Sample Pass: "Old ~vs~ New" Vertical Testings

[Scent_Insensibility]

I have a well preserved bottle of the original EDT, and it’s a nice, soft, mossy chypre. No ”oakmoss“ bomb. I think vintage Faberge Aphrodisia smells fairly similar (and Faberge even copied the packaging). Aphrodisia is on the left, Coty Chypre on the right. I also think Millot’s Crepe de Chine is another sister to the original Coty Chypre, but I actually like Crepe de Chine even more. It might be worth trying Aphrodisia or Crepe de Chine, if you haven’t already done so.

View attachment 328558 View attachment 328559

The 1980’s Chypre, from the “Chateau Collection,” smells like…duh!…an 80’s chypre. It has a much stronger impact and pungency, with coriander, patchouli, and civettone, and it is this type of chypre base accord that many associate with oakmoss, even though oakmoss doesn’t have much of a presence in the 1980’s Coty Chypre. To me, it smells quite a bit like Paloma Picasso (but PP is a much better scent).

Here’s a 1986 ad. Amusing that the collection was promoted with a trip to France giveaway.

View attachment 328560

Crêpe de Chine was my other white whale ! ( No self-respecting Chypre fan, eh ? 😁 ) but I got lucky not long ago. In fact I got VERY lucky as I bought something else ( very cheaply ) and the seller threw in a couple of extra old "minis" and one was this:


THEN came across another just afterwards ( guess they're like buses !)

I had no idea about the similarity to Aphrodisiac as I only knew/have the 70's version ( which is still great ). Funnily enough the same person who had Coty had a fondness for Fabergé too which I inherited. ( Two women are responsible for my taste in perfume - my aunt who gave me her Lauder and Lancôme purse sprays and my older brother's then gf who was in her 20's when she moved in with us and had all the fun, cool "drugstore" stuff including City and Fabergé.

I honestly don't think I ever saw the 80's one now as I don't recognise the bottle ...or the magazine advert !

 

[Varanis Ridari]

Comparing all the Moustache releases side by side today.

I own and am very familiar with the EdTC so that one doesn't bear much discussion from me. It's the gold standard of the original concentrations in my eyes, although some will like the softer and rounder cologne more.

Both the EdC and EdT/EdTC get where they're going at about the same speed. Both have that soapy tart lemon/lime/bergamot thing with the pissy-wissy civet in there, except the cologne seems to mix in a bit more lavender and patchouli into the heart, giving me huge Jicky/Mouchoir de Monsieur/Pour un Homme vibes, which totally tracks with that period of men's fragrance.

The EdTc leans more into the chypre elements and goes sharper into sandalwood, oakmoss, and that pissy musk, playing up the herbs and generally being more bracing, as -that- is where men's fragrances were by the 70's and 80's, which is when the EdT slowly evolved into the EdTC. Clearly still Roudnitska's work, and not a different scent as much, just balanced differently.

After several hours when both are almost but base notes alone, there is almost no difference beyond the subtle sharpness vs roundness in the EdTc or EdC respectively. Volume aside, they can pass as one another at a quick glance or caught in the air. I still prefer the EdTC but do really enjoy the cologne, and I'd have it if it wasn't a unicorn now.

The "Modern" 1949 really isn't, and I could believe it came out in the 70's really, as maybe a flanker to the proper Moustache, pitched as an "eau fresh" or something to compete with Eau de Guerlain or Sisley Eau de Campagne, etc. The smell is still sufficiently natural and a lot of what defines Moustache is also still there, just removed of the pissy-wissy to a great extent, feeling even more vernal, and a touch more powdery.

The Moustache Eau de Parfum is incomparable as it is an entirely different scent, so I will leave my review of it to do the talking, when I write it.

 

[grayspoole]

To date, I have not encountered any animalic hesperidic fougere that I especially wanted to wear. These kinds of scents may not be for me, which is okay. (I’ve tested Moustache before but I’m not sure which version). I’ll look forward to trying the full round of samples to see if my opinion changes.

It would be helpful to connect our samples testing to the great index of Moustache bottles that Andy the frenchy compiled a while ago:

Rochas Moustache Versions

What number bottles are we testing?

I suppose one could think of Diorella as an amped up, femme-d up, baroque interpretation of the genre. And Diorella is definitely for me.

