Basenotes › Basenotes Forums › Fragrance Discussion › Male Fragrance Discussion › MFD Archive › Amouage Gold - fairly tame?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Amouage Gold - fairly tame?

post #1 of 11
4/19/10 at 4:31pm
Thread Starter 
Just got a sample of this (Gold for Men) and after reading all the reviews I was expecting to get blasted in the face by a very wild scent, similar to Kouros.

My experience of it is rather tame and pretty. Lush, opulent, and pretty. Inoffensive. Flowery, but not totally girly.

Am I alone? Maybe my sample is off..
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 11
4/19/10 at 4:45pm
Yep, that's pretty much what I get from Gold for Men (Women is also very similar). I don't get all the negative reviews too. I find it to be an aldehydic, slightly creamy floral that smells as you put it...lush, opulent and pretty.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 11
4/19/10 at 8:19pm
Just give it a few more wears. Gold is not that just "flowery pretty"
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 11
4/19/10 at 8:38pm
Both men's and women's Gold were recently re-formulated. The older ones were MUCH more civet-y and animalic. My impression of the newer ones is that they have less civet, rather than synthetic civet. Gold for men was never a Kouros, though, and although it was civet-y, I still found it quite refined and upstanding; the civet seemed to transform on the skin. For the record: I like the newer versions equally well.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 11
4/19/10 at 10:09pm
Agreed, I don't find the new Gold for Men to be all that animalic.

I'm curious, is the new Ubar more animalic than the current Golds?
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 11
4/19/10 at 11:43pm
The old Gold for men was almost obscene in the drydown. Love it!
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 11
4/19/10 at 11:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SculptureOfSoul View Post

Agreed, I don't find the new Gold for Men to be all that animalic.

I'm curious, is the new Ubar more animalic than the current Golds?

Gold Men is animalic, no doubt, but the "baby powder" overwhelms the civet a bit.

The new Ubar is "denser" than Gold Men, and more animalic, IMO.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 11
4/20/10 at 12:37am
Gold for Men was overkill.

My blessings to those who were nutty enough to enjoy it!

(Are you sure you sprayed enough?)

And to think some of us make fun of Xeryus Rouge . . .

So the reformulation is an improvement?

OK.

Let me know when they come out with a Joop! Black Platinum Oudh.

Cheers,

Mario
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 11
4/20/10 at 8:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SculptureOfSoul View Post

Agreed, I don't find the new Gold for Men to be all that animalic.

I'm curious, is the new Ubar more animalic than the current Golds?


Ubar is more civety than the new Golds, but not a major civet bomb. Ubar is about like Diva, if you know that one.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 11
4/20/10 at 9:22pm
One of the very few fragrances that I truly HATE with a passion.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 11
4/20/10 at 9:23pm
I'm trying the women's Gold and Ubar for the first time today. Ubar is definitely the more animalic of the two, though I also find darker and more busy which tends to emphasize the civety, musky qualities.

To my nose, the animalic side of Gold emerges much more in the drydown, a slight cheesy-buttery quality revealing a castoreum note, but not a huge one ( for example, L'Arte di Gucci is far "ranker" in this respect ). The top half is more powdery floral with a few whisps of smoke and a slight soapy-waxiness I find difficult to describe. It's nice but I wouldn't describe it as Avante Garde at all.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: MFD Archive
Basenotes › Basenotes Forums › Fragrance Discussion › Male Fragrance Discussion › MFD Archive › Amouage Gold - fairly tame?