Basenotes › Basenotes Forums › Fragrance Discussion › Male Fragrance Discussion › MFD Archive › Halston Z-14 (old formulation) vs (new formulation)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Halston Z-14 (old formulation) vs (new formulation)

post #1 of 71
11/10/11 at 11:41pm
Thread Starter 
Old formulation versus New Formulation....................................... ...............

--------------UPDATE------------

I found a pre-reformulation bottle that has oakmoss in it. I am posting the differences I notice if you scroll down.

I bought it new today at Marshalls and this is the box it came in.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/ima...60911&s=beauty

This must be old stock shipped from Elizabeth Arden (combo pack of EDT and Aftershave), as Marshalls carries the newest formulation of Z-14 too, with no oakmoss.
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 71
11/10/11 at 11:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jclaxton78 View Post

What else smells like Z-14 that is relatively inexpensive?

Valentino Vendetta - so I have been told.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 71
11/11/11 at 9:51am
Halston Z-14 has been destroyed by modern reformulation. : (
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 71
11/11/11 at 12:17pm
Of course there are obvious differences, especially in "feel", particularly the oakmoss and maybe the leather. I have used Z-14 since the late '70s and now have and still enjoy the new formulation - no mourning the hard-to-locate past for me. Anyone sampling the new Z-14 having never smelt the original, and likes what they smell, will still enjoy what is still a very good frag.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 71
11/11/11 at 12:19pm
I definitely prefer the original to the current. But the current version is still infinitely better than most of the dreck on fragrance shelves today.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 71
11/15/11 at 12:35pm
Thread Starter 
bump
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 71
11/15/11 at 11:49pm
Thread Starter 
Is there anything else out there (affordable) that smells similar to Z-14, with longevity and sillage?
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 71
11/16/11 at 1:17am
Have you tried vintage Quorum? If you have patience it can be had cheaply on ebay.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jclaxton78 View Post

Is there anything else out there (affordable) that smells similar to Z-14, with longevity and sillage?
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 71
11/22/11 at 7:43pm
Thread Starter 
Ok, I got rid of my Z-14 that did not contain "oakmoss" in the ingredient list, just treemoss. Today I found a box of Z-14 at the store that does list oakmoss on the box (along with treemoss). So, I bought it and will be testing it very soon to see if I notice any differences. Hoping there will be.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 71
11/22/11 at 7:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jclaxton78 View Post

Ok, I got rid of my Z-14 that did not contain "oakmoss" in the ingredient list, just treemoss. Today I found a box of Z-14 at the store that does list oakmoss on the box (along with treemoss). So, I bought it and will be testing it very soon to see if I notice any differences. Hoping there will be.

I would have held onto the treemoss bottle just to do a side-by-side sniff test of the two.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 71
11/22/11 at 8:10pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MOONB View Post

I would have held onto the treemoss bottle just to do a side-by-side sniff test of the two.

I remember exactly what the "treemoss only" bottle smelled like.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 71
11/22/11 at 8:15pm
Thread Starter 
As I stated earlier, I got rid of the new version recently because I wasn't impressed. It felt flat, plain cheap cinnamon aroma. I give it a 5 out of 10 overall.

OK, I just sprayed the old version of Z-14 with Oakmoss listed in the ingredients. Even before spraying, I smelled the nozzle and it smelled really dark and deep. Immediately after spraying I get intense natural smelling citrus with spice in the background. In the "non oakmoss version", I didn't get this flavorful bouquet of citrus, instead I detected a strong astringent/biting scent that was rough and sharp. All smooth so far in the old version though.

With my nose up close to this (oakmoss included blend), I literally feel the scent tickling my nose hairs (with a heat-like feel) as it rises off my skin. Again, this was non-existent in the treemoss only blend.


Will update again in a little bit.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 71
11/22/11 at 8:48pm
Thread Starter 
Now I'm getting a heavy leather & spice smell with citrus in the background. No cheap cinnamon (Big Red Gum) aroma either.

This stuff is unbelievable. WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY did they have to put restrictions on Oakmoss (I know why, but I'm just sayin).

This old version might have just rocketed to my # 1 favorite fragrance already.


Well, there's only one thing left to do. Stock up on this "old stock" version of Z-14 before it is gone forever. I'll be going back to do just that.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 71
11/22/11 at 9:20pm
Thread Starter 
I can't believe I scored this for $17 for a 4.2 EDT and . I'm experiencing a "THIS IS THE ONE" moment that many of you have experienced or are currently seeking.

This thing just comes alive by breathing on it. I can only imagine what heat and humidity of summer will do for it (if sprayed lightly).
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 71
11/22/11 at 9:23pm
Congratulations! You´re right, the old Z-14 is a "big" frag! Enjoy!
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 71
11/22/11 at 9:27pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by easyfish View Post

Congratulations! You´re right, the old Z-14 is a "big" frag! Enjoy!

Thank you. I'm on cloud 9 right now.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 71
11/22/11 at 10:40pm
Interesting! I just checked my gift set versus my individual bottle, and on the gift set it shows both the EDT and aftershave as having oakmoss, while my individual bottle of Z-14 has a sticker on back with a new ingredients list sans oakmoss. I peeled it back and the box itself shows oakmoss, so this individual bottle is clearly a reformulated version. I wonder if that gift set is accurate, or if they simply didn't produce the large stickers necessary to cover it up as with the individual box. I haven't even sniffed the gift set version (it's my backup I got on clearance), and won't be able to for a while because I have a head cold, so I can't speak to any discernible differences between them.

Adding to the confusion, I have a few individual bottles of 1-12 and they all list oakmoss, despite the fact they were purchased around the same time as my individual (non-oakmoss) bottle of Z-14. Strange.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 71
11/22/11 at 11:07pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tappio View Post

Interesting! I just checked my gift set versus my individual bottle, and on the gift set it shows both the EDT and aftershave as having oakmoss, while my individual bottle of Z-14 has a sticker on back with a new ingredients list sans oakmoss. I peeled it back and the box itself shows oakmoss, so this individual bottle is clearly a reformulated version. I wonder if that gift set is accurate, or if they simply didn't produce the large stickers necessary to cover it up as with the individual box. I haven't even sniffed the gift set version (it's my backup I got on clearance), and won't be able to for a while because I have a head cold, so I can't speak to any discernible differences between them.

Adding to the confusion, I have a few individual bottles of 1-12 and they all list oakmoss, despite the fact they were purchased around the same time as my individual (non-oakmoss) bottle of Z-14. Strange.

Yes! You're right. The individual bottle (that I sold last week) was the one without oakmoss listed. The combo I bought today has oakmoss listed in both the EDT AND in the Aftershave Splash.

On top of that, I did see a bottle of 1-12 with oakmoss listed, I should have picked that up too! Interesting to note, the individual box of 1-12 is a light brown/tan color, and it lists oakmoss like you said. While the new stock of 1-12 and 1-14 comes in a chocolate brown box, with no oakmoss listed on the back.

It is an issue of old stock vs new stock. See, I believe there have been 2 reformulations.

There was the old school Z-14 and 1-12 from the 70's through probably around at least the year 2008-ish (maybe a little longer). I believe the original from the 70's was redone just to tone it down a little to appeal to the masses, without changing the flavor so to speak. I believe this is the one we own (first reformulation).

The most recent debacle of Z-14 is the one that had to be produced by Elizabeth Arden, where they cheapened the formula and nixed the oakmoss to comply with regulations. I get no real citrus, no moss, no substantial leather, no thickness and not much in the way of projection. Just a biting harsh 20 min opening, then cinnamon (Big Red style) and dirty patchouli drydown.

The one we own will never be produced again (with oakmoss), unless the regulation is reversed or they decide to change it for quality's sake (that never happens).


That being said, I just got back from Walmart where I remember them having the EDT and AS in a combo. However, it was a different box than the one I got today, and guess what, no oakmoss listed. Seriously though, now I understand why everyone is so up in arms about the regulations on it. It must make or break the product in many instances.

I've never tried 1-12. But I guess I ought to snag that one I saw (also old stock). How does 1-12 compare to Z-14?
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 71
11/22/11 at 11:53pm
I had no idea the new 1-12 came in the same dark box as Z-14, I will have to check it out next time I'm in TJ Maxx, as I noticed they got quite a few new boxes of it in. As for 1-12, I am very fond of this one and definitely recommend you give it a spin. At worst you are only out ten dollars. Early this year quite a few boxes of it were showing up on clearance for between 5 and 8 dollars so I picked up some extras; my partner laughed at me for stocking up on so many boxes of such a readily available fragrance but now I'm glad I did!

I will have to swing through the discount shops here in town over the next few days to see if they have any more box sets, as it would be nice to get some of the earlier version of Z-14 if it's available.
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 71
11/22/11 at 11:54pm
I checked mine and the box lists oakmoss and treemoss. It gives a scientific name for the oakmoss and says it's an extract. One thing that might also be indicative is the label on the bottle. Mine says EA and there is London and New York as well. Can anyone post here and tell us what the non-oakmoss label on the bottle says?
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 71
11/22/11 at 11:59pm
Thread Starter 
^ Tappio Quote "I had no idea the new 1-12 came in the same dark box as Z-14, I will have to check it out next time I'm in TJ Maxx, as I noticed they got quite a few new boxes of it in. As for 1-12, I am very fond of this one and definitely recommend you give it a spin. At worst you are only out ten dollars. Early this year quite a few boxes of it were showing up on clearance for between 5 and 8 dollars so I picked up some extras; my partner laughed at me for stocking up on so many boxes of such a readily available fragrance but now I'm glad I did!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now it does (dark brown box 1-12). But try to find the one in the light brown/tan box, and you'll be golden.

Yeah, some people do not understand that you have to clean the place out of a product if it's a good one, or if it there is limited supply. Then again, some people don't understand OCD, haha. Yes, scoop up all you can before it shows up on ebay as "vintage formulation", which it is in a way now.

