Love Pour Monsieur Concentree; buy the original too?

[mrcologneguy]

I love Pour Monsieur Concentree. But I've been intrigued by the strong reviews the original Pour Monsieur gets on BN, too.

So I found a bottle of the original version at a small, local fragrance shop recently. It's at a good price, and they have only one bottle, in a sealed box. I'm too much of a nice guy to demand that they open it for me so I can sample it before buying.

My question: if I own and love the Concentree version, should I go ahead and spring for the original too? Or is it so much like the Concentree version that I don't really need it?

Your opinions, please.

[StylinLA]

I've only briefly sampled. My impression of it is:

- it is quite a bit different than the Concentre
- it is inordinately short lived

I seem to remember you like a lot of colognes which are generally pretty fleeting scents. You might really like it.

I don't think it is so similar to the Concentre that you are "buying the same scent." Let's see what others think.

If it's a decent price, it is one of the most highly regarded scents. I sought it out for a time and opted out due to the reports of no legs from so many noses I trust.

[mrcologneguy]

I've only briefly sampled. My impression of it is:

- it is quite a bit different than the Concentre
- it is inordinately short lived

I seem to remember you like a lot of colognes which are generally pretty fleeting scents. You might really like it.

I don't think it is so similar to the Concentre that you are "buying the same scent." Let's see what others think.

If it's a decent price, it is one of the most highly regarded scents. I sought it out for a time and opted out due to the reports of no legs from so many noses I trust.

Thanks for the commentary. I do have a high tolerance for short-lived fragrances. I will happily reapply anything I really like, as necessary.

The price point I found is below anything I've seen online. So it's a good deal.

Just want to make sure I'm not buying redundancy in my collection. Your commentary confirms what I've heard: it's different enough that I might want to add it to the collection.

Thanks for the expert commentary, Mr. Stylin. Any other POVs from the group?

[Matthew]

Stylin's right - VERY different from the Concentree, and much less longevity. If it's less than you've seen it go for online - get it. Even if you don't wear it, this one's a good reference. Especially if you don't mind reapplying!

[Gollnick]

I have both and I like both.

The 1955 version is a more straight-ahead dry chypre. The top notes have orange, but dry, somewhat bitter neroli orange, and a good dose of lemon too. The middle is just cardamom and not very pronounced. The base is dry wood and oakmoss with a bit of vetiver. It is a textbook dry chypre.

The 1989 (Concentree) version is much sweeter and warmer. With its generous infusion of vanilla, it, in my opinion, borders on being an oriental. The top is sweetened by dropping the lemon, making the orange sweet mandarine, and adding lavender (though not too much (I think lavender is easily over-done)). The middle is warmed up considerably by nutmeg. And the base takes on that sweet vanilla. Then, to rescue it from becoming too sweet, a dash of incensey opoponax.

I get about four hours from the 1955 version. Projection is modest.

I get ten or twelve hours from the 1989 version and projection is much more.

They are similar fragrances, but they are different. I think that if you like the 1989, you'll also like the 1955; just accept it for what it is and don't compare it too critically with its younger brother.

[Force of One]

I will have to retest, but I remember not liking the concentree as much.
As for the original, I haven't had the longevity problems others have mentioned, although, I will agree it's not a huge projection fragrance

[mrcologneguy]

Thanks for the commentary guys. I'm going to spring for it. Seriously, it's one of those "can't believe I found it" deals. . . might as well buy, or I'll regret it later. Cheers!

[hednic]

I think you will be happy to have both.

[Ken_Russell]

You might like the 1955 EDT version should you search with something with significantly less projection, yet still some distinctive masculine elegance

e.g. I discovered it works well in formal/semi formal (and, of course, non fragrance-free) office/boardroom environments

[mrcologneguy]

I did purchase the '55 version, and it is fine stuff. The basenoters who've chimed in on this question are correct: it's different enough that you can easily have both in your wardrobe. The citrus opening is a pronounced citrus. The middle - not exactly sure what I'm smelling there. . . it's an odd, flat, vaguely chemical note. . . but the drydown is quite refined and pleasant. Definition of chypre. A good buy at a good price. A lucky find.

Thanks again for the basenoters' expert commentary. Your advice is right on.