 

[Varanis Ridari]

To date, I have not encountered any animalic hesperidic fougere that I especially wanted to wear. These kinds of scents may not be for me, which is okay. (I’ve tested Moustache before but I’m not sure which version). I’ll look forward to trying the full round of samples to see if my opinion changes.

It would be helpful to connect our samples testing to the great index of Moustache bottles that Andy the frenchy compiled a while ago:

Rochas Moustache Versions

What number bottles are we testing?

I suppose one could think of Diorella as an amped up, femme-d up, baroque interpretation of the genre. And Diorella is definitely for me.

I don't know the numbers, just that there is -a- cologne, -a- toilette concentrée, and the 2018 "1949" recomposition. The EdP is not even in the running IMO.

 

[sagebrush]

I don't know the numbers, just that there is -a- cologne, -a- toilette concentrée, and the 2018 "1949" recomposition. The EdP is not even in the running IMO.

Jumping in to ask (if y'all don't mind) how the modern '1949' EDT compares to the original Armani Eau Pour Homme ? Is there any similarity ? Still looking for a potential replacement for the Armani, which I owned in the 90s, and determined not to buy the most recent version (now disco'd anyway).

 

[grayspoole]

I don't know the numbers, just that there is -a- cologne, -a- toilette concentrée, and the 2018 "1949" recomposition. The EdP is not even in the running IMO.

No worries. Perhaps the owners of the bottles could post photos, or identify using Andy the frenchy’s numbers.

 

[CookBot]

I had forgotten about Andy's thread with the Moustache photo collage. That's really helpful.

Our vintage samples were contributed by Papsi and LiveJazz, so maybe they could clarify their bottles with photos. I only contributed the modern EDT, the one confusingly named "Original 1949":



Its bottle is indistinguishable from its 2018 EDP brother, except for the cap color: EDT is gold, EDP is gunmetal grey. Not only do I love the EDT as a unisex summer citrus, but I always feel compelled to point out that it's my favorite bottle design in modern male perfumery. It's extremely thick, ribbed glass, with a snap-down metallic cap, and weighs a pound and half. It feels fantastic in the hand. And they did a superb job of paying tribute to the original design of the box and packaging.

I used to own the little 3-bottle airline coffret of vintages, #10 in Andy's taxonomy, but I passed it on to Papsi.

Companies that do a really good job of modernizing old perfumes, like Moustache and the recent Cabochard, deserve lots & lots of praise, in my book. I do wish they'd publicize the names of the responsible perfumers, too.

Although I appreciate the vintage versions of Moustache, it leaned a bit too far into urinous Kouros territory to make it personally wearable for me. No such problem with the modern EDT of Moustache.

 

[Varanis Ridari]

Jumping in to ask (if y'all don't mind) how the modern '1949' EDT compares to the original Armani Eau Pour Homme ? Is there any similarity ? Still looking for a potential replacement for the Armani, which I owned in the 90s, and determined not to buy the most recent version (now disco'd anyway).

Yes, I feel it could replace the Armani, but it isn't a clone.

 

[grayspoole]

I had forgotten about Andy's thread with the Moustache photo collage. That's really helpful.

Our vintage samples were contributed by Papsi and LiveJazz, so maybe they could clarify their bottles with photos. I only contributed the modern EDT, the one confusingly named "Original 1949":

View attachment 328765

Its bottle is indistinguishable from its 2018 EDP brother, except for the cap color: EDT is gold, EDP is gunmetal grey. Not only do I love the EDT as a unisex summer citrus, but I always feel compelled to point out that it's my favorite bottle design in modern male perfumery. It's extremely thick, ribbed glass, with a snap-down metallic cap, and weighs a pound and half. It feels fantastic in the hand. And they did a superb job of paying tribute to the original design of the box and packaging.

I used to own the little 3-bottle airline coffret of vintages, #10 in Andy's taxonomy, but I passed it on to Papsi.

Companies that do a really good job of modernizing old perfumes, like Moustache and the recent Cabochard, deserve lots & lots of praise, in my book. I do wish they'd publicize the names of the responsible perfumers, too.

Although I appreciate the vintage versions of Moustache, it leaned a bit too far into urinous Kouros territory to make it personally wearable for me. No such problem with the modern EDT of Moustache.

