Basenotes › Basenotes Forums › Fragrance Discussion › Male Fragrance Discussion › MFD Archive › Reformulation thoughts on Red for Men by GIorgio of Beverly Hills.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Reformulation thoughts on Red for Men by GIorgio of Beverly Hills.

post #1 of 48
6/16/11 at 7:02pm
Thread Starter 
So I got my new bottle of Red today, and did one full chest spray (along with a little dribble that first came out). I had a dab vial sample and used that 4 times before deciding to buy a bottle. I assumed that the sample I had is the new formulation, mainly because of a somewhat "synthetic" and syrupy quality that I associate with "drugstore" frags. However, the redwood sequoia note, which starts to emerge strongly after about an hour, grew on me. I disllike strong wood notes, so finding one that I actually liked was the key to my decision.

After a few minutes, I thought to myself that something was wrong. I didn't get that thick, syrupy sweet, herbal quality at all. Instead, it was dry and rather light, so I sprayed some on my wrist to simulate the kind of sampling from the dab vial. Smelling it up close, I could tell that it was nothing like the original, which I must have in that sample vial (and is similar to Polo Crest). Up close, the new one is quite "synthetic" in a "chemical" way, though not a migraine maker. Allowing it to mix with the air, however, seems to be important with this one.

This new one is actually a good frag, and has a hint of minty-ness that I didn't detect in the original. This is no longer an evening and cold weather frag, and in fact would be good in all but the hotest and most humid conditions. It's actually a bit cool, whereas the original was on the hot side, at least until the wood emerged strongly, and it was never cool. After several hours, you get something very close to Montana Parfum d'Homme ("red box"), but without any of the soapy lavender. What bothers me most is that aside from the missing redwood sequoia note, there is also no Yatagan-like accord, which I enjoyed in the original. Overall, this is a fairly "natural" smelling, pleasant frag, and good for those who want a light version of an "80s power frag" (particularly if you don't want those powerful openings), but don't think you are getting anything that resembles the original (beyond a slight hint, perhaps).

Note that this is considerably better than another attempt at a Montana Parfum d'Homme frag, namely Adidas Sport Field, which is way too "synthetic" for me.
Reply
Reply

Features on Basenotes

Basenotes Reader Awards 2013 - Finalists Announced.
Greatest Hits: Annick Menardo
Petals Falling From The Sky - A Report From The Cote d'Azur's Bataille De Fleurs
post #2 of 48
6/16/11 at 7:47pm
Didn't care for it when it first came out and my feeling hasn't changed.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 48
6/16/11 at 7:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hednic View Post

Didn't care for it when it first came out and my feeling hasn't changed.

I'm curious about something. About HOW MANY fragrances have you actually sampled? Every thread I see you posting and you must have sampled 10 thousand fragrances. I'm almost bewildered bro.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 48
6/16/11 at 7:58pm
Thread Starter 
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing a few days ago Aromi. LOL. Here, I'd like hednic to tell us if he has sampled the new and old Red, and if so, what are his impressions of the two. Or, if just one, which one?
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 48
6/16/11 at 8:01pm
Bigsly, if I don't know about about a frag, the only thing I will post on the thread is a potential question if the fragrance has piqued my interest.

If I sampled all the frags he has, I would be a full-time sampler. I'm starting to get annoyed.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 48
6/16/11 at 8:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigsly View Post

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing a few days ago Aromi.

Ditto, when I posted my thoughts on Mona di Orio's Oud. Only press samples have been given in strictly limited numbers - the actual stuff is still curing in vats at the moment.

Bigs, is there a visual difference between old and new formula Red? I mean - in terms of the way the packaging/bottle look?
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 48
6/16/11 at 8:15pm
Giorgio Red is one I need to know more about the reformulations. For some reason, I never got around to exploring any rendition of this.

Is the vintage much different than the current? If so, how? How can you spot the vintage aesthetically?
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 48
6/16/11 at 8:16pm
Thread Starter 
I have a home-made sample of the original so I can't say. From what I've seen on ebay the original comes in a yellow box but the new one comes in a red box. The color of the liquid looks about the same, but I have so little remaining in my vial now that it's hard to get a good sense of that.

