Crap mainstream/designers roundup

I have a penchant for mainstreams, but still...

(sorry, no bottle pics - just this for all)

In Leather Man by Etienne Aigner (2003)

In Leather Man by Aigner is hands down the worst leather fragrance I’ve ever tried. Even taking into account the really cheap price, for me it is still just desperately obnoxious, and completely unworthy any price. It opens with a harsh, extremely artificial nondescript smell which I think should be aimed at evoking leather, while it clumsily smells more like a car under the sun – not a particularly rusty or dirty one, just a normal car with that really boring smell of plastic, metal, rubber, cheap imitation leather. I think I get some musk, some components similar to what other manufacturers know better how to use for leather accords, and something ambery; it may sound decent, but the result is just a disaster for me. It’s not leather – actually for me this is really nothing at all. The drydown arrives quickly, light and sweaty. Until now I used to consider as the “worst leather fragrances” the ones which just uncreatively reiterate the same usual aromachemicals (e.g. suederal, safraleine ecc.), but at least, they smell “leather”. This smells just nauseating nonsense for me. If you want to stick to this brand (God knows why) I recall Aigner Black being a little more decent and more similar to an actual leather scent.

4/10

______________

1000 Miglia for Men by Chopard (2013)

The composition seemed interesting to me, especially that promising “asphalt-suede” combo, so I approached this with slightly more enthusiasm than usual, although I am not really a fan of Chopard fragrances, and well, I was wrong – in being slightly more enthusiastic than usual, I mean. Utter cheapness and boredom in a bottle. The opening comprises mostly a contemporary aromatic fougère bone structure of wood, lavender, citrus scented with tobacco, some subtle smell of coffee, a dusty-sweet feel (amber and violet) and a little sad suede aromachemical lying in the shame corner. 1000 miglia reminds me of a cheaper, subtler, more boring version of woody-coffee scents like Rochas Man crossed with Lanvin’s Arpège pour Homme and similar “violet woodyambers”; just more generic, with more lavender, more (depressingly synthetic) wood, a bit more zest, a hint of green. Basically a dull, slightly confused and more generic version of both (or similar ones) with a persistent sort of soapy-musky-woody feel drowned in plastic. Tragically uninspired, too cheap to be at least “mediocrely refined”, one of those scents you have to sniff constantly to remind how they smell, and probably regret having bought them. Plenty of better options for this non-genre.

5/10

______________

Eternity for Men by Calvin Klein (1990)

Desperately bad on every level. Basically a musky citrus-lavender fragrance smelling like a fizzy warm burp after drinking cheap Limoncello. Deadly everlasting persistence. Gross and discomforting.

4/10

______________

Dunhill Black by Alfred Dunhill (2008)

A really bland and sharp woody-violet fragrance mostly built on musky notes, synthetic cedar, something slightly fruity reminding me of blackcurrant, a subtle minty head accord and not much else. Nothing “black” for sure, the mood is rather bright and cold. Tons of other similar designers come to mind, but while most of them at least try to smell different, Black instead feels so lazily generic it almost smells like an archetype of woody-violet fragrances. The strong feel of harsh synthetic cheapness doesn’t really help – adding the “unpleasant” to the “boring” factor.

5/10

______________

Agua de Loewe by Loewe (2000)

I’ve tried hard to be patient and wait the obnoxious opening to change into something more agreeable, but I really can’t. I mean, I did, but just for your information – it is not really worth it. I don’t believe that much in “skin chemistry” variations but I guess I should start to, because unlike other reviewers experienced, the first minutes of Agua de Loewe are hideous on me. A painful journey through a horrific harsh accord of heavily pungent and synthetic citrus notes, something oddly spicy-nutty, something musky-watery-stale and a really unpleasant whiff of orange, vanilla and maybe sandalwood, adding a hint of nauseous aromatic warmth to that screechy mess. These latter notes would be even nice themselves, but it’s like smelling a slice of pie while you are in the middle of a stomach flu. Loud, plastic – “wrong”, shortly. And bloody haunting like your own shadow. Then, after a while it naturally starts to tone down a bit, entering a more enjoyable phase in which it still smells cheap, but at least it does it more smoothly and discreetly. Also, it smells progressively less citrusy and more woody-herbal-tea still with a whiff of orange and musk, and a general “fresh” feel. A bit more decent, still kind of loud and a bit cheap, however unworthy the first nightmare phase for me. Don’t bother.

