Basenotes › Basenotes Forums › Fragrance Discussion › Male Fragrance Discussion › Tiffany for Men/ Chanel Pour Monsieur/New York
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Tiffany for Men/ Chanel Pour Monsieur/New York

Poll Results: The best/Contemporary or out-of-date

Poll expired: Dec 19, 2012  
  • 40% (8)
    The best is Tiffany for Men
  • 20% (4)
    The best is Chanel pour Monsieur
  • 30% (6)
    The best is PdN, New York
  • 5% (1)
    Contemporary still!
  • 5% (1)
    Out-of-date
20 Total Votes  
post #1 of 32
12/16/12 at 6:55pm
Thread Starter 
Yesterday I was at one of the ubiquitous Tiffany´s stores and filled my wrist with the Jacques Polge´s TfM. Three things came to my mind, after reading the reviews and old threads about this masterpiece:

1.- It´s very french!

2.- It has a lot in common with Chanel Pour Monsieur but with a lot more longevity!

3.- Has some of the "falling in love with love" vibe of the powdery drydown of PdN, NY.

The idea of this thread is to compare this threesome.

And also, if you don´t mind to elucidate if they are still fresh or a little out-of-date?
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 32
12/16/12 at 7:17pm
Out of the list above I like Tiffany for Men the best, even over Chanel Pour Monsieur. And I usually love all Chanel's frags.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 32
12/16/12 at 7:19pm
You can't combine 2 polls in one poll thread . . . you might want to start over
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 32
12/16/12 at 7:28pm
Only care for Chanel pour Monsieur & PdN, New York.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 32
12/16/12 at 7:54pm
I haven't tried Tiffany for Men, but maybe I should. The other 2 have been reformulated and are nowhere near as good as they used to be, IMO.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 32
12/17/12 at 2:07am
I love all three but prefer Tiffany for Men. I am not a big fan of Jacques Polge's compositions generally, but this one is a masterpiece and his best work, IMO. It is completely relevant today (albeit I would say the same of the other two).
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 32
12/17/12 at 3:38am
Honestly, they all feel a little dated to me. My wife said New York smells old mannish...I wore Pour Monsieur last week and it felt played, too. I'll leave these 3 to the connoisseurs among us.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 32
12/17/12 at 4:06am
These three are all excellent, top of the line stuff, but clearly 'of another era' IMO - which is not to say they still can't be worn, I have back-up bottles of Tiffany & NY and enjoy them.

As far as their current status is concerned:

Tiffany for Men - still okay, but look out - this one has to be in the firing line.
New York - apparently now reformulated, and not great, according to Turin (who wore it for many years).
Chanel Pour Monsieur - a shadow of what it once was - I wouldn't pay money for this as it is.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 32
12/17/12 at 7:05am
I like and wear all 3 but concede that 'the teenage dream' they ain't. (Then again, nor am I ) New York and TfM are more for autumn/winter wear, as far as I'm concerned. The compensating factor for CpM being rather skeletal is that it is a lighter scent than the others and I find it more wearable year-round.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 32
12/17/12 at 7:29am
Either Tiffany for Men (vintge) or New York (I stilll find the current iteration to be well worth owning).
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 32
12/17/12 at 7:36am
In my opinion, Chanel PM, no contest.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 32
12/17/12 at 7:39am
That's good to hear, alfarom! Will get around to it at some point, I'm sure - it was pretty obvious NY was going to be IFRA'ed at some point so I put a couple of bottles aside.

I'm amazed that Tiffany for Men is still good - too good to be true. I guess because it's so far under the radar and such a slow mover there's still 'old stock' waiting to be cleared before a new politically correct version gets brewed - I really can't see any other reason.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 32
12/17/12 at 9:23am
Tiffany for Men is quite nice. I prefer it over Chanel, which is pleasant too.

PdN New York smells bad to me. Just bad. Like a powdered orange. I don't know what the vintage smelled like, so I can't compare.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 32
12/17/12 at 9:29am
New York is one i love, better solution of Tiffany for me is Chanel PMC.. so i've been on that roud two times now and will be again sometimes
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 32
12/17/12 at 2:20pm
Thread Starter 
Thank you to you all!

