Undergrowth is by far my favourite of the three I tried. I’ll get the critique out of the way to start off, I feel the same about this as Forrest it’s not a perfume in the sense that I want a perfume to be...well...perfumey! It’s a scent Aurora, a smell, indeed evocative of undergrowth without being too witchy or madly Indy. But that might just be where it misses a trick? If I was ever to represent ‘undergrowth’ the almost literal definition to me would be a mushroom accord or note. There’s loads of materials that possess these qualities such as geosmin or Ethyl fenchol. However, the stuff I like is the cliche free delivery of common and recognisable materials but rendered in such a lovely way. The patchouli is prominent but it doesn’t have that soil trope, it’s been manipulated and softened, rounded. The opening is minty but not to the point of some toothpaste, or peppermint which would seem out of place. This is very delicately placed atop the woody, greenery of the body of undergrowth. Slightly menthol, a hint of eucalyptus, a sparingly use white camphor on that body of patchouli. So apparently there’s a lot of naturals in this and it shows, the vetiver is not overt or smokey but is probably thickening and supporting that patchouli. I say thick but it’s remarkably light this one. I’ve extracted as much perfume stuff as I can out of what is another collection of woody and green materials. Perhaps I’m being unfair and expecting too much? Not every fragrance should have a diverse spread of notes and accords, and to Rooks credit, nothing jars and everything goes together in its right place. I’m being over Critical of a fragrance I fundamentally like and enjoyed. I still wouldn’t buy it though.