I bought Gucci PH II because I got a great deal on a full set of a great scent, but if I could have gotten the same deal on London, I would have gone with that, I think. London is just more modern to me, and I tend to prefer a more modern feel.
I started out disliking both upon initial application. They both grew on me over time. One is my absolute favorite. The other I just purchased this month, but is getting a lot of wears so far. I've always thought there was some similarity between the two. The Burberry always reminded me of pumpkin spice...the gucci has a warm cinnamon thing going on, but somehow, they're similar to me. At one point I felt if I had one, I didn't need the other. But eventually it grew on me and persuaded me to buy it. (I'm being discrete because I don't want to sway anyone to either fragrance).
Anyways, I would like to know which one you prefer. Thanx in advance.
Ok, one for London...
GPH II for mine.
I get zilch out of London - nada! It starts of nice, boozy, and promising; then it vanishes in minutes.
Last edited by jathanas; 25th August 2009 at 05:32 AM.
Conscience is what hurts when everything else feels so good.
Gucci pour homme II has better longevity on my skin than that of London. However, London just plain smells better, imo.
My preference is London.
I own both, and I think they each have their charms, but I think Gucci II is the better between the two. I bought them both blind and immediately liked the Gucci II, but didn't care so much for the London (reminded me of a hamster cage). Only recently have I started to reevaluate London, my nose has changed quite a bit within the last year. I like London now, it's much fresher than I remember it, but still prefer the Gucci in a side by side comparison.
London is straight tobacco and old lady candle shop to me, the definition of unsexy.
Burberry London most definitely.
Gucci Pour Homme II for me. Has better sillage and is longer lasting than London.
"A parent's only as good as their dumbest kid. If one wins a Nobel Prize but the other gets robbed by a hooker, you failed."
Burberry London. Longevity relatively poor though.
ointments and perfume delight the heart....
I have yet to try Gucci pH II so I can't comment on it. But I've had Burberry London before. Love the opening and the drydown has a modern masculine feel to it. Sillage is average and longevity is definitely poor. The bottle rocks though, lol.
I quite like both, but I prefer Gucci PH II in the warmer months, and London in the cooler ones. Neither is particularly long lived, but delightful when in full bloom
Last edited by petruccijc; 8th September 2009 at 10:29 AM.
Please feel free to check out my Swap Thread - Patou pour Homme, L'Instant de Guerlain PH Extreme, Dior Homme Intense, Pure Malt, Pure Coffee and many more! Click Here For My Swap Thread
i like them for different reasons, equally . . .
GPH2: i like that even though its a spicy, woody concoction it still has a light sheerness to it that quietly announces itself (or if i hated this stuff i could say 'this stuff doesn't last for sh!t'). the dry cinnamon spice radiating from it is my favorite part and the basenotes round it out very well so its understandable. it smells almost like what i think a guy should naturally smell like. it smells like a more masculine version of Burberry for Women (the older one in maroon box). try Lalique Equus sometime. it has the same feel, just slightly more 'natural' smelling, ve synthetic.
Burberry London: this on lasts forever on me and is much more boastful. its def sweeter and 2 spritz is enough or people can smell me from 50 yards away. richness, christmas-like spice, warm tobacco - i would say its almost christmas spicy with a sweet patchouli back bone.
Second on the Lalique Equus vs. GPH II similarity. They're both quiet sweetened tea-like spicy scents.
If you are disappointed by the lack of sillage & longevity (which I am sometimes) you can try L'Artisan's Tea for Two. You could see that one as a GPH II Extreme / Concentree version.
Gucci PH II by a mile for me also.
Last edited by JON RODGERS; 25th August 2009 at 11:51 AM.
I vote London (I don't dislike GPH II, but it pales in comparison to both London and the first GPH).
Ok...so far, we've got a few that like them equally, but among those that chose, London edged out the Gucci by 2 votes. I prefer the Gucci, so I vote Gucci. That still keeps London in the lead by one vote.
And I thought I was the only one that noticed London's horribly poor longevity. It's funny, cuz last night I sprayed in on the inside of my wrist, and Joop on the outside, and maybe two hours later, I couldn't smell the London, but I can still smell traces of the Joop on my hand. I wonder if it can be detected by others though. The Gucci on the other hand...I smell traces of it all day. In fact, on one occassion I got a compliment on it after atleast 10 hours of wearing it. Couldn't believe it. To me it's nicer, a little warmer, and lasts way longer. You can't go wrong with Gucci Pour Homme 2.
Last edited by Larwiz; 25th August 2009 at 01:32 PM. Reason: recount
I haven't tried London.. but for me it's gonna have to be pretty damn good to beat Gucci Pour Homme II
GPH II FTW!
I absolutely love the scent, and it lasts a hell of a long time on my skin. Great for the summer, yet suitable for colder weather IMO.
GPH II For me.
London just doesn't make me think,,,yeah, this is GOOD.
BTW,,,GPH I,,,,,,,SUX !!!
Sample or Partial
Mark Buxton-Wood & Absinthe
My sales thread:
Jeet Kune Do -"Way of the intercepting fist"
My store- www.AtoZknives.com
(Knives, sporting & Tactical products GALORE !!)
Low price LEADER- FAST ship too!
London is my kind of scent. But the longevity is unfortunately very poor.
Burberry London by a mile. Fantastic fragrance.