Reviews of Angel 
Thierry Mugler (1992)

Average Rating:  260 User Reviews

Your ratings



Angel by Thierry Mugler

Fragrance Overview Where to Buy Reviews Community Ownership

Add your review of Angel

You need to be logged in to add a review.

Log in here, or register


Reviews of Angel by Thierry Mugler

There are 260 reviews of Angel by Thierry Mugler.

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

Bonkers! Good! Call me crazy, but in this day and age I think it leans masculine.

Angel has been completely reformulated... and in my opinion, destroyed. No longer the chocolatey sweet, vanilla caramel fragrance that would last all day. When I first purchased Angel EDP in the 90s, it became my favorite and the most complimented fragrance I have ever worn. I would be stopped by both men and women all the time to ask what I was wearing. Angel would last all day, and the sweet yet woodsy undertones would last on clothing and pulse points for a very long time. After years of wearing, I became a little bored and strayed away to Dior's Savage. After years, I purchased another bottle of Angel EDP and was taken back because I thought the bottle I purchased was either defective or a fake. I went to Nordstrom and purchased another bottle, only to find it was the same as the one I thought was a fake. I was mortified and called Mugler customer service. They told me the Eau de Toilette had been reformulated but NOT the EDP. Wrong! LIES! The chocolate bass-note now smells like lemon nutmeg to me and the fragrance only last a few hours. As it wears, it smells like an acidy lemon body odor... to hard to describe. I am sickened that Mugler ruined the best perfume I encountered. It would of been less painful had they discontinued it completely. My guess is Mugler is no longer being manufactured in France, or it was sold to some company like Cody (that ruins any company they buy), or the original ingredients became too expensive to manufacture so they replaced scents. (My guess is it was sold) I wish the original would be reintroduced, even for twice the price if necessary... or perhaps the chemist that has the recipe died and took the formula with him. Rest in peace Angel EDP... you will be sorely missed.

I love the smell of Angel. I always have. So I wear it for me.

Have not worn this for at least a decade or more and it has been bastardised to death, but the original Eau de Parfum is and will always be a masterpiece. Has there been another gourmand that even comes close to the daddy?
I recall a scandal back in the early 90's when an early 20th century perfume house roughly copied the formula and bottled it in one of their 1920/30s perfumes pretending it was the original fragrance, thinking they would get away with it as up to that point in France no perfume house had ever sued another on the basis of copying. The Grande Damme behind Angel decided to break that tradition and took them to court, I believe the matter was settled out of legal chambers finally but lets say the older house ended up with quite a lot of oeuf on their face, there are lots of other dirt on how the battle was won but the point I'm making is that Angel is one of those rare animals that could not be compared to anything when it launched in 92, totally unique, perhaps the last time that was achieved in commercial perfumery. Last thing, like Aventus now, and all the other Boom Boom perfumes less is definitely more, death by Angel is not sexy its like being smothered to death by an aging cougar who really should stay at home and leave the club to her granddaughters!

I am late on the bandwagon in sampling Angel. So I wanted to keep an open mind and give it a chance. And well.... I just can't get my head around it. I find it strange, off putting, cheap and generic smelling. An odd mix of sweet and spicy notes. Doesn't smell foody to me, nothing appetizing about this combination of foody notes. I am late in trying this scent, and perhaps if it hadn't already been ruined by all of the imitations of it I might have felt differently. I smelled imitations of it before I realized I smelled imitations of it. So I'm afraid that for me Angel ends up smelling like a cheap imitation of itself. I found it unpleasant and nauseating. Had to wash it off. By the way, I do like Alien and Eau de Star by Mugler. But Angel is not for me. I would definitely not recommend Angel as a blind buy or gift due to its polarizing qualities.