I will have to swing through the discount shops here in town over the next few days to see if they have any more box sets, as it would be nice to get some of the earlier version of Z-14 if it's available.[
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 71
11/23/11 at 12:05am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigsly View Post

I checked mine and the box lists oakmoss and treemoss. It gives a scientific name for the oakmoss and says it's an extract. One thing that might also be indicative is the label on the bottle. Mine says EA and there is London and New York as well. Can anyone post here and tell us what the non-oakmoss label on the bottle says?

Yes, the oakmoss version I picked up today does say oakmoss "extract", along with the scientific name Evernia prunastri

It also contains treemoss.
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 71
11/23/11 at 12:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigsly View Post

I checked mine and the box lists oakmoss and treemoss. It gives a scientific name for the oakmoss and says it's an extract. One thing that might also be indicative is the label on the bottle. Mine says EA and there is London and New York as well. Can anyone post here and tell us what the non-oakmoss label on the bottle says?

The EA labels on the two versions I have are identical to what you describe (London and NY addresses); the 1-12 (with oakmoss labels) are the same as well. The only difference I see are the ingredients list and what I'm guessing is a batch code stamped in white on the bottom.
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 71
11/23/11 at 12:22am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tappio View Post

The EA labels on the two versions I have are identical to what you describe (London and NY addresses); the 1-12 (with oakmoss labels) are the same as well. The only difference I see are the ingredients list and what I'm guessing is a batch code stamped in white on the bottom.

I have those same labels too.
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 71
11/23/11 at 12:31am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigsly View Post

Have you tried vintage Quorum? If you have patience it can be had cheaply on ebay.

How do I know which one is vintage?

The new one has the box with the horizontal stripes. Does the vintage Quorum come in the box with the diagonal zig-zag pattern?
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 71
11/23/11 at 1:04am
I think the vintage Quorum boxes have a sort of Navajo rug design whereas the new ones are more abstract. And the bottle shouldn't say Antonion Puig on the front. If it just says Puig that should be vintage. Mine is really old and says only Puig.
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 71
11/23/11 at 8:43pm
Thread Starter 
I ended up snagging a bunch of boxed sets of Z-14 from Marshalls today, I took all they had. All had oakmoss listed as an ingredient. Total of 6 boxes (each containing 4.2oz spray EDT with either a 2.5oz or 4.2oz after shave splash). I know, OCD gets me every time.

Am I crazy for buying so much of this stuff, or did I wisely take advantage of an opportunity? Anyone else (besides me and Tappio) ever stockpile something they like knowing that it was in limited supply?
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 71
11/23/11 at 10:09pm
Hard to say. Do you wear that much of it?
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 71
11/23/11 at 11:56pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigsly View Post

Hard to say. Do you wear that much of it?

I will have enough for many many years, but it is my current favorite. But I only have 5 different fragrances. However, I might return a few of the bottles I bought, give someone else the chance to enjoy it.
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 71
12/27/11 at 6:50am
I was able to pick up the old formulation(z-14) at Marshall's yesterday, I did a side by side test and cannot believe the difference in the two. The old formulation was smooth, rich and deep, the new formulation while not bad, just had the chemical smell and when it dried Jclaxton78 was right about the cinnamon smell. The old version dried with a smooth leathery smell with just a hint of natural cinnamon.
Reply
Reply
post #31 of 71
12/27/11 at 11:52am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by juggarnaut8 View Post

I was able to pick up the old formulation(z-14) at Marshall's yesterday, I did a side by side test and cannot believe the difference in the two. The old formulation was smooth, rich and deep, the new formulation while not bad, just had the chemical smell and when it dried Jclaxton78 was right about the cinnamon smell. The old version dried with a smooth leathery smell with just a hint of natural cinnamon.

Good to hear you found a bottle of the "old batch". Can you imagine how many people received the new stuff as a gift this holiday season only to be severely disappointed? Shame on EA Co. for duping the general public in the name of saving a few cents per bottle.
Reply
Reply
post #32 of 71
1/13/12 at 6:11am
I've been 'suffering' with a small bottle of new formulation for quite a while now, all 'cinnamonnied' up every morning I walk out the door. I tolerated it, yet always knowing in my mind how much better it could be. But having turned to it quite regularly now during the cold weather months, I decided it was time to hunt down the elusive old formula.

I finally happened upon a gift set last night, identifying the all important oakmoss. As most of you know, it's night and day between this and the newer potion. What I was surprised to see was that EA was still the creator/distributor(?) for the old formula gift set. I didn't realize they had also been responsible for creating the oakmoss version...thought it was a different company and when it switched to EA is when it got 'diluted.' Can anybody shed light?

Regardless of all the semantics, this 'vintage' formula has really taken me back to my youth...a feeling of comfort, serenity, and that all my limitless future lay ahead...where Z-14 was one of the first fragrances I had ever worn in my adolescent attempts at becoming a man faster than nature would allow (read as: wanting to grow up too quickly

It's moments like these that make me so thankful that some fragrances survive the test of time mostly unaltered. If anything, fragrance houses should be aware of this demographic, those of us who yearn for a time machine in a bottle, and hopefully continue to cater to it in the future.

