Worth pour Homme 
Worth (1980)

The House of Worth shares some historical similarities to Balenciaga, in that official house activities died and the perfume arm lingered on as a "zombie house" for decades after, with the original couture operation shuttered but the brand being bought and sold over the years as Les Parfums Worth until a proper relaunch of the entire designer house was finally done in the 21st century. As with Balenciaga, the best perfumes were made in those intervening "zombie house" years, because the perfume was really the only thing keeping the House of Worth relevant to consumers, but also like Balenciaga, all those glorious perfumes were wiped from the face of the Earth when the house was rebooted. Luckily, the one area where Worth seems to differ from Balenciaga is in the lower value of their discontinued canon to vintage treasure hunters, meaning that deals if not steals can still pop up in the gray market (albeit with gradually decreasing frequency). Worth pour Homme (1980) is the second masculine fragrance behind Monsieur Worth (1969), perfumed by the obscure Odette Breil-Radius, who composed Miss Worth (1977) from the house alongside Roure Bertrand. Worth is a French-style house of UK origin that eventually returned there, so it makes sense that Worth pour Homme has a bit of that ostensible British conservative "gentleman" vibe to it, dressed in all-black to the nines with bowler hat in tow. The previous Monsieur Worth was considerably more aromatic and "macho" compared to this fragrance, which although more dapper, is not without its obviously-telegraphed masculine sensibilities as per the era in which it was made. Casual fans of vintage perfume may find Worth pour Homme too redundant or similar to more-prolific classics, but if you dig variations on popular themes from past eras, this may suit you.

The big defining feature of Worth pour Homme, the make-or-break facet about its design, is its likeness to Paco Rabanne pour Homme (1973), a quirk it shares in common with the previous year's Roger & Gallet L'Homme (1979). Whereas L'Homme tries to be a muskier and slightly more-luxurious take on the soapy aromatic fougère accord of Paco Rabanne, Worth pour Homme goes for a more bracing take full of sharper herbs and a bit of leathery stoutness that makes it feel less friendly. The usual business of bergamot, lavender, and rosemary starts off the scent, with sharp petitgrain merging with a heart of geranium and pine, already a great deal more green than Paco Rabanne. Worth skips out on the musky ylang-ylang of L'Homme and the soapy orris of Paco Rabanne, but does have the dihydromyrcenol shimmer that defines them both as of the same ilk, before plunging into darker, drier meats of clove, leather, cedarwood, oakmoss, tonka and amber. The muskiness and sweetness are very minimal here, and Worth pour Homme stands closer to the stiff leather soap chypre feel of Bogart Eau de Toilette pour Homme aka Signature (1975) and if not for the tonka, might even pass as a chypre. Wear time is an average of 8 hours and sillage is good but this is not a powerhouse despite being from 1980, since discretion is the greater part of valor in a properly understated British style. To me Worth pour Homme retains enough barbershop qualities of the fougère genre to be a clean, mature generalist for all seasons. Besides, the somewhat-rare combination of leather and fougère makes Worth pour Homme almost feel niche in a modern era where anything more adventurous than blue ocean water carries a stiff premium, so this is less common now than it may have appeared in 1980, and no longer living in the shadow of anything else.

When Worth launched Worth pour Homme in it's original green bottle adorned with a big "W", they offered a high-powered "Haute Concentration" version for smoke-filled clubs of the late 70's/early 80's in the same way separate club-appropriate scents are now, in a bottle similar to the style of Monsieur Worth, and was also used by the "cologne guys" of the day that wanted whatever stood in for "beastmode" back then, so if you need a bigger performance kick from this one, that's your ticket. Of particular note with this fragrance, beyond the existence of the high-powered version, is a drastic reformulation which occured near the end of the line when Shaneel Enterprises Ltd. (owners of dead drugstore brands like Lenthéric) repositioned Worth pour Homme as a budget legacy men's fragrance like what New Dana did with properties such as MEM English Leather (1949), resulting in a nearly-unrecognizable scent. This version is still a fougère close in style to Paco Rabanne pour Homme, but was even soapier in feel like Patrick by Fragrances of Ireland (1999), except with an obvious cheapness and piss-poor performance compared to anything mentioned. These bottles steal the font face from the "Haute Concentration" boxes, are clear instead of green, and come in plain blue boxes, representing the last gasp before the entire Worth line got the axe after the house was relaunched. The "Haute Concentration" bottles also were reformulated, but not totally changed in the process like this was. If you're a sucker for old "dad smells", Worth pour Homme is a good one if you want to experience what a fougère was like before IFRA regulations gave it a vasectomy, but if you're only interested in the "greatest hits" from the era and put a premium on variety, it's best to move on, for what it's worth. Thumbs up

Not a bad basic fougere from Worth.

I used to own the older formulation, and the impression I get from it is of a warm, green, relaxing nominal scent that exudes the typical spicy-woody-amber-musk quality found in better fougeres like Carven Homme (original) and Gucci Nobile.

A laid back cologne that can be worn for casual or formal occasions. Not the first one I'd turn to in the fougere category, but altogether Worth pour Homme is pleasant and gets the job done.

Do I need another fougere in my wardrobe? Well this is not just another lavender/tonka/oakmoss based perfume, it is an outstanding lavender perfume in a strong pine and oakmoss body and a leathery/woody background. It might get to close to Paco Rabanne pour homme for some, but WpH is smoother, spicier and not as sweet. I like them both and I think that both of them have a room in my wardrobe.
Sillage and longevity are better than average

Fashion is temporary.... Smoothest warmest notes with an edge, a thrill, that keeps the thing alive. It's as though Kouros and Boucheron PH teamed up and then the result was mellowed in oak casks for several decades. A kinda yellow Kouros rather than the steel blue one we already love. Rather oddly, every now and then, I catch a tiny slither of something that reminds me of Rive Gauche Homme. I can't ignore how strange it is that 2 of the fragrances this brings to mind are from the same stable. Fragrance like this are what keeps me looking for my next new hit and also what leads to increasing despair with every new mainstream release I find in Boots the chemist.Pros: Classic fragrance with styleCons: Difficult to find the good bottles"