Pachnie jak słodkie różane mydło w płynie. Nie jest to zły zapach, wręcz ładny, ale nie tego szukam w perfumach.

Delikatny, ładny i, niestety, trochę nudny.

Otwarcie przypomina jakąś chorobliwie różową kompozycję od Givenchy, potem gruszka znika niemal natychmiast i przekształca się w Eau de Magnolia. Mam Eau de Magnolia, więc nie potrzebuję tego.

After the initial blast of synthetic peach candy mayhem, within 10 minutes it dries down into Mugler Angel, albeit slightly less loud. It smells good, but you don't need it.

Every time I wear this I have the same thought... Five minutes of peach, then it dries down to Angel. It's literally just Angel for loads more expensive.

Hyper masculine, if you subscribe to gender in perfume, which I normally don't. But this has really old-school macho dad vibes. It's a great scent, but there's something that catches in my throat and makes me feel like my airways are tightening. I have no allergies that I know of, and this is the only perfume that has this effect on me. All this considered, the EDP is a much more modern, accessible (and unisex) take on the same theme, as is Intense, whereas extreme falls more into the macho category. Of the line, this is my least favourite (and the new silver bottled flanker is superfluous in my opinion). I don't get people calling this sweet, to me it's ultra-bone-dry. For an EDT, it's STRONG.

To bardzo przypomina mi zapachy Pierre'a Guillaume'a. Ma lepki, gourmandowy charakter, a jednocześnie jest wyraźnie nie gourmandowy, tzn. nie pachnie niczym, co chciałoby się zjeść. Nie zrozumcie mnie źle, to naprawdę wysokiej jakości perfumy, nie mogę przestać ich wąchać, ale ma to PRAWIE coś z klimatu "soków z kosza na śmieci". Jakbyś zjadł mango, a skórka mango spędziła noc w koszu z herbatą, kawą itp. Bardzo intrygujące, ale nie zamierzam przekraczać 5 ml dekantu, który już kupiłem. W każdym razie myślę, że to już koniec. Aktualizacja: po kilku kolejnych użyciach, uważam, że to naprawdę dość odrażające. Nie sądzę, żeby Xerjoff kontynuował jego produkcję i rozumiem dlaczego.

This is a beautiful scent, but the name baffles me. It's more of a sweet pear and vanilla affair (non gourmand) than angélica, which plays second or third fiddle to my nose. As for Noir, nope, there's nothing dark or black here at all.

Not bad. I'm getting unlisted aldehydes in the opening which lend it an Iris Poudre quality, although it's far less arresting (and so much easier to wear) than Iris Poudre. It lacks the playful side of many ofher PGs but I think that's a strength.

While I find PG to be an interesting house with a vast range of bold and esoteric fragrances, I also find that 9 times out of 10 there's a snag with the scent. There's usually some sort of off, synthetic note that puts me off, and/or very poor performance (for example Arabian Horse is wonderful but I can't justify 260 euros for something that becomes a skin scent after 10 minutes). París Fidji does what Pierre Guillaume does better than the rest, at least for me. It has the classic gourmand but not a gourmand, one or two note overdose style of the house, and makes for an addictive, sumptuous, creamy sandlewood glow. Others here have called it tropical or summery, I'd say it transcends season or temperature. There's an aspect of the orange burst opening that recalls Frédéric Malle's Bigarade Concentré, but this has more legs and more depth. It's everything I wanted BC to be.

Maybe it's my nose, I think it is, but when a perfume contains ambroxide, I can't usually get past it, with one or two exceptions. Sadly this falls into the broader category of aggressive ambroxide nightmares. I can see why it might appeal, and it's certainly less obnoxious than Sauvage, but it has the heacachey, chemical mire I've come to detest in designer and niche fragrances alike.