I can't say I prefer one over the other, but do find the original to be more "accessible" for the lack of a better word. What I mean is, in differentiating the two, Vintage hits a wider range of non-pleasing to pleasing notes to my nose. It starts out with a funky blast that isn't as immediately pleasing as the original, but the drydown ends up being that much better. In short, Original. Spray. I like it. 1/2 hour later... I like it. 1 hour later... I like it. Vintage. Spray. What the...? 1/2 hour later... I'm sort of liking this. 1 hour later... Humdinger! I had an experience with Vintage not too long ago where I sprayed a bunch of scents on my arm before going to bed, woke up in the middle of the night and started sniffing, and couldn't figure out what the one particular smooth, tobacco scent was, when suddenly I remembered: Vintage.
Here's a review I did when Vintage first came out:
Don't be fooled by the first few moments of this scent. When testing it in the store, its opening smelled a bit been-there, done-that (almost in a Kenneth Cole way). I gave it a few moments and the top notes quickly faded, leaving something a bit puzzling to my nose not unlike a car accident: it was a little appalling, but I couldn't help continuing to sniff trying to figure what exactly it was.
Hanging in there, I was soon rewarded by a stellar dry-down that feels a bit more formal than the original's approach. Gone is the heavy vanilla feel, replaced with a dominating tobacco note with suede and tonka beans complimenting it nicely.
Early reports referred to Vintage as being a seasonal variation of Varvatos, but I wholeheartedly disagree. While it retains a shell of the original, it's more of a passing nod of recognition than out-and-out brother like resemblance as Vintage clearly stands on its own.