Thanks for clarifying! Here’s Andy the frenchy‘s Handy Dandy Moustache Variorum Chart; so your modern, aka “Original 1949“ EDT is #8.

 

[Toxicon]

Chiming in to say, I'm really enjoying reading everyone's impressions - very curious to try the Moustaches when they come in, as I've really been favoring Eau de Rochas Homme lately (which I gather is something of a descendant of the original Moustache just cleaned up a lot).

 

[grayspoole]

Chiming in to say, I'm really enjoying reading everyone's impressions - very curious to try the Moustaches when they come in, as I've really been favoring Eau de Rochas Homme lately (which I gather is something of a descendant of the original Moustache just cleaned up a lot).

I’ve been wondering about this as well. Is this the Eau de Rochas Homme that you have, Toxicon?


Or this box?



And of course I am also curious about how all of Moustaches and Eaux de Rochas relate to each other, as well as to vintage “Eau de Roche,’ which was explicitly unisex from the start. Fragrantica claims “Eau de Roche” was launched in 1948 for women, but I have my doubts, and then relaunched in 1970 as ”Eau de Rochas.” But here’s my bottle, which I think is from the 70’s, or thereabouts…



“Cleaned up” versions of Moustache? Unisex, “Homme,” or just “the same dame“?

 

[LiveJazz]

Jumping in to ask (if y'all don't mind) how the modern '1949' EDT compares to the original Armani Eau Pour Homme ? Is there any similarity ? Still looking for a potential replacement for the Armani, which I owned in the 90s, and determined not to buy the most recent version (now disco'd anyway).

Great call, and yes, I think it would make a very good substitute. I was just finishing off my decant of Armani Eau Pour Homme the other day and lamenting its discontinuation, and pondering what would make a good substitute. Eau Sauvage often comes up, but it's quite a bit more "ripe" and has less of that aromatic white-soapy feel. New Moustache might hit the nail on the head.

For reference, here is our bottle of Moustache EDC (Andy bottle #2, original vintage or very close to it). It has visibly been around the block a few times, and there is some oil separation going on, but appears to have kept its olfactory charms:




And finally...I don't really see Eau de Roche and Moustache as being especially related, other than both being obviously Roudnitska-y. To my nose, Roche is more "watery" and floral, like Diorella, but brighter and lighter and with less deft. Diorella L'Eau, perhaps. It is probably my least favorite of this little clique of scents. Haven't smelled Eau de Rochas, so can't compare there.

 

[Toxicon]

I’ve been wondering about this as well. Is this the Eau de Rochas Homme that you have, Toxicon?

View attachment 328864
Or this box?

View attachment 328867

And of course I am also curious about how all of Moustaches and Eaux de Rochas relate to each other, as well as to vintage “Eau de Roche,’ which was explicitly unisex from the start. Fragrantica claims “Eau de Roche” was launched in 1948 for women, but I have my doubts, and then relaunched in 1970 as ”Eau de Rochas.” But here’s my bottle, which I think is from the 70’s, or thereabouts…

View attachment 328872

“Cleaned up” versions of Moustache? Unisex, “Homme,” or just “the same dame“?

My bottle looks just like the top one, and I believe that’s the same box too. Picked it up recently for a song, and I find it lovely for what it is. Sparkling, effervescent citrus with just a whiff of florals, over a cooling, almost melancholy cedar/vetiver/white musk base.

 

[Toxicon]

I think it was @Varanis Ridari’s review of Eau de Rochas Homme that traced the lineage from the original Moustache to the “feminine” Eau De Rochas in the 70s back to the “masculine” Eau de Rochas Homme in the early 90s. Interesting throughline to say the least.

 

[grayspoole]

And finally...I don't really see Eau de Roche and Moustache as being especially related, other than both being obviously Roudnitska-y. To my nose, Roche is more "watery" and floral, like Diorella, but more brighter and lighter and with less deft. Diorella L'Eau, perhaps. It is probably my least favorite of this little clique of scents. Haven't smelled Eau de Rochas, so can't compare there.

Appreciate these insights. I’ll have to wait for the Moustaches to get to me so that I can compare.

And letting my vintage geek flag fly, I have to ask, do you have an Eau de Roche that looks like my bottle, or an older, or newer? Seems like we might need to do a vertical testing of Eau de Rochas-es and Eau de Roche-s.