This is the world's first notable gourmand perfume, and the one upon which perfumer Olivier Cresp's reputation (alongside Yves de Chiris) is based. Angel by Thierry Mugler (1992) was downright bizzare when released, a love-it-or-hate-it scent that proved as polarizing as it would be successful, much like most of the fashion designs from Thierry Mugler himself. Angel is claimed to contain no intentional floral notes in the heart, and has had many limited edition bottlings over the years, in addition to innumerable flankers. The equally-notorious A*Men/Angel Men (1996) composed by Jacques Huclier wouldn't stray very far from this formula when released either, which is a testament to the universal appeal Angel seems to have for those who click with its vibe. There have been so many flankers of both this and its male counterpart, you almost can't mention Thierry Mugler and perfume without bringing up Angel; this stuff is literally that genre-defining in the designer segment. Most of all, Angel also helped ease people back into the idea of musk as a main carrier note rather than oakmoss or amber, since dirty musks were so played out by the end of the 80's that most perfumers skipped them if they weren't soapy in tone until Angel made a warm musky skin feel cool once again, likely due to the warmth coming from food notes rather than animalic ones. Another huge polarizing facet of Angel is its inclusion of helonial, a common scent molecule in laundry soap that also saw use in the men's iteration as well. There was just so much going on here that ran counter to what designers were doing at the beginning of the decade, Mugler is lucky this got off the ground at all. Most of the controversy I gather comes from how cloying this accord can be to people who are sensitive to its primary components, and this was especially true when its initial popularity made it a fairly ubiquitous sight on streets, subway cars, and in other public spaces.

Angel opens with the prerequisite bergamot and a slew of fruity, dewy elements including strawberry, calone (from melon), honey, jasmine hedione, and whiffs of rose, likely implied by a hit of geraniol but with no actual rose oil. Helonial also makes its rare appearance, and as a note aforementioned to be typically reserved for perfumes found in laundry soap, it contrasts the otherwise-sticky gourmand heart considerably/ The helonial is an aldehyde derivative of heliotrope, and has a sharp glistening chrome sheen that would start seeing use in masculines down the road, but here it's leading into the controversial cocoa and caramel heart. The men's version bites with coffee bean, lavender, and peppermint, but here we just get a rounded hay-like coumarin to accentuate the sweetness, before the stiff patchouli and musk base take over for the final dry down approach. I get some creamy polysantal "sandalwood" without the dryness and diffusion of the real deal, but that's okay because it isn't the focus here with Angel, and just padding instead. When it's all said and done, you've got the ur-gourmand accord of chocolate, tonka, fruit, vanilla, and patchouli, which is only a few clicks away from being an oriental in tone. Sillage can wallop you so be careful, but otherwise Angel is a gentle perfume in personality if used with discretion. Here is a creamy romantic warmth good for snuggling up in winter, or cool evenings anytime. The musk note is not funky at all, but still has a bit of that "animal fat" tone in it which may not sit well with people used to clean-smelling white musk, so approach gingerly. I'd not use Angel in a formal or office setting, as it's just too amiable for a stern or reserved atmosphere. The energy given off by this stuff is just too friendly and warm for anything where you may need to be aloof towards strangers like in the workplace or a formal event. In the summer time, this would definitely choke me out if I was around it too long, so take that as you may when choosing an appropriate time to wear it.

For most of the 90's, Angel was the Giorgio Beverly Hills (1981) of its time, becoming an unavoidable wall of scent in shopping malls and restaurants, hence some of the backlash. I know I'm pretty sensitive to too much patchouli and anything rich with tonka or vanilla myself, so I'd prefer the men's version which tones these elements down to a drier demeanor, but I am not bothered by this otherwise. Angel is a rare perfume I can respect and appreciate on another but never have an interest to smell myself, and this is coming from someone who often wears feminine-market fragrances, as it feels better to be caught in a chance encounter with Angel then to be enveloped in a cloud of the stuff than to dwell within one for any length of time; in an ephemeral state this is a very nice surprise, but prolonged exposure proves a bit more tiresome. Mostly unisex in feel but leaning slightly feminine, Angel by Thierry isn't a knockout anymore because other houses have since done this accord to death, but it's a nice "comfort food" scent (pun intended) for fans of low-key semi-versarile semi-dirty musks with something going on besides the usual white florals. Compared to the "transparent" fruity florals, syrupy fruitchoulis, and ambroxan shenanigans of the 21st century, Angel is starting to finally show the laugh lines of age to those who care about relevance in perfume trend, but is by no means anachronistic or uncommon on the street. Reformulation hysteria also follows this one, but from what I can recall, the basic sweet foodie patchouli and semi-dank musk accord from when my older sister wore it back in the day still holds true in recent testers I have sniffed in stores. Hell, there are still people who actively seek out and collect all the various limited packages of the stuff, and although the cult of Angel is nowhere near as obsessive as say, followers of Creed Aventus (2010), a lot of talk over which Angel is "best Angel" does happen! Thumbs Up.