It´s clear that the three are indispensables. But Tiffany for Men is a jewel. Oddly, there is no review of it at LT & TS Guide!
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 32
12/17/12 at 3:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marais View Post

I like and wear all 3 but concede that 'the teenage dream' they ain't.........

The teenage girls I know like New York a lot. I wear all kinds of stuff and it's actually one the ones they like most. It's been reformulated, not as plush, still much better than most.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 32
12/17/12 at 4:55pm
Tiffany For Men. Chanel PM is not too bad either, but a little dated. PDN NY is way to dated. I wear it on occasion kickin' around the house - just to try to use it up.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 32
12/17/12 at 6:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by pluran View Post

The teenage girls I know like New York a lot. I wear all kinds of stuff and it's actually one the ones they like most. It's been reformulated, not as plush, still much better than most.

Encouraging news!
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 32
12/19/12 at 10:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. reasonable View Post

Encouraging news!

I was wrong about New York. Just tried the newest stuff and it's been reformulated since I tried it last. Whoever called it "orange cologne" wasn't far off. If you knew it from before you can still see it with a telescope, but it's virtually unrecognizable. Heavily attenuated and confused in all areas. Still, I can see some people liking it. Kind of surprised Patricia de Nicolai still makes it. I know she was considering discontinuing it because of the IFRA stuff.
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 32
12/19/12 at 11:11pm
Oh, dear.
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 32
12/19/12 at 11:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. reasonable View Post

Oh, dear.

I'd be curious to hear what you think about it. I got the sample from Luckyscent.
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 32
12/20/12 at 12:47am
I'll let you know if and when, pluran. No immediate plans to order anything from LS but hopefully at some point in the New Year - there are a couple I have my eye on. After Turin's comments in their 'little update book' I figured it was all over for NY but then he actually wore it for years so I figured "maybe not that bad?" . . . obviously not the case.
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 32
12/20/12 at 2:01am
Does Tiffany have better sillage and longevity than Chanel Pour Monsieur?
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 32
12/20/12 at 2:20am
It has more of an EDP feel, Oslo - much more body in every department. Also a bit more heft than the CpM Concentrée, to which it is vaguely related - they were made by the same guy - Tiffany for Men is a closet Chanel masculine.
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 32
12/20/12 at 4:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. reasonable View Post

........After Turin's comments in their 'little update book' I figured it was all over for NY but then he actually wore it for years so I figured "maybe not that bad?" . . . obviously not the case.

He was right.

I'm comparing this new sample to the vintage juice in the bottle with the blue cap and blue box with white dots, as well as the bottle I bought a couple of years ago. That bottle wasn't bad, fragrance was the same shape and size, had a harder texture, a little harsh and confused but decent and recognizable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oslo-Fjord View Post

Does Tiffany have better sillage and longevity than Chanel Pour Monsieur?

Tiffany for Men is a bigger fragrance overall. Tiffany & Co might not even be a member of the IFRA, so as far as I know they might not have to comply with the regulations.

Pour Monsieur took a big hit but at least it's still somewhat recognizable as Pour Monsieur.
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 32
12/21/12 at 8:42pm
I agree with most of the others here - TfM is a bit easier to wear these days than CPM. Feels more modern, but... you have to love benzoin. Very powdery to my nose.
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 32
12/22/12 at 11:39am
Quote:
Tiffany & Co might not even be a member of the IFRA.

Isn't there an IFRA of America ? Seems I saw an interview with it's CEO on the homepage a while ago.

Talking about making current frags safe for humanity.
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 32
12/25/12 at 6:07pm
Thread Starter 
I didn´t buy the little guide because I thought it was a shame not to update de guide. Then, never figured NY was not in its best shape! But already is, IMO, vibrant, full of glow, and a real pleasure to wear. I agree with the lack of that orange stuff so reviewed. I should be happy with the ghost of that joy.