Cheers, my fellow Z-14 aficionados.
Reply
Reply
post #33 of 71
1/13/12 at 6:13am
All I have to a that the new formulation is just perfect! One of the best chypre... ;
Reply
Reply
post #34 of 71
1/13/12 at 9:31am
When exactly was the oakmoss removed? I have a bottle that was under the sink in my old bathroom in my parents' house that I recently retrieved. I would guess it's at least 10 years old, and unused. Unfortunately I don't have the packaging so I can't check the ingredients list, and I'm curious if I have the old or the new.
Reply
Reply
post #35 of 71
1/13/12 at 10:41am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GlobalGentleman View Post

I've been 'suffering' with a small bottle of new formulation for quite a while now, all 'cinnamonnied' up every morning I walk out the door. I tolerated it, yet always knowing in my mind how much better it could be. But having turned to it quite regularly now during the cold weather months, I decided it was time to hunt down the elusive old formula.

I finally happened upon a gift set last night, identifying the all important oakmoss. As most of you know, it's night and day between this and the newer potion. What I was surprised to see was that EA was still the creator/distributor(?) for the old formula gift set. I didn't realize they had also been responsible for creating the oakmoss version...thought it was a different company and when it switched to EA is when it got 'diluted.' Can anybody shed light?

Regardless of all the semantics, this 'vintage' formula has really taken me back to my youth...a feeling of comfort, serenity, and that all my limitless future lay ahead...where Z-14 was one of the first fragrances I had ever worn in my adolescent attempts at becoming a man faster than nature would allow (read as: wanting to grow up too quickly

It's moments like these that make me so thankful that some fragrances survive the test of time mostly unaltered. If anything, fragrance houses should be aware of this demographic, those of us who yearn for a time machine in a bottle, and hopefully continue to cater to it in the future.

Cheers, my fellow Z-14 aficionados.


When EA took over Z-14 they may or may not have toned down the potency of the juice a little, yet it smelled like the same product. But recently they completely changed the ingredients (not just oakmoss), and the result is a disaster. Big Red chewing gum, in mist form. Since this change (to the new Garbage labeled Z-14), there still exists the true formula on some store shelves and on Ebay. Usually it is in a gift set, not box. However, the Jeff Gordon box contains the real Z-14 too.

And I wasn't around for it back in the day, so it isn't nostalgic for me. But for those who want to re-kindle memories, manufacturers should not mess with the formula. But also because people want quality and do not like getting ripped off/tricked! I'd rather have them raise the price to make more profit than switch the ingredients and destroy the formula that has been around for so long.

However, from a business standpoint they must have figured, "not as many people will buy it if we raise the price, so lets put super cheap worthless ingredients in it and hope nobody knows the difference". What they failed to realize is that fragrances like Z-14 have been around so long that they get a lot of repeat buyers. That won't be the case anymore though. All the loyal customers will be shocked when they buy the new juice and get a whiff of it. Then they won't be back.
Reply
Reply
post #36 of 71
1/13/12 at 2:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by GlobalGentleman View Post

I've been 'suffering' with a small bottle of new formulation for quite a while now, all 'cinnamonnied' up every morning I walk out the door. I tolerated it, yet always knowing in my mind how much better it could be. But having turned to it quite regularly now during the cold weather months, I decided it was time to hunt down the elusive old formula.

I finally happened upon a gift set last night, identifying the all important oakmoss. As most of you know, it's night and day between this and the newer potion. What I was surprised to see was that EA was still the creator/distributor(?) for the old formula gift set. I didn't realize they had also been responsible for creating the oakmoss version...thought it was a different company and when it switched to EA is when it got 'diluted.' Can anybody shed light?

Regardless of all the semantics, this 'vintage' formula has really taken me back to my youth...a feeling of comfort, serenity, and that all my limitless future lay ahead...where Z-14 was one of the first fragrances I had ever worn in my adolescent attempts at becoming a man faster than nature would allow (read as: wanting to grow up too quickly

It's moments like these that make me so thankful that some fragrances survive the test of time mostly unaltered. If anything, fragrance houses should be aware of this demographic, those of us who yearn for a time machine in a bottle, and hopefully continue to cater to it in the future.

Cheers, my fellow Z-14 aficionados.

