a bottle of the 'old' juice based on the photo. If possible?

...........

Can anyone confirm if the bottle or packaging has in fact changed? I don't know how else to determine if it is new juice or old juice without opening it? And we all know you can't return it once that is done!

Unfortunately Inselaffe, I concur with the letter and spirit of this post. Most reformulations are sad events, this one more so for me since Armani Eau Pour Homme was a staple for me in the 1990s.

There is no doubt that most fragrance companies believe the market will stand inferior products. Personally, I don't think there are many clever people with integrity working in the fragrance industry, probably not one its management or marketing segments. The bottom line seems to be their god and they are sacrificing everything to it. My advice, buy vintage whenever you can--everything is being watered down--and forget the rest, even to a large extent the false deities of the niche pantheon.

scentemental

That's very sad to hear. I always liked Armani Eau Pour Homme, and had even thought of adding it back to my wardrobe. But if I do, I guess I will need to look for a vintage bottle.

Drat!

I've been thinking about this one a lot recently. It seems like every time I wear it I'm impressed by how good it smells, and it is one of the few frags I wear that regularly draw compliments, especially from women. It remains one of my all time favorites after all these years.

Now it looks like I should've bought another bottle years ago. Despite the rash of reformulations I had made the false assumption that this one would be safe and that I could get another bottle of the real stuff any time.

Is the reportedly subtle difference in box quality the only way to ID the vintage juice? Armani could've at least done us a favor by changing the packaging when they did the dirty deed. How sneaky!

This has certainly put a crimp in my day.

I'm going to go douse myself with Eau pour Homme and stew about it.

noggs

Oh me too.

I wore this a lot growing up (I have a distinct memory of growing up and sneaking into my brother's room to spray this from his bottle) and I'm saddened to hear this news.

Hear, hear, scentemental. You put it so very well.

I can't tell you how many times I've been elated to discover that a favorite scent was still being produced, only to find a weakling imposter in the newest bottle. Rochas, as you mention, is one of the saddest cases. I threw away (!!) the last bottle of Eau de Rochas I purchased - it was garbage and that's where it belonged.

Soooooooooo, does anyone know what the new packaging looks like? I'd like to snag an old bottle while I can - but I need to know the packaging and or bottle changes to be able to differentiate.

Weakling impostor is a great way of putting it Jardanel. As I said in a previous post, they took more than just the Pour out of Eau de Rochas Pour Homme when the reformulated it and repackaged it as Eau de Rochas Homme. Another one of my favorite citrus fragrances reformulated to insignificance.

scentemental

Irrespective of all this, and I should feel concerned and even hurt, since it is one of my favorites (and it is not easy to be disappointed by the very one and only absolutely fave scent), it still manages to occupy the top spot for me.

Is there a time frame when the reformulation might have occurred? I have an old bottle of this that I've been using lately and it has really grown on me.

Blame cost reduction policies and its negative impact on quality on Porter's cost - efficiency advantage and mediocre managerial decision making. At this point, I have the feeling that it would be an excellent idea to develop our own fragrance company.

At least there is one exception: I have the three versions of Van Cleef & Arpels pour Homme and the people of Interparfum made a good job with VC&A pour Homme.

New and Old???

http://www.scentmonkey.com/product.php?code=M-1393
http://www.scentiments.com/Product/S....aspx?id=95963

The packaging hasn´t changed. The Scentmonkey pic. is just the 30ml version and the Scentiments the bigger size version.
Here´s the most recent version from a Douglas website.
http://nl.douglas-shop.com/douglas/G...001403304.html

I don't recall if the new 3.4 oz bottle I recently tried at Ulta has the black plastic missing at the bottom; that might, indeed, be a feature of the smaller sized bottles, but I definitely remember there were changes to the bottle, especially around the sprayer, that made it look and feel cheaper. The fragrance definitely smelled cheaper.

scentemental

I whole heartedly agree with this post. I also used to live in England during the 80's and 90's and had many great years as a young man using the original Armani. It was in fact, the second quality designer fragrance I ever discovered. The first was Paco Rabanne. The days of my youth are gone now and so too it would seem are the quality fragrances I remember from that time. The same can be said of Santos De Cartier. I remember trying it back in 1989/1990 and being completely seduced by it. Twenty years later and not only has the fragrance been altered, the bottle is changed too. You used to be able to buy that in a large refillable version. Long gone, too.

The problem of fragrances being compromised over time is not going to go away. However, as Scentemental rightly says, the conusmer at large is not even aware of the changes, let alone feeling the need to revert to former glories. Of course, many basenoters care but fragrance houses will not listen to the minority.

regards

New:
http://www.theperfumeshop.com/pws/im...large/7335.jpg

...Note the stubbier cap. The black top half being shorter.