I learned a lot from this thread. One is that I should save some money to buy TfM because this class of fragances is fading.
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 32
12/25/12 at 8:29pm
On the face of it the Little Guide looks like, or is, a "Best of / Top 100" pocket guide - basically all the *****'s and a couple of others to make up the numbers and some nicely written additional commentary. Given a lot of the flack LT & TS received from the industry (and many here) for the original Guide you might think a handy little 'sales guide' like this is both a peace offering and a great boost for non-perfumistas who just want to find the best stuff.

It is that, of course, but what a lot of people don't realise is that LT & TS revisited as many of the perfumes as they could and commented on what changes, if any, had occurred over the few years gap between the original and this update due to IFRA effects on the industry. The results of their comparisons make pretty depressing reading, unfortunately, and in the end this little book comes off more as an epitaph than a buyers guide . . . they don't pull any punches, calling the IFRA 'a bunch of traitors' amongst other things.

Pour Monsieur was watered down ages ago, and now New York has been hobbled - and altho it doesn't feature in the Guide, it seems to my nose that Tiffany for Men does seem to be the only one left still standing but that's no guarantee that it will be left alone . . .
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 32
12/27/12 at 11:30am
Thread Starter 
Thank You mr. reasonable, I enjoyed your comments. I will get the little book in order to not fall again in make-believe... (at least not to jump so easy to conclusions in this ifra world, safer but unreliable...)
Reply
Reply
post #31 of 32
12/29/12 at 1:56am
I must be in the minority here. I own both Chanel Pour Monsieur (who knows which vintage, im sure its been relatively newly made) as well as Chanel Pour Monsieur Concentree. They each have their merits and I like them both. I could not care less about finding an old vintage bottle from the 80s, Im sure it's nice, but I am just as satisifed with what I have. It suits me. I guess it's just constantly annoying to hear the elders lament the old Chanel Pour Monsieur that is only found in the annuals of our minds (and perhaps carefully on ebay lol).

That being said, I find Tiffany For Men to be strikingly similat to Chanel Pour Monsieur CONCENTREE (rectangular bottle) and not the Chanel Pour Monsieur (square bottle). I personally find the CPMC to be a lot easier to wear than the TFM. I'ts just not as harsh and to me a bit smoother. My opinion. But there does seem to be a contingent of Anti CPMC people on this forum, when it's actually a very beautiful frarance. IMO.
Reply
Reply
post #32 of 32
12/29/12 at 2:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by vertatre View Post

I must be in the minority here. I own both Chanel Pour Monsieur (who knows which vintage, im sure its been relatively newly made) as well as Chanel Pour Monsieur Concentree. They each have their merits and I like them both. I could not care less about finding an old vintage bottle from the 80s, Im sure it's nice, but I am just as satisifed with what I have. It suits me. I guess it's just constantly annoying to hear the elders lament the old Chanel Pour Monsieur that is only found in the annuals of our minds (and perhaps carefully on ebay lol).

Glad you're enjoying the current version as is your right and privilege

And I'm sure the IFRA and Chanel are fully aware that as you haven't experienced the original version and seem to be perfectly happy to pay for a diminished version (which is not to say it's BAD - just "less than") that they can carry on as if nothing happened. They are banking on a new generation who don't know better - don't take that personally, it's a just a fact of business.

Companies could probably also make the argument that the newer version is more 'of the moment and reflects what our modern audience are looking for in a fragrance in these dynamic times' etc. etc. Employ that approach with the unspoken backhander of 'old lady/old guy smell eeewwww' which you hear from the kids who post here from time to time and it's easy enough to consign full bodied compositions containing quality ingredients to the scrapheap of history and come out of it looking like you are doing the world a favour. Post rationalistion with a bit of new generational inclusive spin is a wonderful thing

I don't think it's a coincidence that PM Concentree & Tiffany for Men Feel similar, as Jacques Polges created them both in 1989 - it must have been fun for him riffing on that idea. As long as Tiffany for Men maintains it's current heft it gets my vote out of the two, it seems to be the only one left standing.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Male Fragrance Discussion

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 › Tiffany for Men/ Chanel Pour Monsieur/New York