5/10

______________

Contradiction for Men by Calvin Klein (1998)

For me, Contradiction for Men has always been one of the several epitomes of “insignificance in a bottle”. But the main flaw here is not even the uncreative dullness, which is still perfectly acceptable as not all audiences need creative stuff; rather the quite evident cheap quality of the fragrance itself. Not tragically cheap, but quite cheap for me. Basically this is a fresh, office/gym/club-safe citrus-woody-musk fragrance playing some modern chords on a traditional “eau de cologne” scheme, with a slight balminess and a painful similarity to a window detergent, sitting halfway smelling “almost pleasantly natural” and “annoyingly synthetic” – far enough from both qualities though, sitting in the exact nonsense middle between them. Neither an “avantgarde synthetic fragrance” (which may likely smell crap, but that would be post-modernly “ironic”), surely nor a particular true to life and natural one. Just exactly the worst type of mall/drugstore fragrance trying to emulate some sort of natural notes with really cheap materials. Which makes Contradiction almost a bit tacky, as it does not show even some slight sort of generic understated cleanliness. It is actually rather bold on the contrary; that would be a plus, if the smell was nice. And quality aside, the fragrance isn’t still worthy any attention for me, as I find this just plain dull and indistinguishable from dozens of others – likely better – lemon-woody-musk fragrances. Perfectly interchangeable with any of them, and chances are for the better. I am a big fan of designer fragrances so this is not really a matter of being mainstream, just plain negligible regardless of the label.

5/10

______________

La Nuit de l'Homme by Yves Saint Laurent (2009)

La nuit de who? This is la nuit de le 12 years old sipping a Diet Coke and smoking puff cigarettes. A disappointing, juvenile and cheap lavender-cardamom-woody-tobacco “club scent” smelling like YSL L’Homme layered with Declaration, Lanvin Avantgarde and/or Armani Code, inexplicably relating “night” with a bright, sweetish, teenish vibe. Lasting like a fart - which is good, though: the barely-perceivable drydown is almost enjoyable. If “ladies love this” then either I don’t understand a thing about women or we agree to disagree on the concept of “ladies”. Meh!

5/10

______________

Eau Parfumée au The Vert Extreme by Bvlgari (1996)

I am not familiar with the original edition of The Vert, which seems quite appreciated. All I know is that this Extreme version smells... this close to a nightmare, for me. I get a really little “tea” note out of this, but it’s entirely drowned in an unbearably plastic and harsh blend with coriander and cardamom above all, something citrusy, something synthetically greenish and a bunch of really pungent spices. And just other stuff I can’t recognize. This smells at the same time complex and really simple, harmonically screechy and completely disgraceful on skin. More than “notes”, it’s just olfactive noise, a weird and rough spicy-sweet-green-tea mess. I can’t explain why, maybe is just a subjective issue, but this really makes me physically sick. Tremendously bold and linear, and as if wasn’t enough, also tragically persistent. A proper “scrubber” for me.

4/10

______________

Paul Smith Man 2 by Paul Smith (2010)

Completely derivative but (barely) decent enough citrus-sandalwood-lavender Oriental fragrance ten years later on the trends. Smooth, soft, slightly “dark” and quite sweet, a bit powdery and mildly spicy (sweet, “round” notes of tonka and cardamom), reminding me of so many other fragrances I have a hard time staying focused on it. Trying to blend the crisp Oriental elegance of Declaration & friends, the “feminine” powderiness of Dior Homme & friends, and the “archetypal alpha male coworker” feel of Armani Code & friends. With echoes of Body Kouros too, and maybe Bulgari Man. The only note which doesn’t smell plastic is tonka. A bit juvenile and depressingly cheap but there’s worse around – anyway I think it’s discontinued, so nevermind (and don’t bother looking for it).


5/10

Rive Gauche pour Homme by Yves Saint Laurent (2003)

Nose: Jacques Cavallier

Like Turin wrote in his guide, “it took guts to come out with an aromatic fougère in 2003”: it did, indeed, as Rive Gauche pour Homme is truly a jump into the Seventies. Not a “rewritten tribute”, but a veritable, extremely elegant and pleasantly pedantic aromatic fougère exactly as they made (plenty of) them thirty years ago. Something I like to see as a proud and shameless slap to contemporary trends, which is admirable from such a big important company. It makes a statement, which at that level of visibility, may truly mean something. While I usually can’t stand fragrances - especially niche - which are “inspired by” and/or plain rip off chypres and fougères but they try to conceal that by acting new, “cool”, “luxury” and avantgarde as if they were ashamed of smelling derivative, too simple and “too outdated” as they do, I can’t help but appreciating an open and genuine operation like this. There’s a big difference in fact. Rive Gauche pour Homme is the quintessence of nostalgic simplicity, smelling and looking openly outdated, declaring it loud and proud. Many other companies still produce very classic fragrances, but to launch a new one, again – “it takes guts”.

All here is a true time capsule from the past, from the fragrance itself to the unpretentious, functional and almost cheap-looking bottle which looks like a drugstore shave foam can out of the 1970’s. The fragrance, anyway: lavender, anise, green herbs, woods, oak moss, patchouli, carnation, a nephew of Azzaro pour Homme looking and acting exactly like his hero uncle, just younger. The skin is softer and paler, the voice is still a bit juvenile, everything’s more light-hearted and livelier, but the face, the look, the style, it’s all the same. This is Rive Gauche pour Homme: a fougère which combines a lighter modern look, an overall obvious “fresher” feel due to its young age (I mean lacking in the “vintage” feel caused by the aging of the juice), with a vintage quality. It doesn’t aim at be a masterpiece, and in fact it isn’t, but it’s an extremely pleasant and stylish fragrance retrieving the true purpose of a man’s perfume – smell good, confident, mannered, masculine. Dry and dark as most of classic men’s fougères, but the “aromatic” side comprising powdery-floral notes of lavender and anise keeps it bright enough. Obviously a nostalgic redundant product thirty years late on its reference trend, but totally irresistible. The Kaspar Hauser of fragrances.

8/10

M7 by Yves Saint Laurent (2002)

Year: 2002
Nose: Jacques Cavallier, Alberto Morillas

M7 is quite hard for me to review, it has been my "signature" scent around 2003 (actually more than "signature" it was the only bottle I had at that time, and I was not even that passionate about perfumes, I think it was a gift and I used to bath in it – if only I knew they would have discontinued it). To smell it again today after years threw me back in time, which kind of makes it difficult to review it "objectively". However I must say that it aged so well, I am ultra happy to have it back in my rotation, actually it is even better than I remembered – such a complete, rich, irresistible scent. Thousands of words have been written about M7, mostly about the fact it's the first scent introducing agar wood to Western consumers: if we speak about "oud", today there is surely dozens of scents which have a more bold, powerful and deep oud note. The fact is that M7 does not want to be an "oud something", meaning that it's not about oud being thrown among random notes (to make it sound different from other ouds); M7 it's a perfume, with capital "p", therefore the oud is only a component beautifully and masterfully blended with the rest. Basically the original M7 is a great, irresistible, captivating, mellow and elegant woody-ambery scent with sweet nuances – a medicinal-winey and slightly boozy kind of sweet – with a genius hint of dry herbs (oregano) following the "lesson" of Ambre Sultan about how delightfully amber & herbs go together, and the dark, woody (and not rubbery) agar wood base. That's it: a dark, yet friendly scent, rich but gentle on skin basically anytime of the year, refined, deep, versatile. It may look simple, but you smell it once, and you will recognize it anywhere in the future. It has appeal, class, it fits like a glove, it has the same polarizing charm of a well-cut suit, which may have nothing flashy or bold, but makes you stand out for sure. Fans of modern ouds may not like this, as there is no "in-your-face" oud notes – instead the note it's more delicate and blended with the rest of the components; but oud aside, M7 is a complete masterpiece of strength, elegance, depth, contrasts and modernity. It is a banality, but: "they don't make them like this anymore". Don't feed the sharks (sellers), but grab it if you find it a decent price!

9,5/10