Angel
Thierry Mugler (1992)

I have a 2022 bottle of EdP, and it is a work of genius. I was concerned, when my partner fell in love with it, that I'd grow weary of smelling it around the house, but I relented and we got it for him.

On mornings when he wears it, the scent always surprises me, the undefinable mix of strawberries and candy and citrus and roses drifting around.

I would love to smell older formulations to compare, but as it stands, this is a perfect fragrance to my nose, 10/10.

I was so disapointed with this one. I'm a total vanilla and gourmand addict. I got absoloutely no vanilla or sweetness from this AT ALL. Absolutley NOTHING :(
All I get is really sharp and dusty, musty floral notes, which I'm presuming is the patchouli and jasmine, or some of the other floral notes. It reminds me of the oldfashioned really sharp, strong perfumes my grandma used to wear when I was a kid.

I must be smelling the reformulated version because the patchouli isn't very prominent and the performance is moderate.

A provocative hellion. Iconic bliss dwells in this rank mixture of patchouli-cocoa. Truly, Angel was a heaven-scent 90s paradigm shift, proof that a perfumer can create something no one asked for and see that visionary risk pay off with blockbuster sales success. Angel provokes desire and then puts it to bed, a sensory merry-go-round.

I loathe gourmands (the requiste vanilla powder and spice is here) but embrace this one wholeheartedly, as there is something 'loamy' about its deeper notes. Is it sexy, or is it innocent? Who cares? Angel is deep and earthy, powerfully dry and sweet, yet as ethereal as cotton candy, too.

Suffice to say it's an almighty legend for good reason.

There is something very unusual & bizarre in the opening of Angel. Rotted garbage chicken, a sweet/sour earthy, unpleasantness that we associate with trash.

I find that, for me, Angel shines in the very long winded middle section of the wear. I let the opening notes chill the eff out, and then enjoy the sweet, cozy patchouli that comes out later in the middle & drydown.

I did not care for Angel for a very long time. It was just too weird, to gross, to big of a stink for me. But I’d always come back. I would, and do, spray one of the tens of sample vials pawned off on me by my aunties to wear every now and then to see if I tune into it. Sometimes I do & sometimes I don’t. It’s odd, it’s big, and I think it’s funny how much people hate it & I think that’s kind of why I like it.

After a brief blast of bergamot freshness, and a burst of berries (strawberries, dewberries, whiffs of recurrants, I get an impression of fresh hay the is an expression of the Helonial.

The drydown turns flora, with mainly a green jasmine on me that has no woody character, with touches of a darker rose and hints of orchids.

The the sweeter core starts: a honey not to start it off. Soon caramel is on the forefront, with a background of milk chocolate mixing a completing this triad. later on a coumarin develops, that adds spicier tones that lead into the base.

The spicy side in compliments by a rich but minimally harsh patchouli.. The desert platter in enriched further by a rich and smooth tonka not, with woods also arising as time goes by. I get mainly sandalwood here, but it is not strong on me. Towards the end, sweetish white musks add additional nuances.

I get moderate sillage, excellent projection, and nine hours of longevity on my skin.

This scent for warmer autumn days was released in 1992 as the prototype of a gourmand, triggering the inundation with products of this genre in the coming years. Over time I fine that the intense and indulgent richness has been modified to make it slimmer. lighter and a bit more generic. Still a good one though. 3.5/5