For me, the big differences are that the original has a syrupy sweet/herbal opening, whereas the new one has very little of anything, and is "synthetic" if you smell it close on the skin. It has a light, cool, almost minty quality, which is very different from the original. In the original, the redwood sequoia note emerges and gets stronger and stronger, but is still surrounded by the syrupy sweet herbal thing that has a little bit of Yatagan in there.

The new one just becomes very similar to a Havana/Montana Parfum d'Homme kind of base. I don't get any of that redwood sequoia note in it, which is really disappointing because they made such a big deal of that note when it was first launched. If you don't already have Havana or Montana Parfum d'Homme and don't want those bombastic top notes, this is a good choice, but don't expect the original, if you've tried it before.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 48
6/16/11 at 8:21pm
Cool. Thanks. I think it's time I picked up a bottle since I have the regular Giorgio and VIP. I'll look for the yellow box first.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 48
6/16/11 at 8:23pm
I dont think it is a yellow box, if this auction is what you're referring to.

From what I can see - this box has been in the sun waaaaay too long. You can see a dark red strip down the right side of the box, and a patch across the top where a pricetag (or similar) has been peeled away.

I think its always been boxed in Red.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 48
6/16/11 at 8:26pm
I don't feel they were as true to the original Red for Men as they were with the re-release of Giorgio for Men. Granted, it has been a long time since I tried the original Red for Men, but the re-release just did not seem the same to me.

This is a great thread!
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 48
6/16/11 at 8:32pm
Thanks for the info fellaz. I was just on ebay looking at them and what seemed consistent was the black top of the bottles seem to be speckled? Are the newer formula tops straight black?
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 48
6/16/11 at 8:33pm
Thread Starter 
I wore Boss #1 yesterday, and by contrast I was impressed by how rich it was and how close it is the original. I might even like it better!
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 48
6/16/11 at 8:42pm
I always hope reformulations are just as good in their own way since the originals are so pricey. Glad you like the new versions.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 48
6/16/11 at 8:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by petruccijc View Post

I don't feel they were as true to the original Red for Men as they were with the re-release of Giorgio for Men. Granted, it has been a long time since I tried the original Red for Men, but the re-release just did not seem the same to me.

BTW - I love this thread!

I feel the same way about Giorgio for Men Joe. I like it regardless of formulation. Maybe I'll pick up a mini of vintage Red and current Red to compare.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 48
6/16/11 at 8:46pm
The rejuiced Red for Men is pretty bad. Reminds me a bit of Drakkar Noir which I find hideous.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 48
6/16/11 at 8:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by manicboy View Post

The rejuiced Red for Men is pretty bad. Reminds me a bit of Drakkar Noir which I find hideous.

How did you like the original formula of Red?
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 48
6/16/11 at 9:20pm
Thread Starter 
I guess I'm most disappointed because I thought my sample was the new one, and so I would be getting the same formulation in the bottle. For me, Polo Crest is better than the original Red, but it doesn't have the redwood sequoia note. I wonder if any other frag used that note since then. Or perhaps there is less of it in the current Red, and the other notes are stronger.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 48
6/16/11 at 10:05pm
I'd love for someone to do a GC-MS analysis and find out exactly which aromachemical is causing anyone to believe that there's an actual redwood sequoia note in Red for Men.

I had 5mls of the original and it wasn't a hell of a lot different than the new stuff. It was loaded with dyhidromyrcenol, still is, and still smelled like an inferior variation of Yatagan x Drakkar Noir. Yatagan's a great fragrance, so the reference is just there for some clarity. No big deal, I think GBH did an excellent job on both fragrances, and if I was put in front a firing squad I'd tell them that the original Red for Men contained less synthetic woods/woody ambers and felt a little softer, but other than that they're extremely similar.

And I understand what you're talking about, but I still want to find out more about that redwood sequoia note. At the very least, the fragrance is true to its name and the color matches its temperament. I enjoy having Red for Men around, which is a lot more than I can say for Polo Crest.