Angel - Thierry Mugler
This just goes to show that a bitter yet 'clean' camphorous tonality can save a perfume, and not only that but also create something novel and excitingly new. For me, Angel paints a darkish brown picture with a contrasting mix of purple and green colours and this works best when sprayed in moderation: less is more with this one. Sillage and projection are absolutely stellar, there is something very 'natural' the way this perfume presents itself: not too loud but very intense in an amiable way. It kind of reminds me of old vintage perfumes containing real deer-musk. I have tried not to like Angel but I had to surrender to its magic eventually.

Been wearing this for 20+ years. I'll forget about and then come back to it. Classic

I so, so wanted to give this a Thumbs up since I have worn Angel since 1994. Countless bottles purchased and used. I have been known for this scent for decades. Total signature scent. 1-2 sprays and I would be set all day. Compliments at work, the grocery store, the car wash, social events. For the past few years, Angel is no longer strong, it does not last, project and I cannot remember the last time I got a compliment. The IFRA reformulation literally killed the magic of Angel.

I loved Angel when it was brand new: I had never smelled anything like this sweet, fruity, caramel and chocolate creation! It was such a refreshing change from all the ozonic fragrances of the time, which followed the popularity of L'Eau D'Issey and Escape. After wearing it for about a year, I tired of it, and haven't worn it again until recently, when I suddenly decided to buy another bottle. Initially, I thought my new bottle of Angel smelled as it always did, but the more I have worn it, I have realised this fragrance has drastically reformulated. Though it is unmistakably Angel, it is not as sweet as it used to be, and the fruity notes seem more muted: the fragrance is heavier than it was, and now places far more emphasis on damp smelling patchouli and dark chocolate notes than the sugary chocolate-caramel of the original formulation (this damp patchouli and dark chocolate combination was taken to extremes in Givenchy's Very Irresistible For Men, which I always thought smelled like damp A*Men). This new formulation is unfortunately very inferior to the original! The bath and body products have clearly been reformulated too: they used to smell exactly like Angel Eau de Parfum, but now smell of heavy patchouli and fruity notes. The body creme was a particularly lovely product (originally in an elegant glass jar); even though it is still beautiful quality, it now has an overpoweringly strong fruit and patchouli scent, which I find very sickly (this version is sold in a rather over the top plastic "flying saucer" jar).
My thumbs down is for the current version of Angel; the original would definitely have got a thumbs up. I have, however discovered that Angel Etoile Des Reves, smells almost identical to Angel's original formulation, and is, for my tastes, far preferable the one available now.

I first bought this fragrance in November 1992 and as one reviewer commented, I too had people stopping me to ask what I was wearing. The scent was complex, a little disorienting. It was heady, rich, and with just a tiny hint of something 'rotten' underneath. That extra note hit it out of the park.

The tiny star bottle lasted forEVER, and I replaced it again in, I think, 2000? I don't think it is any different from the 1992 version, others may have better data on that question.

It will be a great disservice to this wonderful fragrance if the formula was changed in order to be novel or less expensive.

Readers need to be aware that the EU has cranked down on the use of many classic perfume ingredients, both natural and man-made, due to concerns that they are allergens. Perfumers don't want to be seen as fighting safety rules, so they conform by re-formulating their fragrances.

