Basenotes › Basenotes Forums › Fragrance Discussion › Male Fragrance Discussion › MFD Archive › Pour Monsieur de Chanel..!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Pour Monsieur de Chanel..!

Poll Results: Which Do You Prefer?!

 
  • 72% (31)
    Pour Monsieur?
  • 27% (12)
    Pour Monsieur Concentrée?
43 Total Votes  
post #1 of 21
3/17/10 at 2:22pm
Thread Starter 
So, I have 'em both - the white designer trash I am!

I (close to) never wear the original old school
PM, it's waaay to fresh and lemony for me.
But the Concentrée is a whole other story.
After about an hour it becomes the sweetest,
oriental'ish - oh I just wanna eat you - scent.
Deee-bloody-licious!
I just wish it had longer longevity ... buh huuuh!

I know that the original PM is an untouchable classic,
with a fanbase that dosn't stop, but come on,
Concentrée must have it's followers too, no?!

Which do you prefer?!
Reply
Reply

Features on Basenotes

Petals Falling From The Sky - A Report From The Cote d'Azur's Bataille De Fleurs
Greatest Hits: Annick Menardo
Basenotes Reader Awards 2013 - Finalists Announced.
post #2 of 21
3/17/10 at 8:12pm
I prefer the original PM.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 21
3/17/10 at 9:14pm
Call it sacrilege, but these days I also prefer the oriental dry down of the Concentrée to the mossy base of the original. The original is going to be butchered by the IFRA regulations if it hasn't been already.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 21
3/17/10 at 9:36pm
I actually like them both equally, but that wasn't an option on your poll
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 21
3/17/10 at 9:43pm
I really enjoyed the vintage, I felt that the concentree had too much competition to hold a place in my wardrobe
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 21
3/17/10 at 9:54pm
I prefer Chanel pour Monsieur Concentree. But I like Tiffany for Men even more than that. I know, you didn't ask that.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 21
3/17/10 at 10:45pm
I also prefer the concentrée. The "original" is a fleetingly fresh citrusy thing which is nice while it lasts, but nothing spectacular. Vintage formulations are probably a lot nicer than today's version, because I assume that its reputation as a great classic must have some foundation...
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 21
3/18/10 at 12:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bossanova_boy View Post

I prefer Chanel pour Monsieur Concentree. But I like Tiffany for Men even more than that. I know, you didn't ask that.

My thoughts exactly.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 21
3/18/10 at 12:37am
I concur with the others. I prefer Tiffany for Men.

I was wearing it a couple of days ago after not having worn it for a while, it really is everything the Chanels aspired to but didn't quite achieve.

Between the Concentree and the original, I prefer the original, the Concentree just misses the mark to me. The problem with the original is that it smells fantastic for the five minutes it lasts before disappearing smiling like the Cheshire Cat.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 21
3/18/10 at 4:55am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrclmind View Post

I actually like them both equally, but that wasn't an option on your poll

But you have to like one just slightly better
than the other, no?!
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 21
3/18/10 at 5:14am
I also love them both but only own the original
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 21
3/18/10 at 7:36am
I think the Concentree is a fine scent which suffers badly from comparison to the original CPM. In that same vein, Creed's Tabarome Millesime which is a fine scent in its own right gets no respect since it is not Vintage Tabarome. They should have called them both something different, but that's marketing.

I haven't given original CPM a fair test, but it seems incredibly fleeting, and I note many commentaries in here about how short lived it is. The concentree version is not all that big in the longevity department either on me. But I do like it. Very clean and fresh.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 21
3/18/10 at 7:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Grand Duc View Post

But you have to like one just slightly better
than the other, no?!

Well, I guess if pressed, the original is a bit more to my liking. It's a nice, slightly sweet chypre. It does absolutely have no lasting power, but it was also formulated in an era when tenacity in male fragrance was not desired much over all. The concentree is very good as well, and it does have similarities to the original. It's longevity is slightly better and it leans more toward the oriental side of things. It is pretty impossible to buy the original in the States; whenever I'm in Europe I like to make sure to pick up a bottle.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 21
3/18/10 at 8:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrclmind View Post

Well, I guess if pressed, the original is a bit more to my liking. It's a nice, slightly sweet chypre. It does absolutely have no lasting power, but it was also formulated in an era when tenacity in male fragrance was not desired much over all. The concentree is very good as well, and it does have similarities to the original. It's longevity is slightly better and it leans more toward the oriental side of things. It is pretty impossible to buy the original in the States; whenever I'm in Europe I like to make sure to pick up a bottle.

Hey mrclmind: since you're in SoCal, there is a store in Beverly Hills across street from Barneys that has several variations of CPM- not the concentree version.

But, it is probably pretty "old" stock, and if you grab it in Europe, you're probably better off.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 21
3/18/10 at 8:11am
The original is wonderful. This almost became my signature scent, but the latest bottles don't smell quite the same to me.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 21
3/18/10 at 8:41am
I love the original too, unconditionally
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 21
3/18/10 at 11:10am
So, is "Tifffany" more like the original, or the concentree? Anyone have an opinion?
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 21
3/18/10 at 11:45am
i like em both equally. regarding original PM, i get better longevity (read: whole day) for it when sprayed on fabric..and matter of fact, it smells its best when sprayed on fabric.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 21
3/18/10 at 11:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by conehead View Post

So, is "Tifffany" more like the original, or the concentree? Anyone have an opinion?

It's like a richer, smoother, stronger and longer lasting version of the original. It's really everything people would have hoped for with Concentree, since as has been noted, the original has no staying power at all.
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 21
3/18/10 at 12:09pm
I have a preference for the Concentree as it is much more versatile and long-lived. The original is more beautiful, but I tend to use it less.
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 21
3/18/10 at 12:17pm
I find Tiffany(1989) to be extremely similar to PH Concentrée (1989). After all they're both by Polge. And Polge had nothing to do with the 1955 original PH which was done by the great Henri Robert.
FYI: Tiffany fragrances are owned by Chanel.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: MFD Archive

Features on Basenotes

Petals Falling From The Sky - A Report From The Cote d'Azur's Bataille De Fleurs
Greatest Hits: Annick Menardo
Basenotes Reader Awards 2013 - Finalists Announced.
Basenotes › Basenotes Forums › Fragrance Discussion › Male Fragrance Discussion › MFD Archive › Pour Monsieur de Chanel..!