 

[LiveJazz]

And letting my vintage geek flag fly, I have to ask, do you have an Eau de Roche that looks like my bottle, or an older, or newer? Seems like we might need to do a vertical testing of Eau de Rochas-es and Eau de Roche-s.

My bottle and box is identical to yours. Ref. # 02-3160 on the bottom, whatever that indicates.

And yes, I agree that would be a good comparison. Seems like there's never been a straight/clear answer on whether these are supposed to be the exact same thing but renamed, different versions of the same scent, or entirely different scents.

 

[sagebrush]

Yes, I feel it could replace the Armani, but it isn't a clone.

Thank you for your reply - and @LiveJazz also.

My effective 'substitute' for original Armani Eau pH, in mood, effect, and general character - but obvs not in notes - is Bottega Veneta pH EdT (see my review). There's a quiet effervescence to its opening, and it gives me a similar feeling of sprezzatura. Whether or not that translates into appearance/reality thirty years on is another matter.

I'm still looking for a citrus-prominent scent with similar ambience, so Moustache 1948 sounds like a plan (and cheaply available at UK discounters recently).
I recently tried current Eau Sauvage in a drugstore (Boots), but it was barely there. I remember vintage ES being more herbal than vintage Armani. Only reason I didn't go for ES back then was I knew someone who wore it, and I wanted something different.

Will report back.

 

[CookBot]

And letting my vintage geek flag fly, I have to ask, do you have an Eau de Roche that looks like my bottle, or an older, or newer? Seems like we might need to do a vertical testing of Eau de Rochas-es and Eau de Roche-s.

And yes, I agree that would be a good comparison. Seems like there's never been a straight/clear answer on whether these are supposed to be the exact same thing but renamed, different versions of the same scent, or entirely different scents.

I bought the "Roche" version based on Greyspoole's recommendation, and have been very grateful for it every summer. I'm on my second bottle. And yes, there's been a lot of misinformation/confusion about this scent. In fact, I don't think it was until Michel Roudnitska's declaration of his dad's creation of the original, and the recreation and exhibition of it at the Osmotheque seminar on Edmond R., that it was definitively added to the roster of Edmond's creations. Or maybe I just came to the information very late; that's a possibility too.

 

[grayspoole]

I bought the "Roche" version based on Greyspoole's recommendation, and have been very grateful for it every summer. I'm on my second bottle. And yes, there's been a lot of misinformation/confusion about this scent. In fact, I don't think it was until Michel Roudnitska's declaration of his dad's creation of the original, and the recreation and exhibition of it at the Osmotheque seminar on Edmond R., that it was definitively added to the roster of Edmond's creations. Or maybe I just came to the information very late; that's a possibility too.

Indeed, much confusion prevails. Fragrantica still says Eau de Roche (1946) was composed by Marcel Rochas who was not, last time I checked, a perfumer.

Glad you and Live Jazz are enjoying your Eau de Roche. Despite the older name, I still feel our bottles must contain the 1970 version usually attributed to Nicolas Mamounas. I have not seen a bottle or ad for Eau de Roche from the 1940’s or 50’s. Has anyone? Do tell. Until I do, I’m going to reserve judgment on whether or not it ever existed.

This Fragrantica article offers some interesting tidbits from the Osmotheque lecture., including a “secret slide” with the formula for Roudnitska’s Eau de Roche which contained 3 ingredients only, neroli oil, acetic acid, and…ta da!!!…Base 1318. I’d love to know what was in “Base 1318.”

One Perfume Formula

The author baldly states that Eau de Roche “was renamed” Eau de Rochas. Whither Mamounas? It’s clear that Roudnitska, Mamounas, and others continued to tweak fairly similar cologne concepts over the years. And if there really WAS a 1946 Eau de Roche, perhaps some of its DNA (or Base 1318) went into the 1949 Moustache EDC. On the current Rochas site, Eau de Rochas is marketed to women, and Eau de Rochas Homme to men. Perhaps the current versions do smell quite different (I wouldn’t know) but the 1970’s Eau was for anyone.

 

[Varanis Ridari]

Sorry I've been excruciatingly slow on this sample pass. I've had to work around busier work conditions and a host of other things, but I'm still here.