So cuir Cavalier is a no holds barred leather. A modern, twangy, patent leather, jockstrap of a thing. Masses of saffron adorn this fragrance and pretty much dominate and having used saffron extensively I can attest that real good Iranian/Spanish Saffron tinctures are quite fleeting things, despite their power they are true top notes. This is a carefully constructed and realistic saffron accord, perfectly complimented by castoreum and oud (I suspect) which are fixing and giving similar dense, yet transparent qualities. The tingle that this gives to your nose is quite something to behold. It's not woody particularly and animal-like rather than truly animalic. I detected a faint, wet floral in the opening too, freshening and giving a marginally more classic direction to what is essentially a pretty modern fragrance. Immediately I described the aesthetic as 'floral leather' in the same way I would with Cuir de Russie (Chanel) or something? Not that they smell anything alike. I look forward to wearing this for it's bite and it's purrr and because I love saffron, but I've a feeling this might polarise.

What is happening here? Why have I not reviewed this? Did my review get voted out of existance? How could I let such an oversight go unchecked? For a while at least it was my favourite MDCI but revisiting the samples from this house again this week I've realised that Claude Marchal's vision for this brand is one I admire, and everything is good. I don't feel I had the level of maturity to appreciate the full body of work the first time around. At that point I had rejected the nicely, nicely, French perfumery approach and was seeking the visceral, wacky thrills of niche and Indy perfumers. Having got that out of my system I still arrive back at Cuir Garamante and I'm stunned by just what a great perfume it is. The opening is leathery, indulgent and does smack of lots of things I was into at the time of first trying and probably why I didn't pursue CG more intently. So... from memory then, I got an incense sandalwood and vanilla vibe accented with resins and it kinda is that still. However, upon todays trial I get much more of an unusual and enticing quality of rose wrapped in a hyper creamy accord comprised of sandalwood materials, not nutty or cedarish, pencil shaving but not a million miles from palo santo actually. Now that stuff is an almost unusable material for numerous reasons but mainly the off putting creepy rubber and mint facets, and it's ipecac, sickliness to boot. However some strange nicer quality of Mysore sandalwood is captured in this fragrance and with the rose it can evoke one classic perfume. Chanel Egoiste. The selfish man's choice for smelling great, however this is even more rich and densely layered with that labdanum/resins effect and a sort of gourmand, shortbread accent. There's top notes too, it's not all bases and mids and that is what makes it shine through and ultimately the leather quality of the name too. It's more magic from MDCI and it's not even my second or third favourite now but I still love this thing!

So many fragrances out there, I keep coming across stuff I tried years ago and didn't review, this is one such fragrance but usually it's because they were so so or frankly not worth bothering to pen a review about. (not that it's EVER stopped me before mind you) Anyways.... This is a towering colossus, a monumentally superb amber, with everything going for it. I get sweetness in the opening a dusting of cinnamon then into a relentless, headstrong and molasses thick amber, with mild chocolately nuance of benzoin. This is not a labdanum or incense heavy amber it's a prime balance of everything you want in an amber with a dry, natural 'old books' vibe through to reassuringly not over saccharine, gourmandness. It's a decent fragrance and very reasonably priced for the quality. It reminds me of Ambra Aurea for sure, Italian amber if you like? It's great I can't sing it's praises enough.

Does this really smell like Drakkar Noir? (I'm not slagging off DN BTW...I like it) NO! it definitely doesn't to me. Nobile is an interesting green, citrus chypre/fougere/cologne with that warm, rounded base, perhaps some sandalwood chiming in after a typically fresh and mossy start. I find it invigorating, quality men's business, lightly spiced and more complex than I can even bother to describe. Nobile is not a fragrance that one needs to spend a great deal of time explaining or describing. Nobile is manly, straight forwardly functional but not without Italian flair. Nobile just is. If you can find it and you love a good quality men's throwback fragrance that I defy you to find fault with then.... DON'T seek out Nobile, because I want that bottle you are watching on eBay. ;)

I wore this the other day and I suppose I like it? It's rose ffs! However I found it to have a soapy, slightly annoying trail that you could taste. Seriously. Modern, musky and diffusive. It's smells different at a distance to close up. Close you get some lightly vanillic, clean musk infused with rose and at a distance more sweet, fatty rose. This is a perfumed, perfume and evokes...no screams the colour pink. As such I felt very self conscious wearing it, and that's not me at all. I think it's because there's no oud, no woods no patchouli or the usual suspects to speak of and nothing as a counterpoint or anchor to the relentlessness of rose accord in here. It's complex in and of itself but not enough for me to get onboard. I'm not one who utters this particularly often but Rose perfection is too feminine for me.