I have an EA version and oakmoss is listed on the box, so you would just have to check that before buying.
Reply
Reply
post #37 of 71
1/13/12 at 11:13pm
I tossed my box a while ago, but got the cologne/aftershave box you showed. My Halston Z-14 is a rich and rather nice cyphre and I don't really get an overwhelming cinnamon vibe from it. I'm curious, what is your batch code? Mine is 0ha1, June 2010.
Reply
Reply
post #38 of 71
1/13/12 at 11:20pm
I've got it stored somewhere, so when I get a chance I'll look for it.
Reply
Reply
post #39 of 71
1/14/12 at 12:03am
Mine's really leathery, now I think I'll have to go compare mine to one in the store, as this doesn't smell cheap or like big red. I'm interested in smelling the bad version (or the good version, if the bad one's what I got).
Reply
Reply
post #40 of 71
1/14/12 at 10:06am
My little splash bottle from Ross has definitely got to be the new formulation since it smells like cheap cinnamon dentist tooth cleaner and coumarin. Truly awful. Even though I don't like leather, I'm very curious to try the older version now.

Such a travesty that companies ruin these products with such callous cynicism & regularity.
Reply
Reply
post #41 of 71
1/15/12 at 6:26pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovingthealien View Post

Mine's really leathery, now I think I'll have to go compare mine to one in the store, as this doesn't smell cheap or like big red. I'm interested in smelling the bad version (or the good version, if the bad one's what I got).


Another easy way to tell which one you have.....the good version has prominent citrus opening, like a lemon gumdrop or lemon hard candy.

The new version is just rough and irritating in the opening.
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 71
1/15/12 at 6:27pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Bodak View Post

When exactly was the oakmoss removed? I have a bottle that was under the sink in my old bathroom in my parents' house that I recently retrieved. I would guess it's at least 10 years old, and unused. Unfortunately I don't have the packaging so I can't check the ingredients list, and I'm curious if I have the old or the new.


You surely have the good version. It was only recently that they destroyed Z-14, say within the past year or two. If you know what to look for, you can find older stock (the good stuff) on ebay or in certain stores.
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 71
1/15/12 at 6:32pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyBars View Post

My little splash bottle from Ross has definitely got to be the new formulation since it smells like cheap cinnamon dentist tooth cleaner and coumarin. Truly awful. Even though I don't like leather, I'm very curious to try the older version now.

Such a travesty that companies ruin these products with such callous cynicism & regularity.

Yea, you have the new garbage. I agree, it is rediculous what they do. It seems like the only industry that does this is the perfume industry.


Anyway, I sent you a PM


You should really enjoy the older version before it was butchered.
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 71
1/15/12 at 9:55pm
Thanks for that, man. I hope it's not too much birch tar. This is a no-brainer for me to pick up, because the mysterious Vincent Marcello also created one of the best masculines of all time, Yatagan.

I just bought a Jeff Gordon 75ml spray bottle. Wish me luck
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 71
1/15/12 at 10:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hednic View Post

Valentino Vendetta - so I have been told.

Vendetta is an excellent, versatile fragrance -- in fact I think it's a great substitute for the almost ridiculously exorbitant Tom Ford Italian Cypress. The reformulated Z-14 is thin crap not worthy of their company. Will report back about the older juice with oakmoss and how it compares to Vendetta.
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 71
1/15/12 at 11:35pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyBars View Post

Thanks for that, man. I hope it's not too much birch tar. This is a no-brainer for me to pick up, because the mysterious Vincent Marcello also created one of the best masculines of all time, Yatagan.

I just bought a Jeff Gordon 75ml spray bottle. Wish me luck


I'm highly confident you'll enjoy it. In my opinion (and many others) it is one of the best masculines ever made. Here's one of the only youtube reviews on it, from the female perspective.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr85UeXxX_I
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 71
1/16/12 at 12:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jclaxton78 View Post

I'm highly confident you'll enjoy it. In my opinion (and many others) it is one of the best masculines ever made. Here's one of the only youtube reviews on it, from the female perspective.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr85UeXxX_I

Hey, what are your batch codes from the good and bad bottles of Halston Z-14? I'm trying to pinpoint the reformulation date. Mine has a certain lingering "fizzy" citrus scent that continues throughout the bulk of the fragrance life, but I'm starting to convince myself that I can perceive the Big Red Cinnamon element as well, so I'm not sure. Mine is in white on the bottom; 0HA1; June 2010 according to EA's batch-coding, which is fairly old for this scent. The aftershave that came with it in the set is 0KA1; August 2010. This one has less citrus for sure, but it is also the after-shave, and reformulations almost always affect different concentrations at different times. Interestingly, I can detect a strong mossiness in this formulation almost immediately over the citrus.

I'm meaning to go out and try some, but I can't find the "good" gift sets anymore nearby. Mine came in this particular packaging:

http://www.walmart.com/ip/Halston-Z1...r-Men/15034538

I find it peculiar that it has the same art design as the package you showed, but with different sizes. Mine contains a 4.2 oz Cologne and a 2.5 oz Aftershave, while yours was 2 4.2 oz bottles. I wish I still had that box!

I hope that I can help find out more about this reformulation date so more people can experience the well-blended fragrance that this is in its true formulation without having to resort to vintage bottles.
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 71
1/16/12 at 4:22pm
Well, I think it's safe to say that I have the old(er) formulation. I just stumbled upon a small cache of box sets with and without Oakmoss.