I say enjoy the thing the way it is, because there was never enough difference to make it worth seeking out the original.
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 48
6/16/11 at 10:30pm
Thread Starter 
I don't think anyone is suggesting that they chopped down a sequoia and made the frag. They claimed it to be a new synthetic note, apparently, and it does seem to be somewhere between pine and cedar, which I found novel, along with the muted Yatagan-like accord and syrupy sweet herbal element. What I get from the new one is very little at first, though what there is is pleasant, and then it's a Havana type frag. I'd certainly go for Red for $15 as opposed to Havana for $45 or whatever, no contest, but keep in mind that sensitivities vary, so it may very well smell very similar to you, whereas someone else might detect significant differences. A couple days ago, I pointed out that VIP smelled very similar to Moods Uomo, but to Aromi there is a lot of leather in VIP. This may be because I don't like that kind of base and so it just overpowers any leather note that might be present, weak or strong.
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 48
6/16/11 at 10:47pm
Sounds good. I have a mini of original and a new tester in my sights at under $30 shipped for both.

I'm curious to smell both at once and the new, big tester would get some action as a work fragrance.
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 48
6/16/11 at 11:26pm
Thread Starter 
Well about nine hours after application of the new version and there is a very "synthetic" wood aspect to it, with little else detectable, so I'm guessing dyhidromyrcenol (I assume pluran is correct on that). I also dabbed a tiny amount of the original on a few hours ago, and the thing about it is that it doesn't seem to have that strong geranium/"dirty" jasmine of the new one (I'm guessing that's what it is) that makes it seem a lot like Havana/Montana, though as I said it is more syrupy sweet herbal at first.
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 48
6/16/11 at 11:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigsly View Post

I don't think anyone is suggesting that they chopped down a sequoia and made the frag. They claimed, it to be a new synthetic note, apparently, and it does seem to be somewhere between pine and cedar, which I found novel, along with the muted Yatagan-like accord and syrupy sweet herbal element. What I get from the new one is very little at first, though what there is is pleasant, and then it's a Havana type frag. I'd certainly go for Red for $15 as opposed to Havana for $45 or whatever, no contest, but keep in mind that sensitivities vary, so it may very well smell very similar to you, whereas someone else might detect significant differences. A couple days ago, I pointed out that VIP smelled very similar to Moods Uomo, but to Aromi there is a lot of leather in VIP. This may be because I don't like that kind of base and so it just overpowers any leather note that might be present, weak or strong.

I understand. I mean its compelling to wonder what the hell goes on in reformulations, but in this case I'd just try and feel good about the new rather than spending too much time wondering about the original. I spent a decent amount of time with the original, and some of that time was side by side comparison (it was awhile ago but the feel was extremely similar). There's no doubt that the original had a better texture, but it's a sizable fragrance and whatever changes occurred at least they didn't attenuate it in any major way. One of the first major things often affected by reformulation is bergamot, because the furocoumarins have been removed, and they're the natural stabilizers for the bergamot oil. They lend richness and fruity undertones, and without them the bergamot becomes relatively diluted. As well, the aromachemicals used to produce and modulate the cinnamonic and clove like notes have been restricted, so you have to figure there will be a slight difference there. That's probably where the perception of a Havana congruence comes in. And then among any number of other possibilities, there's the obvious substitution of inferior aromachemicals in the basenotes which leads to the most drastic changes, and that's where Red for Men feels most different to me.

I think they did an excellent job. I don't feel like it was attenuated in any major way, it just has a little harder feel which is true of so many reformulated fragrances. I never thought it was great begin with, but Red for Men is still extremely recognizable and close to its original character. And there's a lot to be said for that considering how badly they can screw them up today.
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 48
6/17/11 at 12:08am
Thread Starter 
I don't know how hard it was to recreate a similar frag within current guidelines, so far all I know they did the best job of all time. However, I've gotten used to the richness of my vintage frags, especially the drydown, and I just don't find much of interest in most of the reformulations, even if they aren't badly done. I'd rather wear something like Valenti's 101 for Men, because at least I don't have anything that is especially similar. Red will allow me to sell off my Montana or Havana if I decide that they are as close as I think they are, which means no money loss (and also one less bottle lying around), but I'd still like to have a decant of the original, which I did find to be original enough to be worth wearing once a month or so.
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 48
6/17/11 at 6:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by pluran View Post

