So I got the new bottle of Obsession and I have to say it's less feisty than I recall it being years ago. Perhaps lacking that strangely animal muskiness, it's still there but a little subdued. I'm only focusing on this as I've bought some new formulations of classics recently because I refuse to pay exorbitant prices on eBay and the like. I think vintage snobs might have a point on this one, but crucially, did they 'RUIN' this perfume? No! Obsession is still excellent in it's current formulation and the sign of a great idea in the first place that even paler representations of it are great. It smells strange in that way that A heavy, amber, chypre I'd say, with a apricot yoghurt creaminess, light floral powder, and otherworldly tone similar to a Dior perfume of a similar era in Dune. They don't even smell remotely alike but the association is there as a perfume which side steps the feminine tropes and tries to do something different, and achieved it. Some say that this is much more of a masculine perfume (possibly compared to the Men's one) but I wouldn't say that this evokes any binary gender divide at all. It's just 'there', a perfume for perfumes sake, a piece of art, and not very CK for what CK became in the 90's, aside from the androgyny or unisex appeal of it of course. Style wise it's an outlier and something they've not really returned to favouring more of a minimal 'fresh' aesthetic. I really like this and such an enjoyable wear for me.