The one with oakmoss dated to January 2011. The one without oakmoss dated to June 2011. So I guess it's safe to say that the reformulation took place somewhere between those dates, and any from 2010 contain oakmoss.

The one without oakmoss was TERRIBLE. It had no warmth or depth at all; all I got was big red with a touch of cigarette tar (and a very mild touch at that). It lacked the nice citrus that the older one had as well.
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 71
1/16/12 at 4:31pm
The bottle I bought a while back was the "new" formulation and still had some oakmoss in it. It smelled pretty nasty to me. Wonder if the "old" formulation is better blended. The new one just ends up smelling like a cinnamon bomb. It's nice to know there's an older version out there that smells better.

Meanwhile, I'm happy with 1-12. Galbanum heaven.
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 71
1/16/12 at 8:07pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BL'eauOG View Post

All I have to a that the new formulation is just perfect! One of the best chypre... ;

You don't have the most recent formulation that is on the shelves these days. You might have gotten lucky and bought some old stock. The reformulation happened recently. The Z-14 from even a couple years ago is awesome. But the supplies of that are dwindling.
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 71
1/16/12 at 10:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyBars View Post

Thanks for that, man. I hope it's not too much birch tar. This is a no-brainer for me to pick up, because the mysterious Vincent Marcello also created one of the best masculines of all time, Yatagan.

I just bought a Jeff Gordon 75ml spray bottle. Wish me luck

Is finding a bottle with this packaging a guarantee that it's the good version?
Reply
Reply
post #52 of 71
1/16/12 at 11:07pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamp View Post

Is finding a bottle with this packaging a guarantee that it's the good version?

90% certain the answer is yes. But to be sure, just ask a seller if the ingredients on the box lists "oakmoss". If they say it does, you're in luck. I sent you a PM.
Reply
Reply
post #53 of 71
1/17/12 at 7:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jclaxton78 View Post

90% certain the answer is yes. But to be sure, just ask a seller if the ingredients on the box lists "oakmoss". If they say it does, you're in luck. I sent you a PM.

Thanks!
Reply
Reply
post #54 of 71
1/17/12 at 4:55pm
Thread Starter 
I've had enough of reformulations. I've spoken up about it by writing an email to Elizabeth Arden Co. I voiced all of our concerns and distaste for the current Z-14 and did my best to my make case for bringing back the previous formula. If they reply, I'll post their response in this thread. I've written to them once before about a different product and they did get back to me, so I'm hopeful they will again.

In the email to EA, I also included links to this thread and links to the recent flurry negative reviews of Z-14 on this site as well as on to the ones on Fragrantica.
Reply
Reply
post #55 of 71
1/17/12 at 5:00pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jclaxton78 View Post

I've had enough of reformulations. I've spoken up about it by writing an email to Elizabeth Arden Co. I voiced all of our concerns and distaste for the current Z-14 and did my best to my make case for bringing back the previous formula. If they reply, I'll post their response in this thread. I've written to them once before about a different product and they did get back to me, so I'm hopeful they will again.

In the email to EA, I also included links to this thread and links to the recent flurry negative reviews of Z-14 on this site as well as on to the ones on Fragrantica.


In case anyone is curious, here's what I wrote to the consumer affairs representative:


Dear Maria,


I am very disappointed that EA recently reformulated Halston Z-14. It doesn't make sense to me since Elizabeth Arden company brought back Giorgio Beverly Hills recently, and it still smells the same as it did in the 80's. PS is still the same as are several others that were created in the 70's and 80's. Halston Z-14 is a legendary fragrance that thousands of people wear and have worn for decades. It is really unfair that the formula has been completely changed, and ruined. The citrus, leather, moss and spices are gone. As is that thick mossy feeling you get from it. What a shame.

People on fragrance forums are up in arms about it. Basenotes.net is the largest international fragrance community on the internet. Fans of Z-14 are getting word quickly of the new reformulated Z-14 and are not happy. This will kill sales eventually. Please bring back the Z-14 of just a couple years ago.

Here's a link to a thread about this topic.

Z-14 reformulation .................. (I included a hyperlink here)

Here's another, a link to reviews on it. Specifically, check the 5 most recent reviews from August 23, 2011 to January 1st, 2010. People are complaining that the new formula is no good, and smells like cheap cinnamon and nothing else.

Reviews (I included a hyperlink here)

Nobody likes the new Z-14 and people are clamoring to find old stock of the "good" Z-14 on ebay. If the costs to produce Z-14 went up, then the smart thing to do would be to just raise the price of Z-14, not take out the good ingredients and replace them with cheap stuff. The new stuff doesn't even smell remotely similar to the Z-14 that was on the shelves only a couple years ago. Smart companies listen to their consumers.

I can only imagine how many people received Z-14 as gifts this past holiday season, only to spray it on and wonder "what happened to Z-14"? It is unfair what EA did to Z-14 and I'm not writing to you because I just want to let off some steam. I (along with many others), want EA to bring back the formulation of Z-14 that was still being made up until a couple years ago. The new product is terrible, and that is a fact. The Z-14 from 1976-2010 was an amazing cologne that is very special to many other people. Please bring it back! That is what the customer wants. Whatever money was saved by changing the formula a couple years ago will not be worth the decrease in sales you will eventually start seeing when everyone finds out that Z-14 has been destroyed beyond recognition.