Old:
http://www.amaranti.pl/images/armani_pour_homme.jpg

While I can certainly appreciate the disappointment of those who are familiar with the new vs. the old versions, I personally never knew the "original" original version of Armani. And have just tried it for the first time yesterday, I have to say that it is nevertheless an uncommonly excellent fragrance in its latest incarnation -- I even purchased a bottle at full price and do not regret it in the least.

Good news.

Sometimes some of us get swept up in reformulation mania, and sometimes for those who haven't smelled the old, the problem can be nonexistent.

When all is said and done, I am happy for all those who are content with the new formulations.

However, for those of us have who grew up on the more-true-to-the-art-of-classic-perfumery original vintage formulations and lived with such original vintage formulations for years and are now confronted with having to accommodate ourselves to the new, glib technology of reformulations, the dilemma can best be summed up with an analogy: if one grew up drinking freshly squeezed orange juice for most of one's life, no bottled orange juice is ever going to be an adequate or satisfying substitute for the real thing, so, please, let's not pretend there isn't a difference. The difference, experientially speaking, is substantial, undeniable, and irrevocable because it is clearly perceived and sincerely lamented. For those who haven't lived with these original vintage formulations, you may well consider yourself fortunate, but then again, from another perspective, it is possible to consider yourself as unfortunate.

Everyone has the right to drink bottled orange juice, and that's fine, but I prefer mine freshly squeezed. It's not a mania; it's a preference based on what I value, the quiddity of my personal taste, and, in the final analysis, an aesthetic judgment about what is truly beautiful. Fine distinctions to be sure, but in an age that is increasingly erasing all distinctions and making of everything one huge undifferentiated, agglomerated mass, fine distinctions become increasingly more and more important and necessary, especially if one feels the need to resist the strong drift toward homogenization.

scentemental

P.S. I agree, the reformulated Armani Eau Pour Homme is still better than most of what is released today (designer or niche).

No doubt about your excellent command of the written word my friend. There aren't too many others here that can explain clearly and eloquently, but you are surely among them.

I am unfamiliar with this scent you speak of, but do lament reformulations, with the exception of only a few. You have already said it better than I could ever muster.

I must say that I just bought a 50 ml (1.7 oz) at a large department store here in Brazil.

The bottle/box/juice color is absolutely identical to the older "vintage" version that's in the pics on this thread (and the one I purchased back in january 2007).

They are ONLY selling these "vintage" bottles, they have many and the SA didn't even believe me about the existence of this different bottle.

I'm still to do a side-by-side comparison, but I wanted to get an extra bottle of this. Of course, there is also the risk of a reformulated juice in a vintage bottle, but I decided to take this chance, considering that even the reformulation is potentially great stuff.

The downside: it's really expensive to purchase fragrances in physical stores here, that's why I always try to do my shops in international websites. Obviously, this was a deserved exception.

So, anyone have seen the current formulation being sold in the vintage bottle?

I was fortunate to get some Versace l'Homme at a good price recently. Very potent stuff! Discovering and enjoying some of the "classics" is a major thing I look forward to with this hobby.

For all those looking for what Armani Pour Homme used to be, may I suggest Lorenzo Villoresi Uomo.
It is just that. Perhaps better.

This saddens me, I have always worn and enjoyed this frag. But I must say the new version, although not as good, good enough to get the job done. But to many of our Classics are being reformulated

Such is the fate of most fragrances it seems

Well, you would want a cheapened version of this to wear with your Chinese-assembled Armani watch (production cost $5) and low-end stitched-together-in-Romania Armani suit. Ahh, sweatshop "luxury."

One of the best accords ever, and it used to be a great fragrance. It's still there in the new stuff, but the overall fragrance has become a little cheap and annoying.

The older fragrance formulas (mostly designer) are generally more intricate, and have a hard time accommodating the current IFRA regulations. This one is a classic example. Still prefer it to the majority of niche fragrances, though.

A real shame for this was my 'signature' scent in early 1990s. I've outgrown it since but it does bring back the bitter sweet memories...

Hi from Italy here,

as Armani pour Homme is among my favourite scents (and the most Italian smelling juice ever IMHO), after reading this post I run to a perfume shop in my town and asked about this story of reformulation. The sa stared at me surprised and told me there is only 1 Armani Pour Homme (as in the picture of the vintage version posted by Scentemental :brolly. I bought a bottle on the spot and made the comparison with my nearly empty 20 years old bottle. Result: same bottle, same box, same smell.
So, I agree, second and confirm the words of the Brazilian basenoter.

