Is this vintage Opium EDT legit?

[Riordanpett]

I recently picked this up for an insanely good price online. Been doing a lot of digging, scrutinising and a bit of smelling.

Now judging by the various characteristics, I assumed this would be a pre-Parfum Corps bottle. The rare 120ml size, the lack of Parfum Corps labelling, no barcode, the batch code itself points to 1984.
But... it smells thinner somewhat than my old 1981 36ml spray bottle. Less thick and rich, but still fairly strong. I hope it hasn't gone off.
But the leaflet insert (also attached in the link) shows the late 80s early 90s leafy EDT spray bottle. So, could this be a Sanofi from the 90s? Did YSL always put their company labelling on the packaging? (i.e Parfum Corps or Sanofi Beauty), mainly on the flask releases?

It appears to be an early 80s bottle, but the thinner smell and the insert say otherwise.

[Marand75]

Beautiful! Well, the labelling on bottom of box and bottle is definately Ritz-era, and this could be a case of Parfums Corp using surplus bottles and packaging from Ritz, BUT since the batch says '84 I doubt it as batchcodes were never pre-stamped (they always follow the bottling of the juice).
But then, as you mention, there's the matter of the insert/pamphlet and about that I have no clue, whatsoever. So basically I haven't been of much help. It's still a beautiful specimen, though

[Diamond Joe]

I can't help with your question, but if you want something richer and thicker... have you tried
OpiumParfum.jpg

[subhuman85]

The bottle and packaging look legit. It is a splash bottle, though, so it's entirely possible that it's been filled with knockoff liquid. That'd be my cynical, slightly paranoid assumption. I can't imagine a universe where vintage Opium EdT could reasonably be called "thin".

[Riordanpett]

Richer and thicker? I haven't tried the men's version, but judging by reviews, I don't think it would fit that criteria in comparison to the women's version, which is a powerhouse. I think I'd prefer the olfactory chords and notes in the woman's, too. It's unisex enough for me

[Riordanpett]

Exactly ! It's just not as powerful as my 36ml. Perhaps it was stored incorrectly, who knows. I might sell it for a pretty buck, as it's still potent as hell, and god forbid I've gone anosmic, but I doubt it, considering obvious side by side comparisons

[PStoller]

Richer and thicker? I haven't tried the men's version, but judging by reviews, I don't think it would fit that criteria in comparison to the women's version, which is a powerhouse. I think I'd prefer the olfactory chords and notes in the woman's, too. It's unisex enough for me

I’m with you on this. OPH is OK, but I can’t think of any aspect that it has over the original.

[Bonnette]

From what I can see of the codes (box and bottle) and label, it looks like a perfectly legit 1984 Charles of the Ritz-era EDT - including the leaflet, which was included with two of my Ritz-era bottles. The weakness of the scent is concerning, as that era's EDT was powerful and remains so, judging by my own exemplars. Perhaps water has been added to it, as others have suggested, and I hope you will reconsider selling it to someone else who might be equally disappointed - especially since you got it for "an insanely good price" and you can chalk it up to experience.

[Ken_Russell]

Tending to agree that legit