Several perfumes have meant different things to me in various stages of my life. But take three steps back, and the ones that were most precious to me at one point, are still precious to me now. Then there are a lot which didn't matter much after one season, or two. None from this second group have suddenly grown to something great for me. If differences were noticed over time, it was a matter of degrees, and there were no real u-turns. Luca Turin who has been writing reviews for more than twenty now has also been fairly constant in his assessments, no matter whether it was done in a few lines or filled the page in a book.
I see the problem somewhere else: there are perfumes that meet my standards and taste, and there are all the others which I either disliked almost instantly, or which I did not get at all. I only know a few persons who sense the special quality of a perfume, even though it appears to be a stranger, or even violates their personal taste. If a perfume critique discards a whole family of masculine fragrances as 'horrible, just suitable for hairy chested machos' (woody chypres for example) then I begin to worry if he can ever be fair to his readers, even in respect of other fragrances.