Should I guess that in Italy or in Brazil there are still stocks of older bottles?

Cheers

Hi scentemental -

I wanted to verify this as some contradictions have come up. I thought that "89% Vol." was listed on the older juice...? I have a bottle sold to me as "Vintage" with the code on the bottle not verifiable by Checkcosmetic.net - usually a good sign for Vintage scents. Plus, it smells wonderful and rich.

I bought the exact 50ml boxed bottle pictured in your post from a dealer not too long ago (no "89% Vol." printed on it) - it dates back to mid-2006. On the back, both Oakmoss and Treemoss are in the list of ingredients. It has "80% Vol" volume listed. So, I would have to think that older juice is actually listed with "89% Vol" as the 2006 juice is very nice, but has limited oakmoss in it (since it is post-IFRA's ban on the wonderful note & fixative that is that precious lichen). But, this is contradictory to what you say.

I have to say that between the two bottles, they smell rather close...but the bottle sold as Vintage with a gold-plated bottom smells wonderful. Neither has excellent longevity - but I find a bit more in the "89% Vol." juice...with some more depth.

This is confusing a bit. Another reviewer wrote this:

"I actually have 2 bottles of this...One marked 80% and another marked 89%. Let me say that the 80% volume has greater depth and longevity. I use the 89% for casual wear and keep the 80% for more formal times. This will always be a favorite of mine."

I am curious to know more for sure...is the "89% Vol." for sure the reformulation? As someone put forth, the latest reformulation only says "ARMANI" in the middle and "eau pour homme" at the bottom of the glass. Oakmoss would be even less than the 2006 juice I have - and the bottle has once again, changed slightly. By the way, 2006 juice is NOT Vintage for all those wondering. IFRA's ban on oakmoss started phasing in around 2000/2001, to my knowledge.

Check out the latest bottle shown in ads from Armani - http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...9QEwAw&dur=549

Curious if people know more or have some evidence - for example, who has a bottle from the 90's? What does it look like? I consider this a 'reference scent' in citrus. It is one I've known for years and it seems to balance the classicism of Monsieur de Givenchy and Eau Sauvage with a nice, contemporary feel. Actually, not a dated fragrance to me at all. Formal and wonderful.

Nothing short of wonderful...!

Cheers,

ericrico

I got this when it first came out in stores but my feeling is that any release of this classic is worth having.

I've concluded that very few will ever be as it was back then, especially in the designer realm.

Hi all, the two bottles depicted on Ericrico's post (by Scentemental) are NOT vintage ones.
Vintage ones are like this (sse picture), with the percentage of alcohol (in this case 89%), and NO bar-codes on the box.



About lists of ingredients: here is Rear of the box in 2008 (left) and 2004 (right)

Hello Andre -

Thank you. I am a little confused here as the bottles (which I think are actually Vintage - listed with 'eau pour homme' and '89% Vol' look identical. Boxes aside, as I found a bottle identical to what you show (which is the same as Scentemental's bottle)...it came without a box.

Here is the key. Please take a picture of the bottom of your bottle and post it. I would like to see the base plate. It is much appreciated and I think will shed light on this.

Thank you, my friend.

ericrico



- - - Updated - - -

Hello Andre -

Thank you. I am a little confused here as the bottles (which I think are actually Vintage - listed with 'eau pour homme' and '89% Vol' look identical. Boxes aside, as I found a bottle identical to what you show (which is the same as Scentemental's bottle)...it came without a box.

Here is the key. Please take a picture of the bottom of your bottle and post it. I would like to see the base plate. It is much appreciated and I think will shed light on this.

Thank you, my friend.

ericrico

I have a Reformulated bottle and today I compared it (smell) side by side in a store (I know the owner) with an old tester she had that is marked 89% and there was ZERO difference. NADA!! Hence, more confusion. It appears that there is no sure way of knowing which is which at this point by outside appearances other than no bar code IMO.

Here'a bottle of old "Armani" splash version.
The Paco Rabanne perfume is a tribute for Ericrico

Presentation


Front box: note the "compact" greenish color (not woody or fabric drawings)


The batch code is almost invisible, you have to twist the bottle to see it.


Bottle under light


Side of the box with list of "ingredients"


IMPORTANT: the carved/embossed loo on the upper side of the box


and finally, the bottom of the bottle


hope this helps!
bye,
Andre

Thank you, Andre!

Merci. I see the points you make - thank you for the details. But, my eyes keep drifting to the Vintage Paco Rabanne box, so it's hard to see what the Armani bottle even looks like for me!

Cheers,

ericrico