If I had to describe N°5 cologne in one word, I’d choose furry. Give me more and I’d go with balsamic and animalic. This long discontinued beauty is the closest to the original extrait, and even though it’s a cologne in name, it rivals most modern edp’s. Vintage mid 70’s splash bottle. N°5 eau de cologne, opens with dimmed brightness. You can sense the aldehydes in there, but they’re somehow dark. They’re not gone or flat, because there’s still a jolt and a sparkle that’s unmistakable. But they’ve somehow gone richer and deeper if that makes sense. They feel like velvet as opposed to freshly bottled chiffon lights. The floral heart, with undoubtedly real rose and real jasmine, is made deep and sensual with some heavy ylang and you can already sense a gorgeous Mysore sandalwood, a smoky and earthy vetiver, all wrapped up in some gorgeously potent nitromusks and civet. You can’t miss it here; they become the stars not long after it’s applied and they start stealing the show slowly but steadily. There’s also a ton of oakmoss, and leather even if not listed. The base is so rich and balsamic, with a swirling sweetness that feels like the finest licorice. There is 0 trace of sweetness as it’s known and used today. This richness here is fatty, unctuous and enveloping. It feels like a potion aged and macerated in ambery gooey sweetness. The oakmoss further deepens it and the leather provides a ‘masculine’ touch, lending a certain dryness that balances it all. Forget the traditional edc designation of splashing liberally for 30 glorious minutes of freshness. N°5 isn’t about it. There’s the same furry animal quality you find in the likes of Miss Dior, Tabu, Tigress, Joy, Shalimar and many more; an animal hidden and waiting to be unleashed with the warmth of skin. N°5 edc is basically a lighter extrait, and it shares far more similarities than differences. Think of it as a lighter pure parfum. The vintage edt does have more sparkle and feels more daytime appropriate. But as it dries down, the same animalic base emerges. Modern formulas have a glorious and bright aldehyde opening, because Chanel indeed does aldehydes like no one else, but after an anemic floral glimmer, they dry down as simple soapy scents. Finely milled soap of course, but just that, there’s no trace of the warmth and danger that abounds in the vintage formulas. Are they similar? Well, after many decades of tweaking and many perfumes that came after, you are better of with modern versions of First or Arpège, which have aged extremely well and convey the essence of N°5 far better than current iterations. Modern N°5 has retained the allure and mystery, the glamour, all that was lost through reformulations but only in image and marketing. It keeps bringing customers to Chanel but they have long abandoned their signature in favor of modern creations. Nothing wrong with that, but they should have taken more care in preserving their heritage. If posible go for vintage, there are still many formulas and bottles available, and leave the soapy and creamy scent of the modern version for the soap and body line. The ancillary products have more pizazz than the perfume line. Sillage and longevity is worthy of a full night with Marilyn. Breakfast included!