I have a reasonably old mini of this and it's absolutely magical. Having said that the modern version is pretty nice too, it's not quite as luscious and rounded though. I'm pretty staggered by it to be honest, the grapfruit quality of vetiver coming together with the citrus and then a almost warm creamy texture of woods. Simple yet hard to describe, like many colognes that have extra facets as they mature on skin. Men, women, everyone. You need Guerlain Vetiver in your life.

Nemo was a fragrance I never owned back in the 2000's not because I didn't like it as such but just because my collection was much smaller and less speculative than it is now, coupled with the fact that this just doesn't stand out all that much. Well that's in hindsight because things that I liked back then, I love now in comparison to the general sorry landscape of men's designer releases. I'm not one of these people who is constantly looking back and banging on about 'vintage'. I very much embrace the future and I'm broadly optimistic about it, however Nemo is one of those ordinary releases that seems like some searing work of genius now. So to me it's a soft woody, spicy take on lavender, Immediately reminiscent of Boucheron (I didn't look before noticing this by the way and when I did it turned out to be the same perfumer! boooya!) Comparisons would be Gucci Envy, By D&G, Dreamer even (This guy did the original Dreamer too) and also Floris Santal, Moubousin homme, Lalique Equus & Homme, basically loads of 90's and early 2000's stuff. It has a hazy sandalwood/cedar aspect with muskiness and an unmistakable smooth nutmeg underpinning it then the waft of lavender over the top. It's lovely. Nemo is really lovely, lasts very well, and smells just right. This is not as out there as stuff like Eden and Lou Lou both very polarising and Then there's the bottle. Either love it or hate it you can't deny that it's an talking point. Also perhaps one of the most ergonomically satisfying bottle fitting perfectly in your hand to the point a creationist would deem it to be created by intelligent design. Nemo is intelligently designed right down to the ball bearing supplied separately in the box to push into place and activate your purchase. A modern classic this one.

I can't help but like this, it's a mandarin smelling perfume, more of the red variety than the green. However (and this is a big 'However') I only like the opening of this fragrance. Once the volatility and zing of freshness have subsided it becomes more like shake n vac, a powdery orange smell. Not particularly appealing to me. Shame really.

I mean how bad can a musky rose be? Well not bad at all, but I felt zero engagement with this perfume. It just didn't speak to me. Even my preconceptions and the anticipation of a cliche didn't effect my judgement on it, my mind was firmly open, ready and waiting for any eventuality and I was met by niceties and good construction. Nothing grabbed me about it. Not a memorable rose perfume for me. sorry for the unhelpful review but there you go. I'll have to wear it again.

Suave petals is not what the name or a quick glance at the notes here, suggest it is. It's a cashmere, velvet orris, musk with challenging top notes which hint at flowers but never commit to one. When settled it shows more conventional aspects, reminding me of a load of different fragrances at once, and yet I can't place a single one. The opening is slightly unnerving, disconcerting and not for me but It literally improved by the second, getting better and better, more complex. I have to wear this again to try to figure it out. Update: so I have worn this again and I have to say the opening is a flouncy, pink blouse of a femme, floral fragrance, I don’t know why I found it so ambiguous first time around? Anyway that gives way to a pretty traditional if very nice sweet, tacky (in the textural sense) warm, modern, amber (I was so tempted to use the ‘O’ word there) it has a mildly burnt caramel note to it. Definitely musks, leading a cleanliness which stops it going all out gourmand or something. This reminds me of the kind of thing worn by a woman of a certain age...perhaps in the 90’s? It’s not dressy or dolled up and could quite easily be an everyday wear sort of perfume, giving the impression of a slightly more glamorous person. To me at least. It’s a little too feminine for me if I’m honest but unquestionably a ‘good’ perfume. Not sure why I found it so enigmatic the first time I tried it but hey.