Please forward this email to whomever has input on the decision making of EA fragrances. I'm sure they would love to hear the feedback.


Sincerely,


My first and last name
Reply
Reply
post #56 of 71
1/20/12 at 3:15pm
Nice one JC! Stoked that you took the time to get the word to those executives behind this greedy bottom-lining. Maybe they'll actually listen and turn things around. It's rare, but I have heard of recent precedents.

Meanwhile, my bottle of Jeff Gordon Z-14 arrived. According to the sweepstakes notice in the box, it dates from around 2005. Also, the box lists oakmoss right after treemoss, while the new box does not list oakmoss. Thank you so much for the tip!

Okay, I do want to say first off that the old juice is different than the new. The new Z-14 is of course based on the old; it's not completely different. They both have cinnamon. I agree with several posters who note that the new juice has almost no citrus, while the old has a distinct pleasing round lemon accord at the opening.

Secondly, I will confirm jclaxton's prediction that I would like the old juice, while I thought the new is utter trash. It's really, really good.

I put both formulas on my skin to compare. The old juice has a balance, depth and roundness to it which the new completely lacks. The new juice is harsh and almost medicinal, very synthetic, and lacks also the detailed flourishes of spice and other notes in the old juice. I don't think calling the new juice "Big Red" is particularly helpful, as Big Red is basically the smell of cinnamic aldehyde, which both formulas have a good amount of. However, I will stick to my description of the new formula as highly reminiscent of American dentists' tooth polish, the stuff they put on the rotary applicator: bitter, synthetic, harsh cinnamon and hygiene chemicals.

Other than the lemon opening, the heart of the old juice has a fullness to it that the new completely lacks. It feels as if huge chunks of the true formula were simply ripped out to make the new juice, maybe replaced with overdoses of some other ingredients that were already present but in much lower dosage. To top it off, the old juice had far better longevity on my skin, retaining its round cinnamon appeal in a rather consistent fashion, while the reformulation dropped off considerably at the 90 minute mark. Yet another sign of cheap formulation. What charlatan from deep in the bowels of the fragrance laboratory was given the task of butchering this bestseller of 35 years?

The gods of perfume have shined their pearly light upon me as well, as the "leather" in Z-14 does not appear to be birch tar. Hallelujah!

Also, now I truly see the comparison with Valentino Vendetta and Tom Ford Italian Cypress. While Z-14 is definitely the simpler little brother of those pricier compositions, it actually does deserve to stand in the same field. I would say that Z-14 has bumped off Zirh Ikon to the #1 spot of my "highest quality cheapie" list. It's rather astoundingly good for the price -- or at least the price before they ruined -- and I mean really gutted and destroyed -- the product.

I am very pleased that I came across this and other threads which tipped me off to the 2011 reformulation of this truly iconic 1970s men's classic. THANK YOU so much to all of you who contributed to clearing up this travesty, especially jclaxton78, that the cheap ass suits tried to pass off on us consumers. Time to douse myself with it, throw on the bellbottoms and get to the disco. AND GET DOOWWWWWWNNNNN the boogie nights are al - wayz - da best in town
Reply
Reply
post #57 of 71
1/22/12 at 11:13am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyBars View Post

Nice one JC! Stoked that you took the time to get the word to those executives behind this greedy bottom-lining. Maybe they'll actually listen and turn things around. It's rare, but I have heard of recent precedents.

Meanwhile, my bottle of Jeff Gordon Z-14 arrived. According to the sweepstakes notice in the box, it dates from around 2005. Also, the box lists oakmoss right after treemoss, while the new box does not list oakmoss. Thank you so much for the tip!

Okay, I do want to say first off that the old juice is different than the new. The new Z-14 is of course based on the old; it's not completely different. They both have cinnamon. I agree with several posters who note that the new juice has almost no citrus, while the old has a distinct pleasing round lemon accord at the opening.

Secondly, I will confirm jclaxton's prediction that I would like the old juice, while I thought the new is utter trash. It's really, really good.

I put both formulas on my skin to compare. The old juice has a balance, depth and roundness to it which the new completely lacks. The new juice is harsh and almost medicinal, very synthetic, and lacks also the detailed flourishes of spice and other notes in the old juice. I don't think calling the new juice "Big Red" is particularly helpful, as Big Red is basically the smell of cinnamic aldehyde, which both formulas have a good amount of. However, I will stick to my description of the new formula as highly reminiscent of American dentists' tooth polish, the stuff they put on the rotary applicator: bitter, synthetic, harsh cinnamon and hygiene chemicals.

Other than the lemon opening, the heart of the old juice has a fullness to it that the new completely lacks. It feels as if huge chunks of the true formula were simply ripped out to make the new juice, maybe replaced with overdoses of some other ingredients that were already present but in much lower dosage. To top it off, the old juice had far better longevity on my skin, retaining its round cinnamon appeal in a rather consistent fashion, while the reformulation dropped off considerably at the 90 minute mark. Yet another sign of cheap formulation. What charlatan from deep in the bowels of the fragrance laboratory was given the task of butchering this bestseller of 35 years?

The gods of perfume have shined their pearly light upon me as well, as the "leather" in Z-14 does not appear to be birch tar. Hallelujah!

Also, now I truly see the comparison with Valentino Vendetta and Tom Ford Italian Cypress. While Z-14 is definitely the simpler little brother of those pricier compositions, it actually does deserve to stand in the same field. I would say that Z-14 has bumped off Zirh Ikon to the #1 spot of my "highest quality cheapie" list. It's rather astoundingly good for the price -- or at least the price before they ruined -- and I mean really gutted and destroyed -- the product.

I am very pleased that I came across this and other threads which tipped me off to the 2011 reformulation of this truly iconic 1970s men's classic. THANK YOU so much to all of you who contributed to clearing up this travesty, especially jclaxton78, that the cheap ass suits tried to pass off on us consumers. Time to douse myself with it, throw on the bellbottoms and get to the disco. AND GET DOOWWWWWWNNNNN the boogie nights are al - wayz - da best in town



I enjoyed reading your review and response. You're very welcome, I'm happy to help others bask in the glory of the fragrances I also dig. So glad you got to experience the previous formulation of Z-14.




Are you listening EA Fragrance Co?
Reply
Reply
post #58 of 71
3/11/12 at 4:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovingthealien View Post

I tossed my box a while ago, but got the cologne/aftershave box you showed. My Halston Z-14 is a rich and rather nice cyphre and I don't really get an overwhelming cinnamon vibe from it. I'm curious, what is your batch code? Mine is 0ha1, June 2010.

Okay, I took a look today and it's 8N01.
Reply
Reply
post #59 of 71
3/11/12 at 8:03pm
For those interested in the seemingly inexhaustible permutations and combinations of formulations and reformulations, particularly those of Halston's Z-14, I offer the following:

I have a splash bottle of Halston Z-14 Cologne that dates from "Nov. 1983" according to the Walgreens sticker on the bottom of the box. That makes it almost 30 years old. It is in sparkling good condition, and it is different from the uncompromised oakmoss richer formulations (with respect to the most recent formulation) of the the last 20 years. This 1983 Cologne formulation has less of the 1980s Grey Flannel violet note vibe to it than recent reformulations, and it is more elegant, refined, complex, and understated than those formulations. I also have a splash bottle of Halston Z-14 Eau de Toilette, also in sparkling good condition, dating from the same period I suspect since it smells similar though not identical to the Cologne. The box and bottle of the Cologne supply the following information: HALSTON FRAGRANCES, INC., DISTR. NEW YORK NEW YORK 1002. CODE 4423-11. On the bottle and box of the EDT can be found the following information: PARFUMS HALSTON ROND-POINT DES CHAMPS-ELYSÉES 75008 MADE IN PARIS, and above this 82% VOL. REF. 4423110. The volume for the EDT is only listed as 115 ml on both the box and the bottle, which makes me suspect this was a formulation of Halston Z-14 made exclusively for the French market, though this is pure speculation, but it strikes me as valid speculation since were it intended for US consumption, then surely the volume would have been listed in ounces or, at the very least, in both ounces and milliliters. On the bottom of the EDT bottle, there is what appears to be a date code 5711, which is also embossed on the bottom flap of the box along with EMB 45234. The Cologne bottle has 2F1 as the date code and Made in the USA embossed on the bottom of the box, which further confirms that it was--as one would suspect given the volume is given in ounces, and given the fact that it was sold by Walgreens--made for US consumption.

The cologne appears to the be the stronger of the two. I would characterize the EDT as the softer, more complex, and more elegant of the two. The cologne version seems to be the direct sire of current versions, the EDT a scion.

Finally, from my understanding and experience of someone who started wearing fragrances in the mid 1970s, this complex genealogy--Van Cleef & Arpels Pour Homme being another such example--for all fragrances that have managed to stay in production over numerous decades is typical rather than exceptional.

scentemental

Reply
Reply
post #60 of 71
3/19/12 at 3:00pm
My two cents:

scentemental kindly sent me a sample of his vintage 1983 Z-14 EdC which I compared to my 2008 bottle. The '08's lemon was of course in better condition. On the whole, the scent changed very very little. Besides the normal citrus degradation, the difference between the two may only be a result of 30 years of maceration. Regardless, I did find that the 1983 version had slightly less sweet cinnamon spice accord, and in opposition to that, slightly more of the elegant woodsy accord. But they are nearly indistinguishable to my nose, both smelling quite excellent. Pretty great that they preserved the scent for at least a few decades without major changes. Then EA came in and effed up a wonderful piece of art.
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 › Halston Z-14 (old formulation) vs (new formulation)