What's new

Scent/Fragrance of the Day - 2012

Status
Not open for further replies.
$GIT_2.jpg
 
proxy.php

Main Accords: Earthy, Woody, Green, Fresh Spicy, Herbal

Top Notes:
Bergamot, Rosewood, Lavender
Middle Notes: Neroli, Sage, Celery, Pepper
Base Notes: Vetiver, Sandalwood, Musk, Tonka

Longevity: 6 hours plus at 70 degree farenheit

I really like these vetivers with woods and this frag along with the Carven Vetiver (vintage 1957) are my favorite vintage vetyvers so far this veek, but Villoresi shall be no more. As I was adding a last spray to the back of my hand for sniffing through the day, the sample bottle snipped out of my fingers and popped like a light bulb on the tile floor. Why couldn't this have happened yesterday instead with the L.T. Piver Vetiver (vintage 1991)?
:c17:

From some of the reviews which I have read on BaseNotes, this frag is really great at the beginning with the woods and smokiness, but later on the lavender comes forward and it turns into nightmare...thankfully I never got this. I get wonderful smokey vetiver and woods for 6 hours and then the frag begins to fade just like the Carlo Corinto Vetyver (vintage 1993) and Carven Vetiver (vintage 1957). bye bye!

This is Vintage Vetyver Veek!
 
Last edited:
I've been curious about this one and you're great review has convinced me that I need to sample Turtle Vetiver! How does it compare to other vetiver frags?

I have experienced no vetiver like Turtle Vetiver Front. By that I mean I've never smelled the pairing of coconut and vetiver and I'm surprised by how well they go together. I don't think the vetiver note is as smoky as it is in some vetivers, certainly not as smoky as the first Turtle Vetiver exercise, and many others will also surpass TVF in terms of smokiness, but that's not to say it isn't smoky - it is. But the coconut does not take it into a sweet or fresh or aquatic or even green category, either. It doesn't have the sweet/fruity notes of Route de Vetiver, nor does it have the sparkle of Eva or the freshness of Original Vetiver. The closest thing I can think of that compares is Fat Electrician, which to me has a slight "milkiness" to it, of all things - at least "creamy." But TV Front is pretty unique by it's own standards. If you like vetivers and you like cocunut (Virgin Island Water, MPG Bahaina) then you'll probably like TVF a lot.

----------------------

Mon Numero 4
by l'Artisan Parfumeur


sage, lavender, cardamom; violet leaves, cyclamen; woody notes, leather, musk, vanilla, tonka bean

This is supposed to be a lavender/leather perfume but I'm afraid it's really lacking in both. In my head I thought of Lutens' Encens et Lavande (lavender/incense) but with a robust Boxeuses kind of leather finish and instead I get a light almost soapy lavender not nearly as exciting as Antiheros, Lavanda Nobile, or Arome 3. And the leather could be described best as a light suede, maybe, but it's barely noticeable. My overall impression is that this is a fairly lighter interpretation of the fougere and very reminiscent of Azzaro pour homme and one of the Halstons (I forget which) but not as deep or dark. This has that traditional fougere smell but with immense amounts of light pouring in through the windows. It's a pleasant scent all the same and there's no doubt that I smell really great, very manly and traditional, but given the price of this one I think you could find something comparable for considerably less.

proxy.php
 
Bond No. 9 Riverside Drive

When I first put it on I thought that it was a "meh" generic modern aquatic-ish scent that was pleasant enough, but not worth the price. Now that I've had it on for a while, it's gotten much sweeter and less enjoyable to me, while still being generic. A definite no. Honestly, even if you like sweet scents, I can't see this stuff meriting the high price, but since I don't like sweet scents, I'm the wrong person to ask.
 
Bond No. 9 Riverside Drive

When I first put it on I thought that it was a "meh" generic modern aquatic-ish scent that was pleasant enough, but not worth the price. Now that I've had it on for a while, it's gotten much sweeter and less enjoyable to me, while still being generic. A definite no. Honestly, even if you like sweet scents, I can't see this stuff meriting the high price, but since I don't like sweet scents, I'm the wrong person to ask.

I've only smelled a few of their scents and didn't like any of them. The word "generic" is an appropriate one, imho.
 
Bond No. 9 Riverside Drive

When I first put it on I thought that it was a "meh" generic modern aquatic-ish scent that was pleasant enough, but not worth the price. Now that I've had it on for a while, it's gotten much sweeter and less enjoyable to me, while still being generic. A definite no. Honestly, even if you like sweet scents, I can't see this stuff meriting the high price, but since I don't like sweet scents, I'm the wrong person to ask.

I used to go Ga Ga over Bond frags but over time came to many of the same realizations. I wasn't fooling myself at the time, I knew they were hyper-realized versions of designer scents but some of them really stuck out. A few still do: Chinatown, which I didn't like at all at first has really become a stand-out fragrance for me; Fire Island is perhaps one of my favorite summer time frags; and the limited edition Swarovski Oud is still one of the best (albeit "westernized") rose/oud combinations I've tried. Most of the others no longer appeal to me, although Central Park and HOT Always sometimes make an appearance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom