So a few folks had remarked about the miraculousness of this tuberose centric fragrance oh into the fact it contains no tuberose natural material (I think I read that somewhere?) and knowing Christophe's tongue in cheek trickery the name sort of alludes to this too. Anyway I think it's difficult (and also conversely quite easy) to judge, because having smelled different tuberose materials of natural origin and bases and recreations and stuff like that, I have to say, tuberose is pretty changeable stuff. I thought I knew what it was, but I don't really. That being said this perfume captures some of the raw elements, it's salty and waxy and strange, mildly sweet but this isn't a fun, exotic tuberose, a pink hued, bubblegum kitsch thing, nor is it particularly green and crunchy or indolic. It's a peculiarly sterile, antiseptic, floral and to borrow from a pal 'smells like the halls of a junior school' and I get all that weirdness. So it shares tuberose's complex nature and I enjoy it as a perfume spectacle but I don't like it or want to wear it... Until the drydown. After hours and hours IT SMELLS GLORIOUS!!! The base materials the floral parts go all powdery and musky but not at all sweet, it's divine!!! but can I wait that long through all that rubbery, waxy strangeness....maybe??? the jury is still out.

So I had this down as a 'like' from a previous wearing and I'd stick to that, there's something interesting and comforting about this sort of perfume. However, I think the kind of person who seeks out such smoky thrills would be better served by something slightly less sophisticated than this, some indy bollocks where they dose birchtar like a pissed chef, or I reckon if you're into brands doing smoke and phenolic vibes, probably seek out Beaufort or something? I appreciate the subtlety of this the smoke (that guaiac wood sort of BBQ) it hangs like a shroud over some other stuff underneath, which is frustratingly (but deliberately) never properly revealed. I get some booze and wood but it has a cool air to it both in temperature and temperament, flinty and a touch metallic even, reminds me of bonfire night as a kid when I had to do a performance of the gunpowder plot. Amazing how the olfactory nerve endings trigger these long term but rarely accessed memories. I mean this perfume is doing no wrong by me, and if it was stronger and more powerful it probably would be annoying me now, but it's very well balanced I must say, fairly long lasting and present but reasonably quiet. This is not really my vibe but it was one of the trio I originally tried from this brand and it definitely fits in.

I like this a lot, it's a very good vetiver based perfume and I'm probably jumping the gun on the review because I need to wear it again properly to figure it out. From the initial sniff I'd say it's a laid back, none scratchy vetiver perfume which relies on quite a mellow material for most of it's bulk, it's not overly smoky or anything, juniper is a fresh and welcome bedfellow, can't say I get much of the soft warmth of tonka or myrrh listed here in the base, but generally it feels like a really well rounded vetiver and having revisited Dior's Vetiver in recent days I can assure you that this is definitely more up my street and I'd sooner pay big bucks for a perfume like this than Frederic Malle's Vetiver (also good) for example, just because this is more subtle and oozes quality. However, it was quite shortlived and I know that should be implied in the name 'cologne' after all but it was extremely slight and low lying. Not a huge critisism and I really applied a tiny amount so I could wrong but something for folks to bear in mind if they are dropping fairly substantial money on this stuff. Update: 30/03/23 Yeah so I decided to wear this the following day after my review and I have to say, I'm still not convinced. It's simply a case of how present this perfume isn't. I'm not some size queen, or fucking performance brah!!! However, if the presence of a perfume is so slight it impacts on the experience and the ability to feel emotions about the fragrance or even assess technical stuff or whatever it might be that you get from wearing fragrance, then it's not working for me. It's not that I totally can't smell it, the remnant is there on my clothing and I have reapplied it, also I stick to my guns it's a lovely smelling simple, rustic vetiver with citruses and woody notes but still... I'm not onboard. Hard to say when I adore this brand but I gotta be honest, and hey does it matter? nah.

Magic!!! Finally got to try the colognes from Les Indemodables and they didn't disappoint! Well this one certainly didn't. It's a really fine study on grapefruit, sharp in the opening but with a sweetness and sherbert fizz to it. The midsection is a kind of mossy wood but it's not really bitter like some citrus/oakmoss things and that's not to it's detriment. Citrus and fresh white florals is a pretty well trodden path but this has some very good, naturalistic vibe to it, the sweetness I mentioned likely coming from jasmine. I noticed some comparisons in the 'smells like...' and I get that there's an ambergris quality to this perfume so comparing it to the Ambre from this brand is entirely valid in one sense...it probably uses their excellent, ultrasonic extraction/tincture thingy, which I've tried on it's own and is excellent, however probably slightly misleading to say smells like...but anyway. It reminds me ( a little bit when it's dried down) of vintage Dior Eau Sauvage, I think there might even be a rounding sandalwood accord in there. It's wonderful. Really, I mean it should be hard to get excited for a perfume which is basically a citrus cologne but I respect that citrus is one of the hardest things to do as a perfumer, ad this is elevated by great materials and world class compounding, so it deserves praise.

So....I'm somewhat surprised that I've never commented on this before but it's not exactly the most outstanding fragrance so maybe I'm not? Anyway... To me this is a very good fragrance based around Vetiver materials, but is the best? No. Does it have a sense of being elevated to justify being a Dior exclusive? Yes...I'd say so. It has both elements of the fresh, bright but earthy and dry, also the creamy aspect, also this coffee accord/note/element is there but I just figured that was a facet of the vetiver, because it's extremely slight (certainly no Eau noire coffee) so it's good in those terms but I just don't like it as much as I should. This was the issue when I first tried it many years ago, it just didn't stand out for me, and now due to exclusivity, and the fact that modern Dior Privee releases have been a bit....shit! (let's face it) Vetiver has become more sort after and placed on a slightly elevated pedestal for what is a kind of smooth, soapy floral, vetiver type fragrance. It's no Guerlain Vetiver. I don't deny that this is a very professional fragrance, unlikely to offend anyone in an office or meeting type environment and promotes a sense of 'that person smells really good' due to it's cleanly, ubiquity and effortless class but for me I'd rather wear (the perhaps marginally more polarising?) Tom Ford Grey Vetiver which for me is simultaneously bolder and fresher than this outing. I don't blame anyone for loving this perfume and saying that I'm wrong about my personal vetiver preferences, because it is very good, just when you can afford to be exacting about a genre, do be!

This is a good find for me, well I say find, a friend of mine very kindly bought it for me and sent it along. An example of a fragrance which follows all the trends of that golden era of men's perfumery without excelling at any of them really. Opens with lavender but then all the woody, masculine man powder hits, a soapy interpretation of leather, I found it loosely (without comparing) more akin to Quorum and Paco Rabanne than anything else, less piney perhaps less...well of everything Marbert man is quite a gentle, subdued version of these with a air of modern barber, hairdresser shop about it. I like it and for the money it's an excellent choice.

This is a gorgeous perfume, I doubt it will wow the sort of rose fans looking for something really full bodied but nevertheless it's very accomplished and an inherently wearable piece from a great brand. So I hadn't looked at the notes at the point of thinking about writing this review (obviously have now) and I felt the creaminess of the base is sandalwood materials and musks right out of the gate, and despite them not being a top note, that is what I smell immediately, it actually becomes a bit less creamy after that. (but it does come back later on) Then you get a kind of soapy (in a good way) rose accord and I'm no expert at discerning different rose materials or recreations or whatever and frankly I didn't really know what the subtleties of May rose were TBH. However, I've recently tried a few, just in the last few weeks and this kinda screamed may rose to me...and what do you know? it's a rose de Mai apparently. This is a more functional, less opulent smelling rose to me than the usual suspects of Turkish or Bulgarian or whatever, but no less lovely. Just reading the review directly below and I can imagine that this could be the kind of rose perfume for non-rose fan because it's just so damned easy to get along with, and at the other end of the spectrum perfume fans who can appreciate nuance will like how this isn't atypical and is a smoothly well made blend of creamy and fresh, lasts ages and just smells really really good. I'm a big fan of this from the off and it's growing on me even more, and promoting a real sense of wellbeing today.

I'm going to try to keep this brief but I feel I have a lot to say about nuit de Bakelite. I recall first sampling it a few years ago when these launched (I think there was only three then) and being impressed by the creativity of this line, they are for real 'eds it seems. This is the crown jewel according to most as well, has that smoky, green, Cellier-esque, vintage nod, but with peculiar modernity and the 1940's plastic reference in the name. Well the name is oddly appropriate because it does have this strange plastic quality, a guff of sharp but sweet musks in the opening and bizarre, green tuberose sweetened with carrot seed and angelica musk. Then comes a flip to a mossy, leathery scent and call me mad but an association with Creed's Green Irish tweed for a moment. It's strangely enigmatic and aloof with those gassy musks but resinous and deep, and flipping back to floral and green all the time. I suspect this is a polarising fragrance but clearly very popular and I get why, I think it's an excellent concept, and execution. Hugely powerful this one as well, had some horrendous comments from folks nearby me, which is always a treat when you like a perfume which pisses others off, oh and my car smelled of it for a about three days. I think it's a modern masterpiece and I want it in my collection from a perfume history perspective but I'm reluctant as I'm not sure how often I'd wear it?

Okay so I wasn't necessarily going to write this review because it's pretty moany, but why change the habit of a lifetime hey? and when I read the review below me here about not having those around you complain, I felt compelled to fire up my fingers and give my thoughts on Angel. I remember Angel in the 90's, girlfriends, teachers, the high street generally and even my mum, smelled of Mugler Angel. I completely appreciate it's pioneering ethyl maltol overdose style and it's OTT Muglerness, iconic bottle design, and the genesis of Gourmand genre perfumery, none of it is lost on me and broadly speaking I thought I liked it. Having not gone back and revisited Angel in many years I felt I didn't need to as the smell had been etched into my permanent olfactory hard disk memory. Well no! Because for mother's day my sister purchased a bottle for my mum (like 'hey remember you used to like this?') and she wore it yesterday and I found it unbearable. I've heard folks mention the patchouli element before and say it's horrid but I never really felt that way, yes it's a full bodied patch base (a common theme in loads of Mugler stuff) but never have I found it to annoy. Cloy? yes maybe but that's far more the cotton candy and oh so unreal floral aspects, the patchouli I figured to be the least offensive part. but no. Yesterday it was like a knitting needle being rammed up my snozz, repeatedly, and not even a dank, natural patch, like a screeching, evil patchouli robot cyborg hybrid sent back from the future to F my Nose in the A! It's truly terrible at a distance, I shall have to spray the perfume again and experience it on skin because I think it's entirely different for the wearer, as apposed to the poor sods who have to cower and heave in their wake.

Okay so to say this smells like Tobacco Vanille is easy and a bit lazy of me as a reviewer but crudely it does. I think progression wise it's quite different for the opening part at least, a mixture of spicy almost licorice, anise and tea vibes momentarily, until it settles upon a common groove of the TV, dried fruit and honied, 'tobacco accord' stuff. This is rounder though, good right? No, it feels more vanillic and cheaper, somewhat more honey for extra cloy factor. Look I don't hate it, but this is a played out theme and I simply don't find it as good as TV (I don't even wear my TV anymore) even though it's a hell of a lot cheaper for effectively as near as damned it, the same thing. I think it is discontinued, although probably still widely available, I only say that because I tried it in that shop which sells off discontinued lines from Estee Lauder companies, but to be fair they also have stuff which isn't, so who knows?