I understand. I mean its compelling to wonder what the hell goes on in reformulations, but in this case I'd just try and feel good about the new rather than spending too much time wondering about the original. I spent a decent amount of time with the original, and some of that time was side by side comparison (it was awhile ago but the feel was extremely similar). There's no doubt that the original had a better texture, but it's a sizable fragrance and whatever changes occurred at least they didn't attenuate it in any major way. One of the first major things often affected by reformulation is bergamot, because the furocoumarins have been removed, and they're the natural stabilizers for the bergamot oil. They lend richness and fruity undertones, and without them the bergamot becomes relatively diluted. As well, the aromachemicals used to produce and modulate the cinnamonic and clove like notes have been restricted, so you have to figure there will be a slight difference there. That's probably where the perception of a Havana congruence comes in. And then among any number of other possibilities, there's the obvious substitution of inferior aromachemicals in the basenotes which leads to the most drastic changes, and that's where Red for Men feels most different to me.

I think they did an excellent job. I don't feel like it was attenuated in any major way, it just has a little harder feel which is true of so many reformulated fragrances. I never thought it was great begin with, but Red for Men is still extremely recognizable and close to its original character. And there's a lot to be said for that considering how badly they can screw them up today.

Thanks for the excellent explanation. This post is so good it probably should be a sticky.
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 48
6/17/11 at 7:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by petruccijc View Post

I don't feel they were as true to the original Red for Men as they were with the re-release of Giorgio for Men. Granted, it has been a long time since I tried the original Red for Men, but the re-release just did not seem the same to me.

This wouldn't be surprising, considering Red allegedly contained something like 550 ingredients when it was first launched. So if Giorgio BH was going to reformulate any fragrance significantly, I'd think it would be Red For Men over anything else. Giorgio For Men doesn't seem to have anywhere near as many ingredients, and most of them are probably inexpensive: patchouli, amber, moss? Doesn't sound like making Giorgio For Men is going to break the bank like Red could, so I'm not surprised that the new version of Giorgio For Men is so good.
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 48
6/17/11 at 7:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AromiErotici View Post

Sounds good. I have a mini of original and a new tester in my sights at under $30 shipped for both.

I'm curious to smell both at once and the new, big tester would get some action as a work fragrance.

Definitely worth a purchase at that price Aromi, though I'm not sure how much you're going to like Red. I consider it a powerhouse, but it's not as brutal as a lot of the frags you and I like to wear normally. I like Red, but I don't wear it that often. I probably smelled the original a long time ago, but I really can't remember what it smelled like.
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 48
6/17/11 at 7:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by shamu1 View Post

Definitely worth a purchase at that price Aromi, though I'm not sure how much you're going to like Red. I consider it a powerhouse, but it's not as brutal as a lot of the frags you and I like to wear normally. I like Red, but I don't wear it that often. I probably smelled the original a long time ago, but I really can't remember what it smelled like.

Lately, I have been warming up to rouge offerings whereas in the past I didn't care for them as much. Curiosity will make the purchase for me. lol......
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 48
6/17/11 at 7:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AromiErotici View Post

Lately, I have been warming up to rouge offerings whereas in the past I didn't care for them as much. Curiosity will make the purchase for me. lol......

I hear you. Funny thing is, unlike other "red" frags I've tried, Red For Men doesn't smell red at all to me, which is one reason I like it (not a fan of red scents generally). To me, it smells like musky leather with a carload of aromatic and wood notes. It's a pretty heavy frag. Definitely let us know what you think of it when you get it.
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 48
6/17/11 at 8:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by shamu1 View Post

This wouldn't be surprising, considering Red allegedly contained something like 550 ingredients when it was first launched. So if Giorgio BH was going to reformulate any fragrance significantly, I'd think it would be Red For Men over anything else. Giorgio For Men doesn't seem to have anywhere near as many ingredients, and most of them are probably inexpensive............

Regardless of what GBH says, it's likely that they both always contained somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 ingredients and still do. That's pretty standard for 95% of the fragrances out there regardless of how strong they smell, etc.. But there are a few people who do know and it would be interesting to find out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shamu1 View Post

I hear you. Funny thing is, unlike other "red" frags I've tried, Red For Men doesn't smell red at all to me, which is one reason I like it (not a fan of red scents generally).

I think of the color red in Red for Men as one of energy, animal nature, assertiveness, force, work, strife, and competition.

And now that I've sprayed it again it could actually could remind me of walking through a redwood forest, and there's nothing wrong with that.