I am not young; there are many fragrance notes from older perfumes my mother wore (Norell, Tabu, Chanel #5, Alliage, others) that I smell nowhere anymore, anywhere, ever. My bet is that they are simply banned due to Henny-Penny "the sky is falling down!" concerns about potential contact allergies.

I'm an adult who keeps peanuts from my kid. I'm ok with being responsible for my allergic reactions to fragrance.

Before Christmas 2017 I was going to order a sample of this online but decided against it.

Wise move!

Apparently, it has been added to the growing list of 're-formulated scents' whereby the people are being duped into buying something that is NOT like the original version. For example, chocolate (for which Angel is/was famous) has been replaced by nutmeg, way back in June/July 2017. In fact, in the original version there were 24 notes and that has now been replaced by only 12. This has to be a cost-cutting exercise. Why else would they do it?

This may explain why recent reviewers hate this scent as it's been re-formulated.

When this first came out I bought a bottle and wore it frequently. People would stop me and ask what I was wearing - it was that different from anything else available at the time. I eventually discovered Jo Malone fragrances and stopped wearing Angel. I now have an extensive fragrance wardrobe and wear a variety of scents. Fast forward - I decided to try Angel again. I cannot stand it now. I had to scrub it off, it was so obnoxious. I know that many people love it, but I just can't take it.

I get patchouli all way long from the beginning. The opening smells quite herbal to me and almost freaked me out the first time. Then the sweetness just can't wait and bursts out right away. I swear if I tested on paper I'd drop it down right away. But after about 2 hours, it smells heavenly! The right amount of chocolate, caramel, honey and vanilla is so delicious. The patchouli is no longer fierce but holds perfectly the balance between sweetness and freshness. It's even intriguing as it hides among the sweet notes and tickles your nose when you expect the least. I have to admit I'm still not very used to the first 2 hours but for the lovely drydown I can wait. Fortunately the longevity is excellent for over 12h, it worths! The sillage is good, too. Though it's known as a heavy fragrance, I think with a light touch, the drydown has no problem in summer.

The bottle is cute! But the name Angel doesn't fit that well IMHO. It's sweet but with a dark side hiding behind. Maybe Ange ou Demon should be better distributed to this one? LOL.

Originally written in 2013

Angel came out around the time I decided that Chanel no. 5 was the one for me, so I pretty much hated this on principle. Testing it on my skin today, it seems I was right: I really do hate it. It's incredibly loud, incredibly sweet, and there is a funk in there that sets my teeth on edge. Now, mind you, I normally like a bit of funk: Salome's cuminey underpants? Count me in! The barnyard "butt" accord in Inverno Russo? Bring it on! But this I can't handle at all. It's like the smell of a wet, dirty dishrag that you pick up after it's been festering in the sun all day; a slightly rotting, sour smell that clings to your hands long after you've flung the filthy thing far away from you. The saccharine sweetness on top has the same effect as air freshener sprayed in a public bathroom; it only seems to enhance the stench. I do get why this was groundbreaking and all, and it's certainly not boring, so it has that going for it, but I'm honestly surprised this was such a commercial hit. I find it very unpleasant.

The most hideous fragrance I have ever experienced in my life. Dear lord, people pay for and wear this?

Phenomenal. This one is controversial ... but on me, it was alllll goodness. ;)

I love this complex perfume with many notes. First, I smell chocolate, then berries and caramel. The perfume smells different on every person, but smells great on m.e I always get compliments on it. It is loud and friendly, but not overwhelming. I wear it year round.

Add me to the list of those who adore this. Big, bad, bold, bodacious. I love it. My husband loves it. No other opinions matter. Since I never smelled Angel when it first was released, I can't complain of reformulation.

And, I love the giant, chunky tester bottle I currently possess.

Recently Viewed on this device

Whatever your taste in perfume, we've got you covered...

catalogue your collection, keep track of your perfume wish-list, log your daily fragrance wears, review your latest finds, seek out long-lost scented loves, keep track of the latest perfume news, find your new favourite fragrance, and discuss perfume with like-minded people from all over the world...