And as I wear it now it's softer and I'm smelling a lot of benzoin (part of a distant accord found in Giorgio for Men that also contains a lot of benzoin).

After a couple of hours it's obvious that the base is definitely a little poverty stricken, though.
Reply
Reply
post #31 of 48
6/17/11 at 8:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AromiErotici View Post

Thanks for the excellent explanation. This post is so good it probably should be a sticky.

It's a tiny fragment but it's impossible to keep up with all of it. But there's good news, too. I mean the aromachemicals are always evolving in one way or another regardless of the IFRA.
Reply
Reply
post #32 of 48
6/17/11 at 11:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by manicboy View Post

The rejuiced Red for Men is pretty bad. Reminds me a bit of Drakkar Noir which I find hideous.

I posted here several years ago when it was rereleased that the Red I had sampled reminded me of Drakkar Noir, but no one then agreed with me. I'm glad that now I'm not the only one with that perception.

I've since bought it, and have just sprayed some on my hand. Sniffed up close I notice that minty thing that Bigsly mentions, but sniffed from a distance, I still get something that reminds me of Drakkar Noir - which is not a bad thing as, unlike you, I've always been a fan of Drakkar. I've noticed that most posters from the US are very anti-Drakkar Noir where, apparently, it was overused for decades.
Regards,
Renato
Reply
Reply
post #33 of 48
6/17/11 at 1:00pm
Lo and behold, I was doing errands today and ended up in TJMAXX. On the shelf was a 50ml. Red for Men so I bought it.

It's the current formula........and after 4 spritzes on hand and arm, I must say I like it and think it will be a nice addition to the work rotation.
Reply
Reply
post #34 of 48
6/17/11 at 1:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AromiErotici View Post

I'm curious about something. About HOW MANY fragrances have you actually sampled? Every thread I see you posting and you must have sampled 10 thousand fragrances. I'm almost bewildered bro.

Same. I would love to see his collection too..
Reply
Reply
post #35 of 48
6/17/11 at 10:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AromiErotici View Post

How did you like the original formula of Red?

Never smelled it.
Reply
Reply
post #36 of 48
6/18/11 at 6:31am
I wore this last night umpiring and it's fairly innocuous. I like the overall scent but wish it had more depth and longevity.

It will, however, work rather well as a work frag since it's not polarizing or strong.
Reply
Reply
post #37 of 48
6/18/11 at 10:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigsly View Post

So I got my new bottle of Red today, and did one full chest spray (along with a little dribble that first came out). I had a dab vial sample and used that 4 times before deciding to buy a bottle. I assumed that the sample I had is the new formulation, mainly because of a somewhat "synthetic" and syrupy quality that I associate with "drugstore" frags. However, the redwood sequoia note, which starts to emerge strongly after about an hour, grew on me. I disllike strong wood notes, so finding one that I actually liked was the key to my decision.

After a few minutes, I thought to myself that something was wrong. I didn't get that thick, syrupy sweet, herbal quality at all. Instead, it was dry and rather light, so I sprayed some on my wrist to simulate the kind of sampling from the dab vial. Smelling it up close, I could tell that it was nothing like the original, which I must have in that sample vial (and is similar to Polo Crest). Up close, the new one is quite "synthetic" in a "chemical" way, though not a migraine maker. Allowing it to mix with the air, however, seems to be important with this one.

This new one is actually a good frag, and has a hint of minty-ness that I didn't detect in the original. This is no longer an evening and cold weather frag, and in fact would be good in all but the hotest and most humid conditions. It's actually a bit cool, whereas the original was on the hot side, at least until the wood emerged strongly, and it was never cool. After several hours, you get something very close to Montana Parfum d'Homme ("red box"), but without any of the soapy lavender. What bothers me most is that aside from the missing redwood sequoia note, there is also no Yatagan-like accord, which I enjoyed in the original. Overall, this is a fairly "natural" smelling, pleasant frag, and good for those who want a light version of an "80s power frag" (particularly if you don't want those powerful openings), but don't think you are getting anything that resembles the original (beyond a slight hint, perhaps).

Note that this is considerably better than another attempt at a Montana Parfum d'Homme frag, namely Adidas Sport Field, which is way too "synthetic" for me.

you made my day reading your review on Red for men. It's a great fragrance that is both fresh and woody spicy tithe same.time. it is my signature scent
Reply
Reply
post #38 of 48
6/18/11 at 12:35pm
I have no choice now but to snag a mini of the vintage for a side by side. I don't expect drastic differences but wonder if it is longer lasting and a bit richer.
Reply
Reply
post #39 of 48
6/18/11 at 1:57pm
Thread Starter 
I think the "Red" was meant for the redwoood sequoia note, rather than an allusion to an oriental frag, which it's not. The new one does not have that note, IMO, and it also has a very "chemical" woody smell after several hours, whereas you don't find that in the original. I would not buy a splash on ebay because the seller could have filled it up with the new formulation.
Reply
Reply
post #40 of 48
6/18/11 at 3:28pm
This fragrance smells like wet dog... Maybe it cuz i dont have chest hair.... but it s not an alluring smell. i would rather wear CH for Carolina Herrera..now thta scent its right on the money
Reply
Reply
post #41 of 48
6/19/11 at 10:10pm
The new bottles have the same speckled cap.
To me, the primary differences I caught were the thickness of the perceived body and some barely noticeable chemical alteration (cheaper materials). While I do enjoy the 'real deal' just barely more, the remake is really quite good. Neither lasts as long as I would like, though. I like Pluran's comparison to a Yatagan/Drakkar Noir cross. That's a really adept way to describe this to curious parties.
I'm gonna do another side-by-side revisiting now...
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 48
6/19/11 at 10:36pm
Thread Starter 
Shifty Bat: If you have a Montana Parfum d'Homme or Havana type frag, do a side-by-side with one of them (with the new Red). After a few hours the scent is very, very similar.
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 48
6/19/11 at 10:48pm
I don't have either yet, but now I'm curious. Anyway, it's been a mere half hour, but I did notice a couple things...
The vintage Red is thicker, like I'd said, and is more ambery-sweet and the cumin/artemisia combo seems muskier. I don't know how I missed it till now but it smells a heck of a lot like Gambler Musk. The new formula seems spicier, almost like there's cardamom in it (who knows?), but the sweetness definitely smells more synthetic. Interestingly, as they are settling the two are becoming more similar, although the new one is starting to exhibit a powdery benzoin feel and the original maintains the musky amber.

I'll try the Montana when I can. It must be better than the K-Mart allstar Preferred Stock, which is basically Red's boring nephew.
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 48
6/19/11 at 11:21pm
Thread Starter 
That sounds about right. The only thing, for me, is that I wanted that interesting redwood sequoia note surrounded by the thick, ambery, sweet, herbal stuff. The new one has a generic wood note/accord, and is drier, and after a while, more "synthetic."

If anyone has the new Red, but hasn't tried Havana or Montana "red box," you may not need more than Red. Montana has more of a soapy lavender, and is a bit different in the drydown, with more of a pine quality, but unless you want several variations on the same theme, owning bottles of the three might be rather redundant.
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 48
6/19/11 at 11:57pm
One more thing! An hour later and I began unwittingly picking up on that mint note, but only in the new formula. I wonder what's causing this accord, and why it takes so long to develop?
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 48
6/20/11 at 12:06am
Thread Starter 
Yes, me too. LT once said that caraway and mint are very close, so perhaps they decided to replace the original's caraway with mint. Just my guess.
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 48
6/20/11 at 1:32pm
To me, the original had more "effervessence" and carried a bit more. The newer version is a little "flatter". But that's my opinion and I have not smelled the original in about 12 years! If my memory is right, the original was a little "deeper" smelling. I knew three guys that wore it and it smelled great on them! 2 were scoundrels and one had his enemies! A doctor, a hospital CEO and an Insurance Executive. All power brokers in their own ways.
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 48
6/20/11 at 2:28pm
Thread Starter 
Yes, ChuckW, I agree with your impression of the two.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: MFD Archive

Features on Basenotes

Basenotes Reader Awards 2013 - Finalists Announced.
Greatest Hits: Annick Menardo
Petals Falling From The Sky - A Report From The Cote d'Azur's Bataille De Fleurs
Basenotes › Basenotes Forums › Fragrance Discussion › Male Fragrance Discussion › MFD Archive › Reformulation thoughts on Red for Men by GIorgio of Beverly Hills.